Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

I must be dense, because as far as I can tell, the delivery
method is irrelevant. Why does it matter if someone delivers
content via Real or similar if the recipient ends up with
a copy that is CC licensed? Does Real prevent the recipient
from getting a file that is usable outside of Real?
I'm a simple asic designer and web stuff confuses me.

And just to play devil's advocate, do CC licenses dictate
that if Alice writes a screenplay licensed CC-BY,
that when Bob puts on a performance then he must allow
folks to videotape the performance and license the
performance CC-BY?

Could Bob use DRM on Alice's CC-BY work to transmit
Alice's work only for viewing but not for downloading?
Since CC-BY allows proprietary forks, allowing DRM
on such a fork seems natural.

For CC-SA works, it would be important that the DRM
not be used for "viewing only", allowing Bob to hide
the content behind rights management as a means to
use a CC-SA work but not give viewers a CC-SA work.

But for all CC licenses that allow proprietary forks,
use of DRM seems to be in accordance with the license.

I can't remember if this DRM discussion was talking
about all CC licenses or strictly about the CC-SA license.

Greg

--
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/


> On Wednesday 25 May 2005 12:58 am, you wrote:
>> It's important as a matter of practicality and efficiency.
>>
>> If a licensee has an exclusive agreement with Real, etc. which requires
>> use
>> of only encumbered media, then, according to the CC license, that
>> licensee
>> would not be able to use the work in question (under the CC license).
>>
>> In order to accommodate this, I proposed an out - i.e., if an exclusive
>> deal exists, then that would be an exception.  I would raise this to the
>> level of "important" in anticipation (a hunch)  that there are/will be a
>> significant amount of encumbered media which would otherwise not be able
>> to
>> use works per the CC license at issue.  If my hunch is wrong, fine, then
>> the argument drops out.  If my hunch is right, then the CC license
>> should
>> address it and try to work around this as much as possible - in order to
>> remain inclusive.
>
> Let's assume they are streaming audio (music) in real format for a second.
> (As
> in a radio station or whatever.) They must be streaming something as they
> have an existing exclusive deal.
>
> The CC licenses, even the NC ones, would not stop them from putting our CC
> licensed work in their streams. They just opt to use the statutory license
> instead of the CC license and away they go.
>>
>> Re abuse, it really becomes a factual matter (which, ultimately, would
>> need
>> to be decided by a third party - e.g., a court).  The question would be
>> simply whether, at the time of the use, the licensee was subject to an
>> agreement which required them to exclusively use a certain media (e.g.,
>> Real) to the exclusion of all other media.  As a practical matter, would
>> something like this be litigated? - doubtful.  This, therefore, could
>> increase likelihood of abuse (as you suggest).    Then again, the same
>> could be said of other portions of the CC license.  The risk of abuse,
>> IMO,
>> is outweighed by the benefit of encouraging CC licensing involving
>> encumbered media.
>
> So, you have sort of addressed the first point, but not given any
> suggestions/ideas as to how you might word such an idea to help prevent
> abuse.
>
> Here is my new company:
>
> CC Avoidance Inc.
>
> Don't wan't to abide by the DRM clause in CC licenses? Come to us for full
> service avoidance packages. We can sign you up to an exclusive deal to use
> DRM schemes in a wide variety of formats and with a wide variety of
> options
> so thet you can take advantage of the exclusive deal exception in the CC
> licenses. Our rates are the best in town.
>
>
> Christian said it well:
>
> "Either we believe that the idea of CC is strong enough to
> make the world around it change, like open source software have, or we
> don't."
>
> One of my goals with CC is to (like the GPL's goal) build a (community)
> body
> of work (I don't expect I can create that much all on my own) that is so
> enticing that people will find it in their economic interests to give up
> non-Free (copyleft) ways of operating in order to take advantage of the
> Free
> (copyleft) pool.
>
> So, I think that, at least for the SA licenses, this exception is a bad
> idea.
> I would rather my works not be used, except for statutory licenses, or
> negotiated licenses, than to let this exception be abused with respect to
> my
> work.
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "drew Roberts" <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
>> To: "Matt Burrows" <mburrows2 AT earthlink.net>; "Discussion on the
>> Creative
>> Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
>>
>> > On Tuesday 24 May 2005 07:47 pm, Matt Burrows wrote:
>> > > I would add to the proposal below, the concept that you are not
>> > > required
>>
>> to
>>
>> > > add the unencumbered version if prohibited by a third party
>> agreement
>>
>> (eg,
>>
>> > > w/ RealMedia) in existence whenever the license is exercised.   This
>>
>> would
>>
>> > > address situations where a licensee has an exclusive deal with a
>> third
>> > > party, such as Real.
>> >
>> > Why exactly do you think this is important, and how might you word it
>> to
>> > prevent abuse?
>> >
>> > all the best,
>> >
>> > drew
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden AT twcny.rr.com>
>> > > Sent: May 24, 2005 3:37 PM
>> > > To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> > > Subject: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
>> > >
>> > > Another thought.  As the DRM clause is currently written, it
>> prohibits
>> > > encumbered distribution (e.g. RealMedia).  If the DRM clause is
>>
>> rewritten
>>
>> > > so that you must provide an unencumbered version alongside every
>>
>> encumbered
>>
>> > > version, it would instead mean that, for instance, if you provided
>> > > RealMedia you would *also* have to provide Ogg.
>> > >
>> > > This might be an easier sell to the proprietary-format shops: "You
>> > > don't have to drop RealMedia, you just have to add this extra
>> format.
>> > > Which
>>
>> is
>>
>> > > free." This is probably a better way of getting a foot in the door,
>>
>> anyway.
>>
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22
>
> --
> http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>