Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Saturday 15 April 2006 10:41 pm, Greg London wrote:
> 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, ?
> Don't know about that.

Greg,

first let me say that I really appreciate you bringing the experiment to the 
table/discussion.

Now, for some more food for thought concerning the anhilation of all media:

People will naturally need to speak for themselves, but one idea that might 
be 
bouncing around in the back of people's minds is that with never expiring 
copyrights, it could be possible for the big media "amassers" to effectively 
block the publishing of any works that they do not effectively own or approve 
of.

With a large enough database of work which they control they surely will be 
able to find enough of a copyright "violation" of one of their existing works 
on the part of a new work to bring a suit that will not get thrown out on its 
face. At which point, their big money lawyers gunning for your small money 
lawyer may not be where you want to be.

Just to refresh everyone's memory:

George Harrison was found to have engaged in "subconscious plagiarism" in a 
cour case.

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22my+sweet+lord%22+%22this+song%22&spell=1

It may be a stretch, but things seem to be getting stretched quite far quite 
often these days.
>
> 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

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145