[d@DCC] Internet Archive's Web Page Snapshots Held Admissible as
russell at flora.ca
Thu Nov 18 20:46:00 EST 2004
I'm thinking out loud, but if these archives are being held admissible,
does that also suggest that courts may acknowledge the existence of these
types of services and consider them to be an important part of the
infrastructure of the *Public* part of the Internet?
In order for the services of http://www.archive.org/ to work it must
assume that an "implied minimum authorization" (implied license) exists
for any works on the publicly accessible Internet (no password, TPM, or
other "membership required" features). That minimum is that royalty-free
verbatim not-for-profit copies must have been authorized by the copyright
holder, or the work should not have been published on the Public part of
If this implied minimum authorization exists, then this is important for
countering recommendations 4+5 of the Heritage report and their attempt to
allow Access Copyright and other collectives to invalidly tax new media.
Can someone dig more into this and possibly author a submission to send
to the Ministers? Latest comments are that the next stage of copyright is
in the hands of Cabinet. Please send letters to your MPs insisting that
they send copies to the Ministers (Heritage and Industry).
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Code is Law: how software code regulates the activities of citizens,
and acts similar to law. How do we ensure transparency/accountability?
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at list.digital-copyright.ca
More information about the Discuss