[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 2 15:42:15 EDT 2006
On Monday 02 October 2006 01:01 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > So what is the problem with parallel distribution if anyone can apply
> > the DRM? But no DRM distribution if only restricted someones can
> > apply the DRM?
> Essentially the problem is that it's only DRM precisely because the
> licensor doesn't allow that freedom (i.e. if you do, it's only
> "encryption"; not protected by the DMCA; and not a subject of these
> license terms).
How so? Are you maintaining that DRM is only DRM when only select peoplr can
protect their works? I may just be being dense here, but I don't see that.
> So, indeed, all the platform-owner apparently has to do is say "Okay, my
> DRM isn't a DRM anymore", and everything is sunshine and butterflies (no
> license changes required).
OK, here is one I don't think I have seen and I hope I did not post this
What if DRM -Dave gives a key to apply DRM to Debian and debian promises to
apply the DRM to any Free (libfe) works that anyone passes to them for free
(gratis). Further debian promises not to apply DRM to any non-Free works.
Now DRM-Dave can still charge whatever he wants to put DRM on the content of
those who keep their content non-Free and the Free boys can apply DRM so
their content can play on DRM-Dave's player with no hinderance.
Write that up in the necessary clauses and....
> But they're not going to do that, so it's all kind of moot.
all the best,
(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses