Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

> On Sat, 2006-12-08 at 18:15 -0400, Greg London
>> 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.
>
> You make the mistake of assuming that it's Dave who
> wants to convert the ShareAlike work. It could very
> well be a well-meaning redistributor --OpSound, the
> Internet Archive, Google Video -- wishing to comply with
> the terms of the license, yet also to reach a broad audience.

And you make the mistake of opening the door for OpSound,
without acknowledging that you also open it for DRM-Dave.
There is no way to allow one and prevent the other.
They are identical in behaviour, so the license cannot
differentiate between them.

> I love Creative Commons licensed media. I really do.
> But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the
> entertainment industry is drooling to put Free Content
> onto their DRM-encumbered media players, held back only
> by the noble powers of the anti-DRM clause. Sony has a
> huge catalogue of music, video, and games -- they do not
> in any way need or want our Free Content.

You might as well argue this:
: lets not fool ourselves into thinking that
: EvilMicrosoftCorporation is drooling to put FLOSS software
: into their proprietary operating system, held back only
: by the noble powers of Copyleft.

You're arguing the equivalent of dropping copyleft to
allow some Mom-And-Pop-Company to create proprietary
forks, to make it more popular, while completely ignoring
that you've exposed the Gift Economy from the very
threat that caused them to adopy Copyleft in the first place.

> The people who will want or need to distribute works through
> DRM-entangled channels will not be villains -- they will be friends of
> Free Content, trying to share with others. Let's not demonize them.

Yes, friends, not to be demonized. Sure.
But the barn door you open cannot distinguish intent.
It cannot allow the behaviour to friends and prohibit
the exact same behaviour to not so friendly people.

So while Microsoft and Sony may not be interested,
some slightly smaller operator might be, and they
might not be so "friendly". And since the license
cannot determine intent, it would allow them through
the door.

>> 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.
>
> So, I'm confused why it has to be possible to copy on the particular
> hardware or platform. Typically, that's not in the distributor's
> control, but the hardware manufacturer's.

If the hardware platform cannot copy -at all-,
then it needn't support copying for the FLOSS version.

If an iPod can't copy Sony's All Rights Reserved music,
then the player doesn't have to magically be able to
copy FLOSS music.

But if the iPod -CAN- copy ARR music, then DRM must not
prevent someone from copying FLOSS music.

And in either case, anyone must have the capability to
create a derivative of the work that can play on the hardware.
Technical measures cannot be used to make someone the
sole source of FLOSS works on the hardware platform.
I don't want Apple or some MinorEvilMinion Corporation
to be able to use DRM, the DMCA, and a gaping hole in
the license, to set themselves up as the the sole source
to get versions of FLOSS works that will play on some
DRM platform.

I don't have a problem with them charging money for
the FLOSS works, but I do have a problem if they're
charging money and they're the only way the community
can get their works on the player.

Which means DRM cannot be used to restrict the exercise
of rights ON THAT PLAYER. If MinorEvilMinion Corp
creates a derivative that plays on the platform,
then DRM, technical measures, and the DMCA, cannot be
used to prevent the community from following suit.

If the community is prevented from exercising those
rights on that same hardware platform, then MEM Corp
just got themselves a monopoly on the work for that
platform. And the license failed to protect the
FLOSS community.









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

Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War
http://www.somerightsreserved.org