Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <christian AT fluendo.com>]

hi Nicolas and others,

I haven't read all the discussions about this, so maybe I missed some
important point. From my standpoint, coming from a free software
background where we have much longer experience with how these kind of
licensed work out, your reading of the DRM clause seems to one where you
describe a small rock as a big mountain. First of all if DRM where
allowed in general you could have people applying things like Apple
Fairplay or Microsoft PlayforSure DRM onto the songs making the CC
license not worth the bit's their compromised of.

Secondly, your examples are rather construed in most cases. I would
assume that CC licenses should be interpreted in the same manner as the
GPL, where it is the recipients of the content who's rights to the
material is to protected. The GPL and I assume all CC licenses doesn't
imply that if you send the song to one person then you are suddenly
legally required to send it to anyone in the world who wants it. So
wether the content is distributed on a encrypted network or not doesn't
matter as long as the person receiving the content on the encrypted
network doesn't have her rights under the CC licensed diminished. So
claiming that using a encrypted WiFi network would violate the clause is
rather far fetched IMHO.

But if that local cable provider of yours have a system on their
decoders that makes it impossible to record the police fundraiser, 
yes that would violate the CC license, but it wouldn't really put
CC'ed music at an disadvantage compared to standard all rights reserved
music. It would still give CC music an advantage as it got into the
hands of these people without hassle, and the standard systems they have
for negotiating song rights for their shows can still be used. 

Your arguments are very similar to the ones used by people who claimed
to free software had to be BSD licensed instead of GPL licensed to be
commercially successful. Yet today we see that in the end the GPL
licensed Linux kernel is a huge commercial success while the BSD
licensed kernels are struggling to get any traction in the market.
Looking back now it seems clear that the strongest advocates of BSD
licensing where those who wanted to abuse the system.

Christian


On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 16:26 -0500, Sincaglia, Nicolas wrote:
> I am not pro DRM but many broadcast and distribution systems have
> encryption inherent in their designs. The encryption is many times there
> for security reasons.(wi-fi might be an example. You might want to
> encrypt your wi-fi signal so that people don't hack your computer
> system).
> 
> The other day I read a story on Lawrence Lessig's blog about Runoff
> Records signing two artists that were discovered on ccMixter. Runoff
> Records will be "doing the next three seasons of America's Next Top
> Model". http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002890.shtml 
> 
> Any music by these artists that appears on this TV show is not going to
> be licensed to this TV show under any CC licenses. They can't. This show
> is going to be distributed by cable and satellite systems that use
> encryption. 
> 
> On one hand this is a success story for the creative commons. Some
> artists were discovered through the use of the CC licenses. That is
> great. Yet at the same time, I see this as a shame. Art under the
> creative commons license can not intermingle on the same digital
> networks as art under standard copyright law of all rights reserved. 
> 
> The creative commons is not against copyright law. And I believe the
> supporters of the creative commons should not be either. Just because
> someone doesn't want to use the CC license and wants to protect their
> creative work, does not mean that they are evil or greedy. We should not
> demonize people for this. It is their work and they should have the
> right to choose the way they want to license it.
> 
> The problem I see with the DRM clause is it is inherent in all of the CC
> licenses. If you choose to use CC license for your creative works, you
> have no choice but to accept this DRM clause. This DRM clause will limit
> promotional and distribution opportunities others may have for your
> work. There is no CC license that does not contain this clause.
> 
> So if I record a song and license it under the CC-BY, I just want people
> to use my music and let others know I wrote and recorded it. Let's say
> someone half way around the world discovers my song and they happen to
> work at a local access cable station. Let's say they would like to use
> my song as background music for their public announcements for the local
> Policeman's fundraiser. Sadly, they can't unless they contact me and
> negotiate a license in which they can broadcast my music on a signal
> that uses encryption. Seems like a lost opportunity for me if they don't
> contact me. I wouldn't mind them using it for that purpose but I can't
> let the world know this, using the current CC licenses.
> 
> Nick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Myers [mailto:robmyers AT mac.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:01 PM
> To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
> Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
> 
> On 19 May 2005, at 20:51, Sincaglia, Nicolas wrote:
> 
> > As I see it, this DRM clause is an obstacle to creating a healthy
> > business ecosystem for the creative community.
> 
> As I see it, maintaining unhealthy business models is an obstacle to  
> a healthy, DRM-free creative ecosystem for the community.
> 
> Allowing DRM-encumbered CC content would be such a backdoor that the  
> licenses would become utterly ineffective.
> 
> Does anyone still use RealMedia anyway? The BBC tried OGG a while  
> back and I think they do MP3 now.
> 
> > How can the independent artist and the independent business  
> > communities
> > come together and compete in a meaningful way against the corporate
> > media machines when we can't even play on the same playing fields?
> 
> Fetishising the toys of the "corporate media machines"' protectionist  
> technology certainly won't level the playing field.
> 
> Keep the DRM clause. Lose the over-priced, under-featured, anti- 
> consumer technology.
> 
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
-- 
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
Business Development Manager
Fluendo S.L.
Mobile Phone: +34 678093464
Office Phone: +34 933175153
Fax         : +34 936002310