Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <teloscorbin AT gmail.com>]

On 8/15/06, Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se> wrote:
> The expression "a recipient of the Work from You to exercise their rights
> granted under the License", to me implies that a down-the-chain licensee
> who implements DRM, cannot prevent the
> users of _his_ version of the work from circumventing the DRM. He has
> violated the terms of the license by implementing the DRM. But that does not
> terminate license further down the chain. Those further down the chain can
> point to the locution mentioned above and use that as an excuse for
> circumventing the DRM implemented further up in the chain.

If DRM Dave distributes a FLOSS work on some DRM that prohibits
the user from exercising some rights, then Dave has violated that
part of the license. But that is not the same as "authorizing circumvention"
of the DRM tool. I think the DMCA is specific enough in making
circumvention illegal without authorization that relying on this
interpretation of the license is taking a needless risk that a future
court case will find for  your interpretation.

It might be similar to having an agreement for a deeded rights
to a shared driveway, and just because you have deeded rights
does not give you authorization for hiring a locksmith to unlock
your neighbors car, start the engine, and move it out of your way.
Maybe it would. But maybe it wouldn't.

Especially if DRM Dave claimed circumventing his DRM technology
caused him some sort of indirect harm, (it gave his DRM a bad rap,
made it look weak, and cut sales, or something) I'd be concerned
that the courts might find strict authorization was not given.

Sneetches with Stars on the Bellies
Sneetches with No Stars on Thars
What's wikipedia to do?
http://www.somerightsreserved.org