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

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Oct 1 21:59:47 EDT 2006


On Sunday 01 October 2006 09:26 pm, Nic Suzor wrote:
> On 10/2/06, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > Why should we get into costs? I have some of my BY-SA works that are only
> > available if you pay me.
>
> no problem with me, lets keep costs out of this.
>
> > > It may be undesirable to have a monopolistic restrictive commercial
> > > provider of portable music players, but I am not convinced that we
> > > should fight this with copyright licences over the content. The CC
> > > licences protect freedoms in the content, they're not tools for
> > > fighting monopolies (or at least, the public perception of them
> > > doesn't seem to be). If Bob becomes frustrated that he can't remix
> > > Sam's music and upload it to Dave's player, he should be able to
> > > manifest demand for a competitive product, a player which can play
> > > both DRM-music and open music. The content is not less free.
> > > Restricting Dave from distributing Sam's music doesn't hurt Dave so
> > > much as it hurts Sam and Bob.
> >
> > Thanks but no thanks. I will be the one choosing to "hurt" myself in this
> > manner and why should you stop me?
>
> I have no reason to stop you - you can license however you like. But
> the decision that CC makes here will affect how a lot of people
> licence, and I'd like that to be clear.

That is very clear, at least to me and it seems to you. I can't speak for 
tohers.
>
> > Can you provide us some links to your actual released BY-SA works? Here
> > is where you can find some of mine:
>
> I'm a writer, not a muso. I'm talking in terms of music because that's
> the language of the discussion so far. You can find my licensed works
> (articles and photographs) at http://nic.suzor.com/. I'm not sure this
> is relevant to the discussion.

It is only relevant as I wanted to see if you were speaking as an actual 
stakeholder in BY-SA or as someone who never had any intentions of releasing 
any of your own works under a Free license but wanted to tell me about what I 
should think.
>
> > > He may be making money off it, but I didn't select the NC
> > > option. The only way to listen to my song on Dave's player may be to
> > > pay Dave for the privilege, but I didn't select the NC option.
> > > Listening to my song on Dave's player is not the only way to listen to
> > > (or remix) my song. People can still get and play with my song. Some
> > > of those people may choose to pay Dave to use his player, but that's
> > > not really my concern. If I wanted to stop people from making money
> > > from my song, I would have selected the NC option.
> >
> > Well, it is my concern. I am not concerned with stopping him from making
> > money, I am concerned with him stopping me from making it. YMMV.
>
> So now we're down to personal preferences. 

Let me be clear. When I speak of my desires for BY released works, it is 
mostly down to personal preferences. When it is BY-SA it is more principles. 
And for the record, it seems to me that you were the one to state that Dave's 
monopoly position was not your concern.

> I, for example, would be 
> happy for a game publisher to use my BY-SA photos in a game, with the
> result that the game has to be released under BY-SA, even if the
> version sold in the shops is the only one that will play on, for
> example, the PS2. As long as the whole is avialable in a format I can
> dissect and reuse (on another platform), I'm not convinced it's a
> problem. I don't know whether this means I need access to the media on
> a lower level (i.e., preferred editing format), but that's another
> issue.

Would you be more concerned if all players were closed in this way? All 
affordable players? All players available off the shelf?
>
> Similarly, I'd be happy to have my articles distributed for reading on
> a proprietary platform, as long as I'm confident that my readers will
> still be able to find the clear-text versions.
>
> I'm not in the position where I'm going to be trying to compete with
> Sony for producings games that run on the PS2. 

That being the case, and it is pretty much the case for me... Why does Sony 
feel the need to have the DRM advantage over me as well as the monetary 
advantage?

> I'd love to see a free 
> software project make and produce a PS2 game using free software and
> content, even if it requires them to pay Sony to sign it in order to
> obtain commercial release. I know Mia says that this is a non-existent
> demographic, but I don't think that we should lock it out before any
> possibiliy of it arising.

Well now, can the project pay for a signing key and sign anyone's game? Or 
will there be some serious contract restricting this?
>
> I'm not supportive of DRM, but I'm not convinced that my copyright
> licences are the best way to fight it. 

I may not be convinced either, but I am more than willing to explore the 
possibilities.

> It would be a shame if you 
> couldn't compete on a platform which has overwhelming market-share,
> but I think that's a competition issue, not a licensing one.
>
> How do we reach consensus here? 

Do we need a consensus? I mean one would be nice and all as I really don't 
want more license proliferation, but CC seems to like a spectrum of rights.

> If I'm in the minority, and most 
> licensors agree with you, I'd be happy to drop the argument. I just
> think that it is wrong to apporach this from the ideology that we are
> going to change Apple or Sony's minds on DRM because they can't
> package up CC-licensed works. 

See, I think we can. Not in a year or two, but in the long run. I think 
copyleft can give Free Players / Thinkers similar advantages in the Culture 
realm as it does in the Software realm.

> I know that's not what you're saying 
> here,  

That may not be what or all I am saying here, but I think it can help in that 
area in the long run as I say.

> which is why I think we need some way to either (a) achieve 
> clear consensus amongst the community that licensors generally don't
> want their works distributed on DRM-only players, or (b) create an
> option for licensors to decide for themselves (with the increased
> complexity that that would bring).

Or, and why will no one address this, on DRM only players where anyone can 
freely put on the DRM to protect their own works if they wish along with 
parallel distribution in such situations.
>
>
> nic

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