[d@DCC] Letter from Mr Belanger...

[Russell McOrmond]

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 
infringing.

  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
way, etc).

-- 
 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/