[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
evan at prodromou.name
Sun Oct 1 00:57:37 EDT 2006
On Sat, 2006-30-09 at 23:58 -0400, Greg London wrote:
> If Dave can have a monopoly on his platform,
> if Dave is the only person who can apply DRM
> to content for his platform, and if he is
> willing to take advantage fo that monopoly
> OF PLATFORM, do you support anti-TPM to prevent
> the monopoly?
No. I think that someone having a monopoly on a single platform is not
such a big deal. We still, today, have unencumbered players for all
forms of data, and in a parallel distribution situation Alice and Bob
can exercise some choice. I think that DRM Dave would be in the really
bad situation of distributing works for free (the unencumbered versions)
that can only be played on his competitors' players.
DRM Dave has a monopoly on his platform as an axiom of your scenario.
You haven't really said how an anti-DRM provision would change that.
> It allows access to the work in a different platform,
> but you said you're against anti-TPM because it
> doesn't allow Alice and Bob to put content under
> DRM so they can play it on a different platform.
Right. I'm mainly concerned about situations that people actually
confront in the real world today, where third parties can put their
works on the platform. Like the PSP, the PS/2, various eBook readers. In
those cases, it's not DRM Dave keeping Alice and Bob from sharing with
their neighbours, but our Creative Commons license stipulations.
Surely, if you think it's wrong not to let Alice and Bob share on DRM
Dave's platforms, you'd agree that it's wrong to keep them out of these
other platforms, too? If not, it's our own license requirements that are
making those platforms a proprietary monopoly, not the policies of the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses