[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

MJ Ray mjr at phonecoop.coop
Mon Oct 2 08:26:53 EDT 2006

drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 01 October 2006 04:37 pm, you wrote:
> > drew Roberts wrote: [...]
> > > 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?

It gives them - and, more importantly, those they distribute to - a 
mutable copy.

I find it somewhat strange that my arguments about DRM-required players 
are dismissed by some pro-format-banners because we can't hold one up 
yet, but other pro-format-banners are using them to argue against me, 
apparently unchallenged.

> > > [...] 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 do not know what CC's purpose is and I've been wondering for some 
time.  Where are CC's governing documents?

> > 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.

I'm not against copyleft.  Copyleft is a type of copyright compromise, 
that anyone can have permission if they meet certain standards when 
using that permission.  It uses law to regulate actions, not code.

DRM-banning clauses are an attempt to use law to outlaw code.  It uses 
one copyright law in an attempt to deny that another law was passed.  
Outright DRM-banning is as flawed and dangerous to freedom as the laws 
that prop up technically weak DRM technology, or global patent "poison 
pill" clauses - it's repeating their mistake of laws about particular 
technologies.  We should not make special cases of denying each type of 
bad law as it is passed.  We should fight smarter.  The best approach is 
to negate DRM through requiring people to meet our standards for sharing 
in some way.  I believe the Scottish clause does that.

MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list