[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Aug 11 17:25:20 EDT 2006


On Friday 11 August 2006 10:51 am, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-08 at 10:08 +0100, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> > Quoting Greg London <teloscorbin at gmail.com>:
> > > But Creative Commons doesn't require source code,
> > > or has that changed?
> >
> > It has not. The closest you get to source is the original version. And if
> > the original version is only available on a DRM-laden system you cannot
> > move it to other system.
>
> Except in a parallel distribution system, the original version is
> available in BOTH a DRM-laden version and a non-DRM'd version. That's
> the whole point -- giving programmers freedom while ensuring the rights
> of downstream users.
>
> > This is why pleas for DRM are *not* pleas for user freedom.
>
> Yes, they are. We're just asking that creators have the right to port
> works to the platforms and formats that they choose, while ensuring the
> rights of downstream users to copy, modify, and distribute.
>
> Let's take another simple example:
>
>         Alice records a spoken-word piece and releases the work as
>         by-sa-2.5. Bob mixes Alice's recording with a beat and a guitar
>         background and makes the resulting song available as an MP3 and
>         an Ogg Vorbis file, also licensed under by-sa-2.5. Charlie has
>         an iSuck music player that only plays iSuck DRM-mandatory files.
>         Charlie asks Bob to make an iSuck version available, but Bob
>         can't because of the anti-DRM provisions in the 2.5 licenses. So
>         Charlie can't listen to the song.
>
> And a counter example:
>
>         Alice records a spoken-word piece and releases the work as
>         by-sa-X, which allows parallel distribution. Bob mixes Alice's
>         recording with a beat and a guitar background and makes the
>         resulting song available as an MP3 and an Ogg Vorbis file, also
>         licensed under by-sa-X. Charlie has an iSuck music player that
>         only plays iSuck DRM-mandatory files. Charlie asks Bob to make
>         an iSuck version available, and Bob does it. He already has
>         unencumbered versions available, so under the principle of
>         parallel distribution it's OK to make an encumbered version,
>         too.
>
>         Charlie is a filmmaker, and he likes Alice and Bob's song so
>         much that he wants to put it in the score of his next movie. His
>         video program can't import the iSuck format (and it may be
>         illegal to do so in some jurisdictions), but he downloads the
>         Ogg Vorbis version that Bob made available in parallel, and he
>         uses that version instead.
>
> In the second scenario, Charlie and Bob can do more things (distribute a
> work in whatever format, listen to the work on their chosen piece of
> hardware) than they could in the first scenario. Being allowed to do
> more things is good. These freedoms are additive -- Charlie playing the
> iSuck-format song on his iSuck player doesn't make it more or less
> difficult for Diana to play the Ogg version on her Linux desktop.
>
> Now, if you're going to be absolutist about it, people like Charlie
> don't DESERVE freedom, because they bought the wrong music player.
> People like Bob don't DESERVE to share with others, because they'd even
> consider distributing music in a DRM'd format. These are BAD PEOPLE and
> they don't deserve rights. Shame on them for even asking!
>
> > Shhhh! The point is that not allowing DRM restricts people's freedom,
> > because any ban on restricting freedom is obviously a restriction on
> > freedom, and we cannot have restrictions on freedom. Everybody knows
> > that! ;-)
>
> Blah blah blah. Maybe you need to step back a bit and think about what
> the proposed change says.
>
> Parallel distribution doesn't restrict freedom. It gives *at least* the
> same freedoms as distributing in an unencumbered format, *plus* the
> freedom to run on a DRM-only platform. That's more freedom, not less.

If parallel distribution forces the unencumbered to be distributed with the 
encumbered, and in the case of a program this includes equal versions on a 
free platform, you may be able to convince me. That said, like I said in an 
earlier post, I am cool with there being a cost for those who do not consider 
what those who promote DRM systems do to my rights. Network effects do cause 
me problems. There are players out there in the market who are actively 
against freedom.
>
> ~Evan

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list