Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
nsincaglia at musicnow.com
Thu May 19 17:26:21 EDT 2005
I am not pro DRM but many broadcast and distribution systems have
encryption inherent in their designs. The encryption is many times there
for security reasons.(wi-fi might be an example. You might want to
encrypt your wi-fi signal so that people don't hack your computer
The other day I read a story on Lawrence Lessig's blog about Runoff
Records signing two artists that were discovered on ccMixter. Runoff
Records will be "doing the next three seasons of America's Next Top
Any music by these artists that appears on this TV show is not going to
be licensed to this TV show under any CC licenses. They can't. This show
is going to be distributed by cable and satellite systems that use
On one hand this is a success story for the creative commons. Some
artists were discovered through the use of the CC licenses. That is
great. Yet at the same time, I see this as a shame. Art under the
creative commons license can not intermingle on the same digital
networks as art under standard copyright law of all rights reserved.
The creative commons is not against copyright law. And I believe the
supporters of the creative commons should not be either. Just because
someone doesn't want to use the CC license and wants to protect their
creative work, does not mean that they are evil or greedy. We should not
demonize people for this. It is their work and they should have the
right to choose the way they want to license it.
The problem I see with the DRM clause is it is inherent in all of the CC
licenses. If you choose to use CC license for your creative works, you
have no choice but to accept this DRM clause. This DRM clause will limit
promotional and distribution opportunities others may have for your
work. There is no CC license that does not contain this clause.
So if I record a song and license it under the CC-BY, I just want people
to use my music and let others know I wrote and recorded it. Let's say
someone half way around the world discovers my song and they happen to
work at a local access cable station. Let's say they would like to use
my song as background music for their public announcements for the local
Policeman's fundraiser. Sadly, they can't unless they contact me and
negotiate a license in which they can broadcast my music on a signal
that uses encryption. Seems like a lost opportunity for me if they don't
contact me. I wouldn't mind them using it for that purpose but I can't
let the world know this, using the current CC licenses.
From: Rob Myers [mailto:robmyers at mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:01 PM
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
On 19 May 2005, at 20:51, Sincaglia, Nicolas wrote:
> As I see it, this DRM clause is an obstacle to creating a healthy
> business ecosystem for the creative community.
As I see it, maintaining unhealthy business models is an obstacle to
a healthy, DRM-free creative ecosystem for the community.
Allowing DRM-encumbered CC content would be such a backdoor that the
licenses would become utterly ineffective.
Does anyone still use RealMedia anyway? The BBC tried OGG a while
back and I think they do MP3 now.
> How can the independent artist and the independent business
> come together and compete in a meaningful way against the corporate
> media machines when we can't even play on the same playing fields?
Fetishising the toys of the "corporate media machines"' protectionist
technology certainly won't level the playing field.
Keep the DRM clause. Lose the over-priced, under-featured, anti-
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses