Development of Creative Commons licenses

[email AT greglondon.com]

So, I'm still confused as to what the problem is around
the DRM clause. I assume we're talking about this sentence:

: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform,
: or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
: measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner
: inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.

CC licenses are "atomic" to the work, unlike the GPL, which
has 'binary' + 'source' molecules. The GPL says if you
distribute a binary, you must distribute the source, and you
can't hide the source behind some DRM control feature.

That sort of relationship doesn't exist with CC works or licenses.
The work is atomic and the license is bound to it.
There is no separation of the work versus the source.
If I distribute some version of a CC-BY work and I meet the
requirements for attribution, notices, and license information
intact, then I've met the requirements of the license.

There is no "source" or any other component of the work
that I have to distribute, so there is nothing to "hide"
behind a DRM control feature.

Nor does the CC-BY license say anything about having to
distribute the work to anyone who wants it. If I distribute
it to Bob and Bob alone, Alice has no legal recourse to
demand that I send her a copy as well. And thats a good thing,
having looked at my bandwidth bill for hosting lately,
I've switched to a cheaper host company.

Since CC-BY allows me to send a copy of the work to just
Bob, there isn't any reason why I can't use a massive one-time
pad and send Bob a copy that is infinitely secure. Alice
be damned at this point. I am not required to support the
bandwidth to send her a copy.

Now, given that, the only requirement that I can see
that needs be in teh license is already there:
Namely that Bob can take the CC-BY work that I sent
him via DRM, take it, turn around and give a DRM-free
copy to Alice. I cannot use DRM to impose any restrictions
on the copy of the work that BOB has. I can still keep
my copy behind a firewall and charge $50 for a one-time key.
But Bob must be able to take his copy and use it freely
under the CC-BY license.

This seems to already be guaranteed by the current
wording of the license:

: you may not distribute the work with
: any technological measures that control access of the
: Work in a manner inconsistent with this license.

As long as Bob can treat his copy like a CC-BY work
and do whatever he wants with the work under that
license, and none of my technological restrictions
affect that, then everything is Fonzi.

The DRM clause is important for the GPL because I
could give Bob an executable and the DRM clause says
I can't put the source code behind any sort of restriction.
But this is splitting the molecule into binary and source.

There is no such molecule in CC-BY works.
There is an atomic relationship between CC-BY and the license.
As long as the license is satisfied, there is nothing
that demands I make my copy freely available,
only that I cannot use DRM to put restrictions on Bob's
copy of the work once he downloads it.


Greg London
--
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP law
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/