Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 12 August 2006 06:15 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > The question is really where our control point is. Creative Commons, and
> > this mailing list, don't have direct control over what types of DRM are
> > created, what computers, portable devices, and entertainment centres
> > people buy. Creative Commons does have control over the terms of the
> > licenses.
>
> If this piece of the license
>
> : You may not impose any technological measures on
> : the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient
> : of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted
> : to them under the License.4
>
> can be tweaked to enforce the principle that a user
> playing a DRM work on a DRM-only player does not restrict
> the users ability to copy, distribute, or
> create derivative works, >>>of that very same work<<<,
>
> >>>on that very same player<<<, then CC actually CAN
>
> control the problem.
>
> If DRM-Dave has a company that makes DRM players,
> and Dave goes out and converts some ShareAlike work
> to be DRM'ed so it plays on his hardware, then Dave
> must do so in such a way that Share-Alike-Sam can
> copy, distribute, and create derivative works, of
> that same work, on that same piece of hardware.
>
> Which means Dave does not get an advantage for pulling
> a ShareAlike project behind DRM doors.
>
> The only way I see this being a problem is if the
> player hardware is DRM-only and the company refuses
> to allow anyone to convert a ShareAlike work to
> play on the hardware, via DMCA and such.
>
> But if the company is this strict, then that means
> they WANT to be the sole source of the ShareAlike
> work on their hardware if they could. 

Or to get paid a heafty license fee (even a percentage) by any one wanting to 
do so?

> If they're 
> not this restrictive, then they'll likely have a
> way to play non-DRM files on their player.
>
> If a company is allowed to pull a work into DRM,
> and not allow people to copy, distribute, and
> create derivatives of that work on that DRM
> hardware, then you're allowing proprietary forks
> through technical measures.
>
> The ONLY argument I've heard so far to ALLOW this
> is because if a company wants to maintain an advantage,
> if they want to be the sole source for copies of the
> work on their hardware, then you're saying let them
> have the advantage so we can at least play the works
> on our hardware.

So, why can't we put in a clause allowing unrelated parties to do this, but 
not those making such players?
>
> But you're ignoring the loophole you've created.
>
> Let Microsoft create an derivative of Linux and
> distribute an executable so at least we can run
> our Linux apps on Microsoft. It's OK if they
> dont' distribute source code of the executable
> because it's more important that we be able to
> run Linux applications inside MS-Windows.
>
> If Microsoft wont play inside of copyleft,
> then letting the work go outside of copyleft
> so Microsoft will use the work, sort of
> defeats the whole purpose of copyleft.
>
> I'm not "politicizing" the license, trying to
> "fight DRM" with the license. This loophole
> creates a vulnerability that a Gift Economy
> project may not be able to afford.
>
> Saying a company can't use DRM to take a SA
> work private is no more political than saying
> Microsoft can't distribute an executable
> built with Linux software without distributing
> the source code.
>
> I'm not fighting Microsoft or proprietary software
> by advocating a copyleft license. I'm saying you
> need copyleft to protect the Gift Economy.
>
> And I'm not "Fighting DRM" wtih the license by
> saying a company can't use DRM to take a work
> private, I'm saying allowing a company to take
> a work private and hide it behind DRM is as much
> a potential threat to a Gift Economy project
> as a proprietary fork.
>
> You're leaving a barn door open by allowing
> DRM to be used to take a work private. Unless
> people can exercise all rights of the work
> on the hardware platform in question, then
> it is a potential loophole that could be
> exploited against the Gift Economy project.
>
> And since the Gift Economy project specifically
> chose ShareAlike to be protected from exploits,
> it seems irresponsible to leave a known exploit
> in the license.
>
> Otherwise, we might as well lobby to have the
> next version of GPL allow microsoft to make
> proprietary forks of GPL'ed software on the
> argument that it will be more convenient for
> some users who use Microsoft software, even
> though it could then easily kill the Gift
> Economy project that created the GPL software
> in the first place.
>
> Greg

all the best,

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