[d@DCC] Letter from Mr Belanger...
russell at flora.ca
Mon Jan 17 18:12:01 EST 2005
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 nashjc at canada.com wrote:
> I received the following response to a recent letter I sent to my MP
> about copyright amendments. Does anyone have a good understanding of
> these options. The wording makes nice noises, but the consequences ...
The most important thing to remember is that these are techniques to
double-license works which are already adequately licensed. In order for
the public "no membership required" part of the Internet to function as it
does today there must be an understood "implied license" for royalty-free
verbatim distribution within that medium. This is required to make things
such as Google and the Wayback engine work, but under the Heritage
interpretation of the Internet all search engines and archives are
Don't get distracted by the part that says that this is "educational"
related, and don't get distracted by the claim that there is a need for an
additional license for royalty-free verbatim distribution within the
Internet. It is only when you do things outside that implied license that
any license is required (IE: publishing a book, changing the text in any
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Happy Hacking, Eh! http://www.digital-copyright.ca/blog/2 (My BLOG)
Sign the Petition Users' Rights! http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/
More information about the Discuss