Not a lot of balance here...
... and yet the WHOLE point of copyright law is about balance.
The principle behind copyright and patent legislation is that:
1 - humans are creative and have new ideas all the time.
2 - it's a good idea to use these ideas for the general benefit of humanity
3 - but if they are used freely, the few humans who contribute most of the ideas will get pissed off
4 - So, we developed a system that lets the humans who have the ideas get a free run at using them without competition first, and after a while we throw them open to general use.
So (if you accept the above), you can see that the main issue is going to be 'How long is it reasonable to run this protection for?
There is no right answer to this. The American music and film industry want forever - but are settling for two lifetimes at the moment. Originally, IIRC, the period was 7 years. In reality, differing periods are needed in differing circumstances - no single period is going to be right for everything. That's one area the discussion should be about.
Another area is 'who should pay'? There's actually nothing wrong in principle with the idea of 'orphan works' - Orlowski has carefully left out the associated features in the EU's 'orphan proposal'. The full suggestion goes like this:
1 - If you have done a diligent search for an owner and can't find him, you can use the item as an 'orphan'
2 - you have to document your 'diligent search', so that it can be examined in court if a complaint is made later
3 - if you are making money out of the 'orphan work' you have to put some aside so that you can recompense the owner if they turn up later.
So the issue of how hard a 'diligent search' needs to be is really a non-issue. If you own copyright and find that someone is breaching it, it's a cut-and-dried case that they should stop and pay you. Whether they have searched hard or not. The only importance of the 'diligent search' is to indicate whether the copyright breacher is doing it 'in good faith' or not. If not, presumably punitive measures will apply...
All of these proposals are actually quite sensible. The issues with them are all going to be matters of balance. How long do you have a monopoly for? How much should taxpayers contribute to running the system, and how much should the copyright owners contribute?
And of course the major one - how much will it cost to enforce my rights at law? But that is a much larger question than just copyright alone....
PS - Interest declaration. I have several balls in this game.
1 - I generate new ideas and sell them to clients to make a living.
2 - I also generate new ideas for the general benefit of humanity and issue them under the Creative Commons license.
3 - At least two organisations are currently using my work commercially in breach of this license.
4 - I also try to save historical artifacts which are 'ideas-based'. The orphan concept would help me a lot here, since owners of rare objects are now very unwilling to have their objects copied, even for preservation...
5 - I don't believe in the concept of 'intellectual property'. Ideas cannot be 'owned' in the same way as objects can, and to pretend that they can is wrong. This is a separate legal field, and needs to be treated differently to 'property'....