[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 2 07:35:35 EDT 2006


On Sunday 01 October 2006 04:37 pm, you wrote:
> [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.

Well, when Dave and Don and Dan make the only players available on the market 
and all of them play DRM only files, how exactly does parallel distribution 
help?
>
> > > 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.  

Ahn now we are getting somewhere. See, is it now CC's purpose to organize and 
lobby for sane copyright laws? I was unaware of that.

1. ARR copyrights last for 14 years then go to copyleft.
2. Copyleft copyrights last for X.
3. In the absence of a copyright notice, all works get an automatic copyleft.
4. To obtain an ARR copyright, you must register your work, pay a fee and 
deposit a copy that is in an unencumbered format.
5. The copyright office must maintain these copies and make them available 
online when in 14 years the works convert to copyleft.
6. The copyright office must maintain a list of all copyrighted (including 
copyleft) works and their current status and all once copyrighted works that 
have passed into the public domain.
7. The copyright office must also make the works that have passed into the 
public domain available online.
8. When making a new derivative of a public domain work, only copyleft is 
available. ARR copyright is only available for completely new works. (OK, 
this might be a bit far.)
9. In a copyright suit, damages must be proved, not statutory.
10. ...

I could go on. (These are off the top of my head. Open to discussion and 
modification.)

> 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 - 

So, you are against copyleft - all rights reversed? If the implication of what 
you say immediately above is that, we may be too far apart to come to 
agreement in any small timeframe. If it does not go that far, please explain 
to me exactly why.

> 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,

Perhaps.

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