Development of Creative Commons licenses

[mjr AT phonecoop.coop (MJ Ray)]

rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop>:
> > I suggest replacing 'restrict' in each TPM-ban clause with
> > 'have the intent or effect of restricting'.
> >
> > This language is already used in CC licensing (Scotland) and it is 
> > believed to permit copying to TPM media/format along with a non-TPM 
> > at-least-as-good copy.
> 
> Do you have a link for the discussion document for that? It's interesting 
> but
> I'm not sure I understand the difference in wording.

It's in the comments on 2.1.d in the draft at 
http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/cc/cc_sco_licence.html

> Would the at-least-as-good version have to be distributed bundled with the
> DRM-ed one, or could it be made available separately? This might have
> implications for streaming media.

I think it should be bundled, but I don't know the expert opinion on 
that.  I think that would make streaming TPM-d media more expensive
and that's entirely just.

> > If format-ban clauses become common, it
> > will obviously limit various uses and remixes.
> 
> A Microsoft content license that locks content to Office formats (for 
> example)
> would obviously be very bad. But DRM is not a format, it can easily be used
> inside other existing formats. And support for DRM will prevent many more 
> uses
> and remixes; this is the basic sales pitch for DRM.

TPM is a whole class of formats.  How is it different to say 
TPM-extended formats from Office-extended formats?   You don't have 
to use the Office extensions, of course, but why should the licence
forbid you from doing so?

Anyway, I'm not asking for support for TPM.  I'm asking for permission 
only when the use is redundant.

> > Such things should not
> > be in the most permissive CC licence.
> 
> Possibly. The only right reserved when BY work is used is the right of
> attribution. But you do need to be able to distribute untransformed 
> versions.

Agreed.

> > If there is no general agreement to allow non-restricting TPM in
> > general, the TPM-ban clauses should be made optional.
> 
> What in particular do you mean by non-restricting TPM? Like locking 
> something to an iPod?

Maybe.  I'm not familiar with iPod locking.

> The Scottish language and circumvention might be a good combination for 
> handling
> DRM. This would make it basically irrelevent rather than opposing or 
> supporting it.

Yes, I'd love to make DRM irrelevant.  DRM can be used to pervert many 
things.  It would be nice to at least have the option of getting our own 
back on DRM supporters.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray - see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
North End, Lynn, Norfolk, England
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request