[cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement
zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Nov 28 19:57:33 EST 2006
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 07:26 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > James, you seem to be continually missing the point. I for instance, in
> > the case under discussion have a problem if I cannot put the DRM on, not
> > if I cannot take it off.
> > I take the part about you missing hte point back. I leave it in to
> > illustrate my won point with myself as an example. It is very easy to
> > read what other write and mix what is written with what is in our heads
> > and what has gone before and get things wrong.
> I say that I am fine with my works being ported to DRM-only plaforms
> because I do not care whether it is I or someone else who puts the DRM
> on. I don't want someone else to have to ask permission from me to put
> the DRM on. That interferes with their freedom to reuse the work. I
> want to provide a Creative Commons license to obviate the need for them
> to ask me.
Now I think you are missing the point or failing to couch your rebuttal in
such a way that shows you understand my point.
I don't care if I put it on or someone else does. I care if I CANNOT put it
on. Legally, freely.
> I should have been clearer that I don't regard my inability to apply the
> DRM myself as a harm. My apologies.
I do, I care that neither I nor any general user can and only those "blessed"
by the platform owners can. Those are the platforms I object to.
Is that clear, or do I need to keep trying to word it better?
> > Still, to be clear, parallel distribution works fine for me on platforms
> > where I can apply DRM for myself even if no one can then take it off.
> I would be curious then how you would feel about an anti-DRM clause that
> required parallel distribution and did not apply to DRM that was
> available for all to use under a small-f free license (not necessarily
> to modify, let us say, but available for anyone who wished to wrap works
> in DRM).
No. Will not by that. Unless their right to distribute my works ends if my
right and ability to apply DRM ends. Still probably not though. I am looking
to get to the point where I only run Free Software on my systems. I will
gladly explore this issue further though.
> > I have an issue where I cannot apply the DRM for myself. Freely.
> I do not have this issue. That someone else can apply DRM and I can't
> -- so nu?
This is one major area where we differ at the moment then.
> I care that those who encounter my work be able to enjoy the same
> freedoms that those who wrapped the work in DRM enjoy. A parallel
> distribution clause answers this concern for me. I do not as much care
> about my own freedom to apply DRM; most of the time, I don't want to. I
> view "applying DRM" as something of a tree falling in a forest. Unless
> some other person's freedom is inhibited, it is not much of a harm.
I may never care in practice myself, but I don't know what the future holds
and if down the road I find I want to market my works on various platforms in
an attempt to support my family, I want to be free to do so.
> > The fear I have is that in ten or fifty there will be no readers
> > available that can work with clear files and can only work with DRM
> > encumbered files. What will our plain text copies do for us then. If a
> > body of work grows that is not legal to use with DRM platforms and proves
> > valuable enough to society. It may in some small way help to ensure the
> > continued availability of platforms that can work with non-encumbered
> > content.
> I fear this scenario, too. I want to prevent it by keeping the legal
> system from favoring DRM-based media over open media. I want to prevent
> it by encouraging the widespread use of open formats and frequent
> archiving and copying. I want to prevent it by explaining to those who
> would use DRM that it won't work, won't serve their goals, and will hurt
> I don't, however, want to take this stance in the Creative Commons
> license for the same reason that I prefer the GPL to the Hacktivismo
> license. As admirable as the political conditions involved may be, they
> sacrifice specific freedom in relation to the works under license for
> the promotion of freedom (or freedom-enhancing technologies) in general.
> The gains from pulling on this particular policy lever don't outweigh
> the likely costs in inhibiting the growth and spread of free-to-reuse
Ok, fine, I get your position. It is not mine at this point. Do you see any
avenues to resolution?
all the best,
who should be writing fiction and not cc emails...
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
More information about the cc-licenses