Your second paragraph is looking, to me, like an issue separate and apart from the original question, but before even I try to address it, I want to make sure I understand, because this phrase
"puts a negative pressure on the actions when taken towards those works for which the action would still be legal"
is confusing me.
Are you suggesting a) the absence of explicit refusal should indicate the presence of acquiescence? b) the absence of explicit refusal does indicate the presence of acquiescence?
no subject
Your second paragraph is looking, to me, like an issue separate and apart from the original question, but before even I try to address it, I want to make sure I understand, because this phrase
"puts a negative pressure on the actions when taken towards those works for which the action would still be legal"
is confusing me.
Are you suggesting
a) the absence of explicit refusal should indicate the presence of acquiescence?
b) the absence of explicit refusal does indicate the presence of acquiescence?
signed,
lr