[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Sep 28 06:52:21 EDT 2006
On Thursday 28 September 2006 12:45 am, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-27-09 at 22:38 -0400, Greg London wrote:
> > > Although it's annoying and inconvenient, I think it's still possible
> > > for Alice and Bob to exercise their freedoms w/r/t the work.
> > If it really is so easy to get around DRM, then DRM Dave should
> > be prohibited from making DRM versions in the first place,
> > and Alice adn Bob should make non-DRM hardware to play
> > the works without any DRM restrictions.
> I'm not sure I follow why that's the case. It's relatively easy to "get
> around" DRM if DRM Dave has to distribute an unencumbered version, too.
> That's the whole point of parallel distribution: it lets people exercise
> their rights even if the licensee distributes a work with DRM enabled.
Because there are no players to play the parallel version on?
> I tried to present the hardest parallel distribution case I could think
> of (sole source on the platform, undocumented proprietary format for the
> unencumbered version). If you think it's easy, then I don't see why we
> have a problem.
You missed the part where all the manufacturers only make DRM players. And get
laws passed to forbid non-DRM players. Well the manufacturers may or may not
get the laws, perhaps the big media boys get them passed instead.
> > > Where we fine-tune the
> > > system is balancing our desire to Stop DRM Dave with our desire to
> > > enable other people -- like Alice and Bob -- to continue doing
> > > interesting things and sharing them with other nice people.
> > You can't have it both ways.
> I think my point is that if you try to Stop Dave at all costs, you'll
> inhibit sharing by other well-meaning people. If you say "no DRM'd
> copies ever!", you stop well-meaning people from porting Free Content to
> various platforms. If you say, instead, "no DRM unless you ensure the
> rights of downstream users", I think we'd be drawing the line more
> reasonably. Parallel distribution is a way to allow DRM while ensuring
> the rights of downstream users.
So, would it work in your world if you allowed parallel distribution in cases
where anyone could apply the DRM for the platform but no in cases where only
selected parties could do so?
> > You can't argue here that prohibiting DRM versions will prevent
> > Alice and Bob from sharing their works on Dave's DRM-only hardware.
> Well, it prevents them from sharing on _any_ DRM-only hardware. In the
> example, other factors also keep them from distributing on Dave's
> particular hardware setup (namely, that he doesn't allow third-party
> distributors to create files that work on his hardware), so it's not the
> only factor that would keep them from doing it, but it's one.
> > But then tell me above that even if Dave set himself up as a sole-source
> > provider, that Alice and Bob could work around it, figure out the format,
> > and create their own hardware players.
> You missed the parallel distribution part, right? There was a part where
> Dave had to distribute an _unencumbered_ (no-DRM) version of the Work
> due to the parallel distribution requirements in the (theoretical)
> license for the song. That's what makes it easy.
> > If it is a hard task for Alice and Bob to work around Dave's DRM-only
> > hardware, then Dave can become sole source provider of works,
> > and no one will be able to stop him, because its too much work,
> > and therefore Dave should be prohibited up front by the license
> > from putting CC works under DRM.
> I'm not sure I see why your conclusion follows from your premise. It is
> a hard task for A & B iff Dave isn't required to provide an unencumbered
> copy. If he is, then it is a relatively easy task, and can be made
> considerably easier if, say, Dave provides unencumbered versions in a
> documented format with many development tools available, like WAV or Ogg
> or MP3.
> > If it is an easy task for Alice and Bob to work around Dave's DRM-only
> > hardware, then prohibiting DRM versions of the work will not prohibit
> > Alice and Bob from sharing the work, they can simply build their
> > own hardware. And if this is the case, then there is no harm from
> > prohibiting Dave from creating DRM-only versions of the work.
> > Hard or easy, I get the same result: No DRM should be allowed.
> You're starting from a premise that no third party can create works to
> run on the DRM-only platform. Although that is possibly the case, and
> having a single authority decide who gets to distribute on the platform
> can be quite restrictive, in practise it hasn't been the case so far.
> There are many copy-protection schemes that let third-party distributors
> use the platform -- like iTunes -- and I think we'll see more as
> Palladium and other Trusted Computing systems get built into PC hardware
> and OSes.
> The point of the requested parallel distribution change is this: IF
> someone can distribute on the DRM-only platform, and IF they want to
> distribute a CC work on that platform, they're allowed to by the
> license, but ONLY IF they provide a non-DRM-covered version of the work,
> > Your argument chooses "Easy" when I bring up the concern about
> > Dave being sole-source provider. You answer by saying it would
> > be "easy" for Alice and Bob to work around Dave so he is no longer
> > sole soure.
> It'd be possible; maybe not easy.
> > But then your argument switches to "hard" when you bring up the
> > concern that Alice and Bob won't be able to share the work on
> > Dave's DRM-only hardware.
> Well, that's a different task. If they want to listen to the music or
> share it with others, they "just" need to decode the unlocked version of
> the file and play it on some other hardware. If they want to convert it
> to a locked version of the file (assuming that Dave's player only plays
> the locked version), and only Dave has the tools to make locked version,
> then it gets a lot harder. Not only is it probably tricky technically,
> but it's also going to put them in legal trouble, at least if they're in
> the US.
> > YOu say it would be too hard for Alice
> > and Bob to create their own hardware or distribute the work on
> > some alternate hardware that they build themselves.
> I think that it's hard reverse-engineering file formats, designing audio
> hardware, software emulators, or whatever. However, I don't think it's
> _too_ hard, and we have proof by the existence of so many great Free
> Software projects that can play, modify, and edit proprietary file
> formats that it's possible.
> Let me also point out that there's nothing in the CC licenses right now
> that requires the work to be distributed in a open-standard format.
> > So, you change your premise as to whether it would be hard or easy
> > for Alice and Bob to work around Dave's DRM-only hardware and
> > roll their own player, depending on what resulting conclusion you need
> > to reach.
> No, I think you just misunderstood part of the scenario. Maybe you
> should read it again?
> > If you pick one for both cases, like I do, then an anti-DRM clause
> > is either protection from evil Dave becoming sole-source, or
> > irrelevent and will cause no harm to Alice and Bob. Protection
> > from possible evil, and causing no harm to good people.
> I don't think an anti-DRM clause is a protection against evil Dave
> becoming a sole source of works for his platform. Dave sets those
> parameters when he designs his platform and when he refuses to let other
> people publish on the platform.
> There will be many platforms where there is only one publisher who
> provides content for the platform -- perhaps because the platform is
> very new or very old or marginal in the marketplace or because the
> platform owner has set up legal or technical barriers to others. I don't
> think it's CC's job to force a diverse publisher market on any
> particular platform, but rather to ensure that users of CC works have
> the rights that the Licensor intended.
No, it may not be CC's job, but it may be my wish as a content creator. What
happened to that range of choices I don't really like so much?
all the best,
(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses