Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 14 Apr 2006, at 19:15, Greg London wrote:

> However, given that, it seems that the "no DRM at all"
> variations are attempting to make a strategic move
> in game theory sense. By prohibiting any DRM, it would
> seem they are trying to force folks who use DRM to
> suffer some consequences and drop it or have non-DRM
> options available.

They are a response to the strategic move by DRM advocates. We  
already suffer consequences from using DRM (DRM is a significant cost  
for artists and consumers), anti-DRM clauses are designed to remove  
those consequences (although obviously they do have their own side- 
effects).

> It's unlikely that we'll see DRM go away without
> congress enforcing it or the supreme court ruling
> it to be illegal.

Certainly the market will not be allowed to decide whether consumers  
want DRM or not if the DRM vendors have their way.

> However, it *might* be possible that were
> "no DRM at all" works to get popular enough,
> that DRM platforms *might* consider building
> in a Non-DRM option.

This is why it is important for "Open Content" to not capitulate to  
DRM at this moment. Even to stupid attempts at feelgood DRM like Sun's:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/14/how_suns_open_drm_do.html

> i.e. PDA bookreaders and
> playstations and the like might be built such
> that content *can* be transferred without DRM.

The problem is that if readers and playstations can ignore DRM they  
are just piracy machines and can be used to kill puppies. Or something.

- Rob.