[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

MJ Ray mjr at phonecoop.coop
Sun Oct 1 16:37:39 EDT 2006


[Apologies for the lag, I was leafletting against DRM at an Apple Store 
and replying to some of the members of this list on debian-legal.]

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday 28 September 2006 10:36 am, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Greg London wrote:
> > > So, what you have yet to make clear here, is if DRM Dave can
> > > use DRM to become the sole source of a work that plays on
> > > some DRM platform. If the solution is "parallel distribution",
> > > but the DMCA says only Dave can circumvent his DRM, then
> > > does not that mean that Alice cannot provide the exact same
> > > work in DRM-friendly format for the DRM platform?
> >
> > No.  Use of the free format does not require circumvention, so would not
> > be limited by the DMCA saying only Dave can circumvent his DRM.
> > Parallel distribution is one format staying out of DRM: a DRM evasion,
> > which is not circumvention, as far as I know.
>
> The only way I can see you putting this as an argument to what Greg says is if 
> you intend it to mean that the parallel version distributed must be playable 
> on the same platform. Is that what you are saying?

No, nor do I see why that would be the only way the parallel version 
would be useful to Dave's prey.

> > I do not see why you think this would not be copyleft: all copies give
> > recipients the same freedoms to the work.  Some just have duplicated
> > information that makes them easier to use for some people.
>
> He thinks this because in the situation he is putting forth. the other 
> versions will not play on the player. Do you intend to insist in the parallel 
> distribution language that the parallel version must be playable on the same 
> player?

See above, as well as previous messages where I have suggested adopting 
the Scottish licence's TPM language.

> [...] If Dave makes a platform that only plays DRM protected 
> files and only he or selected "friends" are able to put the DRM on files, how 
> is that to be handled?

Maybe through adding conditions that Dave can meet but hinders his 
business model, but mainly through using anti-cartel laws.  I believe 
that has been done in other situations to force monopolist broadcasters 
to provide non-discriminatory encoding access to their platforms.

Copyright licences are not a panacea.  I feel that using copyright 
licences to try to enforce private law changes - like outlawing 
potential cartels enabled by other parts of copyright law - is almost 
always a dumb idea that tends to cause 'friendly fire' damage, 
discriminating against some friends as well as some enemies.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list