[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 2 09:05:28 EDT 2006

On Monday 02 October 2006 08:26 am, you wrote:
> 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.

And what does it give me, the author of the work? The obligation to pay others 
for the right to listen to my own works? Perhaps even to have to pay per play 
to listen to my own works.
> 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.

This is indeed a problem and I find it being done on both sides of this 
discussion. I posted about this to the list already.
> > > > [...] 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?

Well, if CC is going to effectively get proper laws passed and enforced, 
great. It seems to me though that the GPL took it that getting proper reforms 
in law was going to be tough and long and that a little legal jiu jitsu is in 
order. I do not see why we should limit ourselves to not using this in the CC 
> > > 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.

I either don't buy this yet or don't understand what you are saying yet.
> 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.

Not ot deny it was passed, to negate its worst effects. Sort of like what the 
GPL does. I am not seeing your distinction.

> 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.  

Who is banning DRM? CC cannot do that. That would take the passage of laws. If 
implemented, we would just be refusing to grant no-cost copyright licenses to 
those wanting to implement it on our content.

> 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.

Please explain point by point.
> Regards,

all the best,

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

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list