[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 2 15:42:15 EDT 2006


On Monday 02 October 2006 01:01 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >  So what is the problem with parallel distribution if anyone can apply
> >  the DRM? But no DRM distribution if only restricted someones can
> >  apply the DRM?
>
> Essentially the problem is that it's only DRM precisely because the
> licensor doesn't allow that freedom (i.e. if you do, it's only
> "encryption"; not protected by the DMCA; and not a subject of these
> license terms).

How so? Are you maintaining that DRM is only DRM when only select peoplr can 
protect their works? I may just be being dense here, but I don't see that.
>
> So, indeed, all the platform-owner apparently has to do is say "Okay, my
> DRM isn't a DRM anymore", and everything is sunshine and butterflies (no
> license changes required).

OK, here is one I don't think I have seen and I hope I did not post this 
morning:

What if DRM -Dave gives a key to apply DRM to Debian and debian promises to 
apply the DRM to any Free (libfe) works that anyone passes to them for free 
(gratis). Further debian promises not to apply DRM to any non-Free works.

Now DRM-Dave can still charge whatever he wants to put DRM on the content of 
those who keep their content non-Free and the Free boys can apply DRM so 
their content can play on DRM-Dave's player with no hinderance.

Write that up in the necessary clauses and....

>
> But they're not going to do that, so it's all kind of moot.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

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