Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
robmyers at mac.com
Wed May 25 11:36:12 EDT 2005
I am not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.
On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 04:03PM, Greg London <email at greglondon.com> wrote:
>I must be dense, because as far as I can tell, the delivery
>method is irrelevant. Why does it matter if someone delivers
>content via Real or similar if the recipient ends up with
>a copy that is CC licensed?
>Does Real prevent the recipient
>from getting a file that is usable outside of Real?
It does. I curse Real whener I see a lecture I want to listen to on my iPod posted in Real format. You can use a stream ripper but that's another story.
>And just to play devil's advocate, do CC licenses dictate
>that if Alice writes a screenplay licensed CC-BY,
>that when Bob puts on a performance then he must allow
>folks to videotape the performance and license the
A screenplay or a play script? In either case, I'm guessing that the performance, whether live or a projection, is a derivative work of the CC-BY original. You are not required to relicense derivatives of CC-BY work as CC-BY, so Bob would not have to allow taping. he would however have to give Alice equal billing to satisfy Attribution.
>Could Bob use DRM on Alice's CC-BY work to transmit
>Alice's work only for viewing but not for downloading?
>Since CC-BY allows proprietary forks, allowing DRM
>on such a fork seems natural.
When transmitting the unaltered work (rather than a derivative), I think Bob has to allow others to use the work under its CC-BY license (is this right?), so he could not use DRM. When transmitting a derivative, he just has to Attribute, so he can use DRM as long as he puts Alice's name next to his.
>For CC-SA works, it would be important that the DRM
>not be used for "viewing only", allowing Bob to hide
>the content behind rights management as a means to
>use a CC-SA work but not give viewers a CC-SA work.
Yes, this is precisely the concern IMHO.
The license says:
"You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement."
So this is not a blanket ban on DRM as such. But I still don't think it would allow dual-format provision of work (ie Real/OGG) as individual copies of the work might still not allow the user to use the work in accordance with the license.
>But for all CC licenses that allow proprietary forks,
>use of DRM seems to be in accordance with the license.
Being able to accept the offer to use the work in the license relies on the work being accessible. So the original unaltered CC-BY'd work couldn't be DRM'ed, even if it was the case that a derivative work could.
>I can't remember if this DRM discussion was talking
>about all CC licenses or strictly about the CC-SA license.
Good point. I'm concentrating on CC-SA. :-)
More information about the cc-licenses