[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

rob at robmyers.org rob at robmyers.org
Mon Oct 2 10:09:07 EDT 2006


Quoting MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop>:

> 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 not a case of format bans. DRM can be contained within existing file
formats, Apple's use of MP4 is a good example of this. We are not discussing
banning MP4. Rather we are discussing how data stored in various file formats
affects the file legally.

If GPL-3 style obviating of DMCA law was possible, I would find DRM 
acceptible.
This despite the fact that the file format or its contents is unchanged.

> DRM-banning clauses are an attempt to use law to outlaw code.

DRM is law, not code. And it is law that outlaws code, ask Skyralov. The GPL-3
demonstrates how TPM code can be written without the effects of TPM law. I
think we both agree that this would be a good way of tackling the issue.

> 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.

The immediate effect of dual distribution, properly managed, is to 
resemble our
standards for sharing. Unless the distributor doesn't do a Zune version 
and you
are unwilling to buy an iPod. But after that first moment it either burdens
downstream producers in a way that providing source does not (I need source to
edit chmod, I do not need source to mash-up an OGG track), is irrelevent (if
people can edit and redistribute non-DRM version they do not need to receive a
DRM version), or is legally impossible (if they are not an author they cannot
add DRM). This is quite aside from the network effects Greg identifies.

- Rob.




More information about the cc-licenses mailing list