The critical element for me is what do they mean by "Orphened" and what time period is in place. As long as the timeframe is reasonable, this is not a bad law.

So if an object is orphened after say 10 years, that's absurd... many projects may take tht long before the copyright is needed or useful.

But if it's 30, 40, or 60 years, well then, c'mon... if you didn't think it important enough to register for 60 years... if it's been doing nothing for 60 years, then what's the problem? After all, what I did catch is that the artwork had to be made public at some time.

Let's face it, there is the flip side doomsday scenerio. Consider that you put a ton of work out there to BE orphened and then wait until someone makes money with it. Without this law, a piece of music that has no clear copyright could be integral to your multi-million dollar them and then lo and behold, the copyright artist comes out of the wood works claiming rights.

The same scenerio applies if you originally had registration but let it lapse. Consider that in the US, copyright lasts 70+authors years... after that, the copyright has lapse and we can use it as we please. This law would seem to trump that and allow anyone from the past with any connection to present works to sue for damages.

Again, the legislation doesn't seem intrinsically bad to me...it all boils down to the conditions for orphanage to me.
I don't know. Copyright is not a naturally indefinite thing; even registration comes to an end. This seems to me like a law to handle