- From: Edward Hasbrouck <ehasbrouck@nwu.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 09:05:38 -0700
- To: "public-tdmrep@w3.org" <public-tdmrep@w3.org>
On 14 Jul 2023 at 19:03, "Laurent Le Meur" <Laurent Le Meur <laurent@edrlab.org>> wrote: > On another aspect, the statement reads: "The proposed TDM Reservation > Protocol is technically complex and burdensome". Well, I cannot let > people state that as-is. Or you must state the exact same about every > internet protocol, including robots.txt (which is not an approved > standard) and HTML (as no author, to my knowledge, masters HTML; there > are tools for that). The difference is that neither robots.txt nor HTML "standards" are legally binding or determine legal rights, but under Article 4 of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, failure to comply with whatever are determined to be proper protocols for reservation of rights is deemed to constitute a legally binding waiver of certain important legal rights. Not everyone needs to understand or be able to "comply" with technical standards. But those whose rights are to be assigned on the basis of a legal rule need to be able to understand the rule and to be able to comply with its terms. Otherwise, they have no meaningful choice, and can be deprived of their rights unfairly. > Other limitations stated about TDMRep and other equivalent tools are > real (no way to retroactively opt-out if the content has been scrapped > ...). Note that there is no way to delete an email once it has been > sent either. People still use emails. Here too the difference is that inability to delete an e-mail message does not lead to any waiver or loss of rights, but failure to "reserve" TDM rights in an acceptable manner *does* lead to loss of rights. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <ehasbrouck@nwu.org> +1-415-824-0214 (San Francisco) National Writers Union https://nwu.org +1-212-254-0279 (New York)
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2023 16:05:46 UTC