Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

That may be what they think, but I wouldn't say it is
universally accepted. I see DRM as an anhilation of
Fair Use first and foremost, and annhilation of
competition secondly. Beyond that, all media?
Don't know about that.

In any event, the point remains that the "No DRM"
approach views DRM as an unfair split, and uses
the license to reject DRM out of hand.

Whether the split is 99-1 or 90-10, it doesn't matter
really in understanding the motives of the license.
The simple point is that "No DRM" views it as an
unfair split. The main question is whether viewing
DRM as an unfair split means it should be rejected,
or whether it should be viewed as "anything is better
than nothing", and allow DRM.



> Greg wrote:
>
>> The "no DRM allowed at all" licenses seem to be saying upfront that any
>> attempt to perform
>
> I'd suggest that the no DRM allowed people recognise that DRM is a
> zero sum game, that can have one possible outcome --- the annihilation
> of all media.
>
> By prohibiting any DRM technology, they are fighting to preserve
> something, despite the best effort of the DRM advocates to destroy all
> media, in all formats.
>
> xan
>
> jonathon
> --
> Ethical conduct is a vice.
> Corrupt conduct is a virtue.
>
> Motto of Nacarima.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>


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