[cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 2 20:01:30 EDT 2006
The summary idea might be nice, but the problem with it is that there are
still points that haven't been replied to. Some after repeated requests. How
can we sum up when we are still in the middle of conversations?
One thing though. Are we trying to win for our point of view, or are we trying
to find the right path?
On Monday 02 October 2006 12:27 pm, Paul Keller wrote:
> dear all,
> i do not know if i am the only one who has problems following the
> discussion on this list. basically there are very few people who are
> posting extremely frequently. for anybody who is not able to
> constantly follow this discussion it is almost impossible to follow
> it. i think this is a pity as the subject (the public discussion of
> 3.0) seems to warrant as broad participation as possible. also i
> doubt if the level of detail that the discussion has reached by now
> is really appropriate in order yo debate the merits of a clause in a
> generic license that is intended for use on a wide range of cultural
> for the sake of this discussion i would suggest that people should
> stop posting multiple posts one day and limit themselves to one post
> per 24 hours. it might be a good idea if those who have been actively
> involved in the discussion so far sum up their position in their next
> post so that people who have bailed out can get an overview of where
> this discussion actually stands. i think this is only fair as i
> belive the public discussion period for 3.0 is about to come to an
> end around this time (or am i mistaken here mia?).
> again this is a suggestion only (i obviously do not have the powers
> to enforce tis anyway) but i think this is more or less the only way
> to try to somehow get this discussion to an end that is not
> determined by exhaustion of those who discuss.
> all the best from amsterdam,
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Greg London wrote:
> > If you have some CC-SA project and you
> > allow DRM-Dave to be sole source supplier
> > of that CC-SA content on his hardware player.
> > And if DRM Dave uses DRM and DMCA to
> > make sure no one can get content to his
> > player unless they pay him for every copy:
> > Then your CC-SA project is equivalent
> > to a team that designed a Free ink Cartridge,
> > and you have decided to allow DRM-Dave
> > to take your design, apply DRM to it, put
> > hardware in his printer that detects the DRM,
> > and causes the printer to refuse to operate
> > unless the ink came from Dave.
> > This is what I mean by platform monopoly.
> > Dave becomes sole source for ink or for
> > content for his hardware platform.
> > And he uses DRM and DMCA to enforce this.
> > If Dave applies DRM to the content so that
> > it is transpararent and does not affect the
> > rights to that instance of the work,
> > If Alice can buy that DRM content from Dave
> > and then turn around and give it free to Bob
> > because the DRM doesn't prevent it,
> > then fine, DRM is transparent and the rights
> > to all instances of the work are not restricted.
> > If Dave uses DRM to restrict access to the
> > content, so that he can sell Alice a copy for
> > fifty dollars, and Alice is unable to share that
> > copy with Bob, and Bob must buy a copy from
> > Dave for fifty dollars, then you have a platform
> > monopoly.
> > Congratulations.
> > You've allowed your Free printer ink cartridge design
> > to be used in a completely non-Free way.
> > And your parallel copies do nothing to prevent this
> > platform monoply.
> > While copyright doesn't extend to the design of
> > mechanical parts for printers, the metaphor is the
> > same. Except in the case of copyrightable content,
> > you can actually use a copyright license to prevent
> > a platform monopoly. Anti-TPM does that. You can
> > allow TPM as long as its transparent, but if TPM
> > restricts the rights to the DRM-ENabled version of
> > the work, then it's a monopoly, and is not Free.
> > Greg
all the best,
(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses