[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Oct 1 20:14:52 EDT 2006

On Sunday 01 October 2006 11:18 am, Greg London wrote:
> > Right, it's more that this is the sort of thing that makes people worry
> > about unintended consequences of attempts to restrict things that they
> > dislike (even if those consequences have not yet been realised) and
> > the possibility of reasonable applications of those things.
> You can apply DRM to your local copy and play it on your
> own hardware player. You just can't distribute that copy.
> Alice and Bob can still play on a DRM platform.
> It's just that DRM Dave is prevented from using DRM
> and the DMCA to prohibite anyone else from apply DRM
> to the content, and set himself up as sole source
> provider, distributing Open content in DRM-only format.
> There are consequences I don't think some people realize
> about parallel distribution. Or they do realize, but they
> are willing to play them down for one reason or another.
> Parallel distribution does nothing when this DRM-only
> platform is monopolized by Dave. Folks want to compare
> DRM with parallel distribution as if it were teh same
> as binary with source distribution, but they fail to
> acknowledge the fundamental difference.


in all fairness, I can see Free Software reasons for wanting to allow 
distribution of DRM versions plus parallel non-DRM distribution. I am not 
sure your objections to this if the allowance of it hinged on the ability of 
anyone to apply DRM (without any sort of hinderance, monetary or otherwise) 
to a work for the same platform.

One reason is that many people in the Free Software world like to get and 
install the binary versions and this is a convience we should try not to deny 
them if it is not necessary to do so. In the same way, some may prefer not to 
have to get a copy of a complete operating system without DRM that cannot run 
on their platform and then have to apply the DRM themselves before they can 
run it on their machine.

I am not for doing things that will allow what you are calling a platform 
monopoly when it comes to my works, but if we can prevent that and make end 
users lives a little easier, I think that is worth striving for.

I keep suggesting something that I think may do this, but I don't recall 
seeing any full responses to the idea. Perhaps I am not explaining myself 
well enough.
> Binary with soruce distribution means the original platform
> is something that everyone can compile the source on.
> Dave may create a binary for a platform, but he must
> distribute the source and Alice and Bob would be able
> to compile that source on teh same platform.
> DRM+DMCA+parallel distribution does not allow Alice
> and Bob to enable their content for play on the
> original platform.
> Dave can distribute content DRM-ed for his hardware platform.
> He then distributes an open copy that you can download to your
> PC. But DRM+DMCA prevents you from applying DRM to the content
> and playing it on the same hardware platform if Dave does not
> authorize it.
> So, DRM+parallel copy is not the same as binary+source.
> And that has consequences that the parallel distribution
> folks refuse to acknowledge.

So what is the problem with parallel distribution if anyone can apply the DRM? 
But no DRM distribution if only restricted someones can apply the DRM?
> Anti-TPM does not prevent you from applying TPM to your
> local copy and playing it on your local player.
> Alice and Bob are still able to play the content
> as long as Dave gives permission to apply DRM.
> But if Dave retracts his permission, anti-TPM prevents
> dave from being the sole source provider of Free content
> on the platform. No one can distribute DRM enabled
> versions of content for one hardware platform and parallel
> distribute an open format for some other platform, like a PC.
> If Dave is an asshole and prohibits anyone from applying
> DRM to his platform, then the DMCA will allow him to
> enforce that, and no amount of CC licenseing can do anything
> about it. But at least if Dave does do this, then he is
> prevented from charging everyone for copies of Free works
> through a DRM channel.

all the best,

(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list