[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Karl Ebener myonlyb at vollbio.de
Sun Aug 13 14:18:03 EDT 2006


Hi Evan,

I don't think, Charlie has a problem in the first scenario : He can 
still take the work and transfer it to his iSuck-format himself and 
hear it on his iSuck-Player. This is due to Nr. 2: Fair rights use. 
As long as Charlie does not *distribute* the file after converting, 
he still complies to CC.
No harm done.
Of course, Charlie IS a dead end in distribution, but he can still 
use Bobs version on a platform that doesn't use DRM.

  Karl

At 16:51 11.08.2006, you 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.
>
>~Evan
>
>_______________________________________________
>cc-licenses mailing list
>cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses




More information about the cc-licenses mailing list