[cc-licenses] Dual Distribution Reconsidered
Rob Myers
rob at robmyers.org
Mon Dec 4 15:40:07 EST 2006
James Grimmelmann wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
>>
>> * Who has the right to add DRM to CC work?
>>
>> According to Mia’s responses to the draft comments, possibly only the
>> copyright holder(s?). This would mean that only the original author and
>> possibly authors of derivative works could add DRM. End users would not
>> be able to.
What is your understanding of whether a non-rightsholder has the
authority to add DRM to a work?
>> * What about Fair Use?
>>
>> The CC licenses state that nothing in them is intended to reduce Fair
>> Use. But adding DRM has the potential to reduce Fair Use in unintended
>> ways. Any addition of DRM therefore has at least the potential to reduce
>> Fair Use. This might mean that no DRM can be added, as any DRM removes
>> the Fair Use rights guaranteed (although not granted) by the license.
>
> I would tentatively disagree with this reading. The revised anti-DRM
> clause refers to rights "granted . . . under the License." The licenses
> only "grant" rights in section 3. Fair use is mentioned in section 2,
> but is not "granted." Restrictions on fair use rights that don't also
> restrict one of the explicit rights granted in section 3, therefore,
> don't violate the anti-DRM clause. DRM is prohibited if and only if it
> interferes with one of the "granted" section 3 rights.
Yes that makes sense. Which is a shame as Fair Use is very important.
>> * What about noncommercial copying?
>>
>> All the licenses allow at the very least noncommercial copying of
>> unmodified work. DRM can be used to prevent this. But is this a right
>> guaranteed by the license or merely a permission offered by it?
>
> Copying is a right granted by the license. It's in section 3.a (in the
> BY-NC versions). So any use of DRM to restrict the recipient's ability
> to copy noncommercially violates the anti-DRM clause. (BTW, the
> restriction to noncommercial copying, in the NC licenses, is a section 4
> restriction, and not part of the section 3 grants. Section 4.b, in BY-NC.)
Ah, cool. I assume this right evaporates when a BY or BY-NC work is
incorporated into a derivative work, as otherwise it's not very
BSD-license-like.
So *can* I distribute with DRM under the current anti-TPM language?
Copying is not use. :-/
On the one hand, to take FairPlay (iTunes) as an example, I can copy
FairPlay files onto any media I like, so copying is not restricted
(hmmm. unless that's a breach of the EULA :-) ). And I can play the
files with what amount to NC-ND rights on any authorised FairPlay system
(i.e. iTunes on another Mac). So my ability to copy isn't restricted,
and my ability to exercise the rights granted by NC-ND is not restricted
by the DRM once I can use the work on a FairPlay system.
On the other hand, *any* DRM prevents me from using the work where I
might ordinarily use it but where I do not have access to the correct
DRM system, or if the DRM vendor revoke my rights, goes bust, or
otherwise is problematic. If I have an AAC/MP4 file I can normally play
it on iPodLinux. If it has FairPlay on it I cannot. But if *any* DRM
prevents you exercising your rights, why allow DRM at all?
So on balance I do believe that the current CC licenses allow
distribution with DRM. IANAL though, TINLA, etc.
- Rob.
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list