| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: Russell McOrmond <russell_-at-_flora.ca>
To: flora-admin-help_-at-_flora.org
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 12:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > "Public domain" doesn't mean "public forum". Please recognize that I have spent the last few years immersed in copyright consultation processes, including a number of submissions to the Government of Canada. http://www.flora.ca/copyright-2001.shtml I have read and debated the Canadian copyright act in a number of forums. I know what the Copyright act says, and I know what the term "public domain" means. > The author of an email message sent to a mailing list is published when > distributed; the author has copyright at that point. If he wishes to, he > may include it in an article he's written for a journal. No one else > may. Unless there is an agreement, this is the case. The purpose of this discussion is to create such an agreement. If you post a message to a forum on FLORA.org, it should be considered public including to the extent that someone may re-print it in another media (whether that be a DVD, or a print-media publication). > > The license agreement is not saying that someone must put their work > >into the public domain. It is only saying that they must give up all but > >the moral rights > > ? You are posting this from the United States which does not recognize moral rights as part of your copyright act. FLORA.org exists in Canada and operates under Canadian law. If you want to know more about this, please go to: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/ Specifically the section on Moral rights: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/37844.html#rid-37952 Part of this agreement will specify that FLORA.org exists in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and adheres to the laws of this legal jurisdiction. > >in their works which is essentially a codification of what has been the > >status-quo on Internet mailing lists since they were created. > > I don't agree that that language reflect reasonable expectations. This is partly because we have a disagreement on what constitutes reasonable expectations. Please talk about this with other list managers, or co-administrators as is the case for PEDNET. This agreement is not going to apply to all past archives on FLORA.org, just those that will still exist on FLORA.org in the future. If the list managers for any list, including PEDNET, would not feel comfortable agreeing to the final agreement then the opportunity to move the list off of FLORA.org will exist. As I mentioned in a previous email, this agreement will only apply to FLORA.org. Lists hosted by the same servers that are sponsored but are under a different domain will likely have different agreements. They will have different people considered responsible for the sites. For instance, PEDNET could move to http://www.ottawalk.org/ in which case George Duimovich would be responsible (Admin contact from the Whois).. This is not going to be something that can be done instantly, or be able to be retroactive without some sort of consent on the part of list managers and list participants. Lists that cannot get agreement from list membership to agree to these terms and conditions will have to deal with that in whatever way they feel is appropriate (closing list archives, closing list, removing those participants and their messages in archives, etc). --- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than politicians should be bought. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|