[cc-licenses] 912 emails about DRM
james at grimmelmann.net
Mon Apr 16 15:58:05 EDT 2012
On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> People are, in fact, suggesting that— see Anthony's post in this thread.
> In any case you're mistaking it as a political tool. A copyleft
> license shouldn't permit a party to create versions of the work that
> downstream users (including the original author themselves) couldn't
> create/modify/redistribute/sell/etc. They should not be able to add
> additional encumbrances to the work which give them a privileged legal
> position to control the work or derivatives.
> This is the essential social/economic tradeoff of copyleft and if any
> copyleft license is to perform its function then it must not allow it
> to be mooted through any means which it can reasonable control. You
> should not be able to moot the copyleft through trademark, through
> addtional copyright restrictions, through DRM, through external "Terms
> Of Service", through patent encumbrance, etc.
> Otherwise people will simply just moot it in these ways, as it's the
> person trying to subvert the licensing who gets to choose the
> technique they use... and we would have been better off without a
> copyleft license at all: better to avoid the transactional costs of
> preserving freedom if freedom won't be preserved.
As long as the parallel distribution really is sufficiently clear and convenient, nothing has been mooted. Anyone who wishes to redistribute or modify the work has the ability to do so readily. They may not be able to modify or redistribute a particular *copy*, but they will have the freedom that matters: to use, share, and change the *work*.
> I really don't care if other people use DRM for their commercial
> publications. I just don't buy or partake of those works. I do care
> when DRM can be use to cheat the intent of my licensing by removing
> freedoms I mandated and I do care when DRM prevents me from publishing
> modifications of my own works, instead forcing me through a middleman
> tax collector.
> If you create a Bluray version of my copylefted movie— adding a bunch
> of menus and navigation tools, then offering it up for sale, the fact
> that you've made available a 'decrypted' copy of it via some obscure
> website will do little for the freedom of the recipients of the Bluray
> disks you create—
If the problem is that the parallel distribution website is "obscure," than that's a problem with drafting or enforcing the parallel distribution clause, one that can be fixed with a tighter definition or better enforcement.
> and nothing for me as a downsteam creator because
> the mandatory AACS DRM on bluray doesn't allow me to create modified
> versions. Especially since in many places these locking schemes carry
> the force of law (e.g. in the US under the Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act).
This is, I think, the real heart of the issue (it went by the name of "platform monopolies" in an early round of discussions). Is it better to have no one in a position to distribute in this format, or to have some people who are able to, as long as everyone remains unencumbered in distributing in other formats and media? Here, reasonable minds can differ about what the CC licenses should do.
More information about the cc-licenses