[cc-licenses] Fwd: Parallel Distribution and Non-Copyleft Licenses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Dec 2 20:25:47 EST 2006
On Saturday 02 December 2006 07:47 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > On 12/3/06, Greg London <email at greglondon.com> wrote:
> >> allows DRM Dave to monopolize the entire CC-SA works.
> >> Entire FLOSS community might see their works on
> >> Dave's hardware with Dave using DRM and DMCA to
> >> charge money to get a copy that plays on his DRM-only
> >> player. But no one in the FLOSS community who created
> >> any of those works will be able to sell their own
> >> versions of DRM-enabled works that play on Dave's hardware.
> >> Damage to community: minus 10 times size of community.
> >> Say, negative several hundred.
> > I'm not convinced by this felicific calculus.
> Well, better this than be accused of supporting anti-TPM
> because I want to turn the license into a weapon.
> I've had a whole bunch of crap thrown my way.
> Choose your felicificness.
> > Everyone can still use and modify the licensed work,
> > but they can't put it back on Dave's hardware.
> > They can still use other hardware.
> Well, here's the problem with the felicific numbers.
> We can't know the numbers without the damage being done.
> and the point is to choose the license that prevents
> the most damage from being done.
> The thing is that there is some sense of scale that
> can be predicted ahead of time.
> The size of the FLOSS community relative to
> the size of the users who have DRM-only hardware.
> The FLOSS community is massive compared
> to the number of DRM-only players.
> That suggests that
> the damage to the community by DRM Dave monopolizing his platform
> will be larger than
> the damage to alice because she can't play CC-SA content on some
> obscure DRM-only hardware platform.
> You want to make this real, then here's a question:
> How many DRM-only platforms exist anyway?
> It seems that the more this is discussed the fewer
> and fewer DRM-only platforms that exist.
> Compare this to how many works have been licensed CC-SA.
> How many contributers there have been to ShareAlike projects.
> I think it would be safe to say that the FLOSS community
> is bigger than the number of DRM-only users by several
> orders of magnatude.
> > Yes, it is unfortunate that some manufacturers
> > can capture the majority of a market and reduce competition.
> > But disallowing them from using CC content won't stop that.
> I'm going to say this again:
> I DON"T CARE ABOUT DRM ONLY PLATFORMS SELLING PROPRIETARY WORKS.
> I don't give a damn.
> Do you understand?
> I am not trying to prohibit Dave from Using CC content under
> some illusion that he'll go out of business because CC licenses
> won't let him use SHareAlike content.
> I AM NOT TRYING TO INFLICT DAMAGE ON DRM DAVE.
> What I am saying is this:
> Allowing DRM DAVE to monopolize a popular hardware platform
> could inflict damage on the community as Dave is the only
> person who can sell copies on his system, and no one who
> contributed to the FLOSS project can.
> Imagine having an iCrap that is DRM only and Dave is charging
> a dollar to everyone in the FLOSS community to download a
> copy of their own content that will play on their iCrap.
> If anyone has noticed a pattern on this discussion over the
> last few years, it is how absolutely batsh!t people get when
> you start talking money. The NonCommercial license is still
> a bone of contention for a lot of people. Now imagine that
> you contributed a song to some FLOSS community, and you have
> to pay Dave a buck to play your own song on an iCrap player.
> This isn't like RedHat selling Linux.
> Anyone could choose to compete with RedHat
> on the exact same hardware platforms.
> DRM and DMCA combine to allow Dave a monopoly so that
> he can be sole source provider for content on his platform.
> That'll piss off a lot of folks in the community.
> Yes, there will be some folks who have an iCrap,
> and who will be willing to pay a dollar to Dave
> to get a DRM-enabled copy of the work for their player.
> But given that most hardware platforms I know of can
> take open content, I think the multiplier for that
> is much smaller.
> > I think that the total loss to the community of people not being able
> > to make use of CC-licensed works on locked platforms outweighs any
> > benefit that can be gained from the PD clause. By forbidding Dave's
> > use, you are preventing him from exacting some level of harm which
> > results when community members see their content locked up and can't
> > compete on the same platform. But you are also preventing those
> > community members from accessing the benefits of licensed works on
> > that platform.
> > Sticking to the utilitarian analysis, your options become:
> > PD clause
> > (a) +10 to Alice and Bob, who can develop for Dave's platform
> but have to pay Dave to get versions fo their works that play on iCrap.
> > (b) -10 to each member of the community who want to compete with Dave
> > on Dave's platform
> > (c) +10 to each member of the community who benefit from being able to
> > use CC-licensed works on Dave's platform
> and (d) minus big for every member of the community who sees
> Dave's ability to be sole source provider selling DRM enabled
> versions of their own work and realizes just how sucky it is.
> > Of course, the numbers presented are arbitrary
> they are relative. That's what counts.
> All you need to do is figure out which one
> is the biggest win. You don't need an absolute value.
> > and this method of decision making is inherently flawed.
> Game theory is flawed?
> The idea is to map out all the options and figure out
> the cost/benefit of each one, and then pick the best.
> I suppose we could continue emotive arguments instead.
> Someone should accuse me of wanting to put DRM-Dave out of business.
> That's always fun.
> >> Use of DRM on a redistributed CC work is okay ONLY IF:
> >> 1) The work is also made available in an unDRMed parallel version, and
> >> 2) Everyone is free to apply the DRM.
> This doesn't make sense.
I pusked this possible compromise, (not my preference, but I think I can live
> the Anti-TPM clause ALREADY ALLOWS EVERYONE TO LOCALLY APPLY DRM.
> You can apply DRM to CC-SA works. You just can't distribute.
> The only restriction would be whether or not DRM-Dave allows it,
> will make the tools available to apply his DRM to someone's work.
> The Anti-TPM clause as currently proposed already allows part 2.
> And if DRM-Dave will allow people to freely apply DRM to works
> so they can play on his DRM-only platform
> [ i.e. (2) ]
> then DRM-Dave isn't trying to monopolize his platform,
> and his versions of the work would have transparent DRM
> meaning teh rights to the work wouldn't be restricted,
> so you can get a parallel copy from the platform.
Not necessarily, (not suggesting that this is likely, just don't see why it
would not be possible) why couldn't I design a DRM system where anyone could
apply, but only the blessed could work with protected content from there?
I could be totally ignorant here os fill me in if I am.
> If you would accept (2), then you've already got that in
> the Anti-TPM clause as it is proposed now.
> I think people are misunderstanding that something
> like the SnowGlobe thingy isn't a TPM.
> Content burned into ROM isn't a TPM, so the manufacturer
> isn't required to provide a parallel distrubution.
The proposal had nothing to do with snowglobe. I have been making it for days,
perhaps more than a week, I think since this whole thread started up again.
> Someone puts CC-SA works into a book,
> they wouldn't be required to provide a parallel copy either.
> If folks are thinking ParallelDistribution is going to
> give them a back door to SourceCodeDistribution Requirements,
> I think they misunderstand that TPM only applies when the
> hardware has some sort of gatekeeper that allows some people
> to exercise a right, but not others.
> If the snowglobe doesn't allow anyone to copy-out the
> content, then it isn't TPM, and parallel distribution
> won't kick in to give you a free electronic copy.
No, but like I said, the "proposal" came from me and is unrelated. I am not
actually proposing it as something I want, more as a compromise that I think
I can live with.
all the best,
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
More information about the cc-licenses