Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
  • Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:39:06 -0700


On Sep 25, 2006, at 3:31 PM, drew Roberts wrote:

<cut>


In a sane world, this would be iTunes problem as they could easily
have a
system which put DRM on some tracks and left if off of others. If
they choose
to put it on tracks where the copyright holder specifically
disallows such
measures or only allows them with a provision of circumvention,
that hsould
be their tough luck.

Where is this thinking flawed? (Other than this is not a sane
world.)

your response assumes that it is iTunes that puts it on the track.

Well, yes, and if that is not the way how this works then my logic
would not
hold. Can anyone confirm how this really works? Does apple really
hand out
the keys to encrypt content to any and everyone, or do they do it
themselves,
or do they only hand out the keys to encrypt under contract? Or do
they use a
public key type system.

all the best,

drew

with respect, i think you're missing the point. the point is not
what happens in practice. the point is what section 1201 will be
interpreted by a court to mean. a court is not going to uphold an
interpretation of this clause that allows Alejandra to place a
license on her work that authorizes Carlos to circumvent iTunes. the
statutory language does not support this interpretation - the TPM
must have been applied with the authority of the copyright owner (in
the envisaged scenario, the TPM is not applied with the authority of
the copyright owner). the statutory intent of the clause is not to
find ways for people to circumvent DRM, quite the opposite. this is
not a productive line of ongoing discussion.

I get your point, I will concede it for the rest of this thread. But, if in
practice, iTunes is the only party capable of putting the TPM on the works in
question, what then? Would that make a difference if it was the same party?

so even then, i think you still have the issue of the party who is consenting to the circumvention (here, Alejandra) is not iTunes nor anyone authorized by iTunes...so even if iTunes put the TPM on themselves and were the licensee, i don't think anyone is going to read s1201 as saying that a person unrelated to iTunes can then authorize circumvention of iTunes' DRM....(note that iTunes would be in breach of the anti-DRM clause of the license at this stage but that's a separate matter)...

i think the point of the consent provision in 1201 is to say that the person who giveth (although DRMs really take away but bear with me) can also taketh away...i don't think it can be read, logically, to say that one person can impose DRM and other unrelated people can lawfully authorize their circumvention...

while that may be a desirable outcome for many in this and other communities, it would defeat the purpose of the provision, even if the language of the provision could be argued to be so vague as to allow it...



all the best,

drew

in the hypo given, it is Benito who puts it n the track...why should
iTunes' DRM be vulnerable just because some random third party puts
it on Alejandra's track?


also, it is beyond comprehension that the DMCA laws were introduced
to allow party A to authorize circumvention of an unrelated party I's
DRM. the consent provision can only, logically be read to authorize
party I to authorize select people to circumvent party I's DRM so
that it is not always a violation of the law to circumvent DRM; you
can circumvent DRM with the consent of the person who authorized the
DRM being put on the work. using the hypo names given, the law
should be read to mean that: Alejandra can release a work under a CC
license with her DRM on it and then authorize people to circumvent
it...that is a far cry from Alejandra authorized Carlos to circumvent
a third party DRM applied by Benito...

Given the technological measure
referred to in Section 1201 has to have been applied with the
authority of the copyright owner, this consent provision does not
seem to give copyright owners the power to authorize the
circumvention of technological measures applied by someone else
such
as a licensee. If this were the case, competitors could release
their works on terms that would authorize the circumvention of
another’s TPM.

Finally, GPL v3 draft 2 does not seem to be invoking this
provision.
The quoted text seems to be saying that GPL-licensed code cannot
form
part of a technological measure that is protected under Section
1201. It is not saying that a copyright owner has the power to
authorize the circumvention of a technological lock applied by
someone else to their work.

I think you have this spot on as it relates to the GPL. It is not
talking
about other works at all but about this work being considered a
part of an
effective technological measure. (At least I read it the same way
you do. If
I understand your take correctly.)

all the best,

drew

On Sep 25, 2006, at 6:01 AM, Terry Hancock wrote:
Greg London wrote:
3) allow DRM/TPM, but explicitly grant permission to crack it

as i indicated in the table circulated on the list earlier,
this is
not imo, a viable option.

I'm sorry. I must have skimmed over that email in a rampant
battle
with spam. could you send a URL to the archives where this is
explained?

Obviously, I hadn't seen it either, so maybe it bears repeating?

Of all the options, I thought this was the best because it
allowed
TPM, which should make debian folks happy, it didn't require
parallel
distribution, which should make someone happy, and it authorizes
circumvention, which means that if TPM actually IS used to
attempt a
fork, it cannot be maintained.

I like the explicit permission to crack TPM, because of these
reasons,
but I would like the license to *also* require parallel
distribution as
an additional safeguard.

The problem is that while the permission to crack the TPM defeats
the legal obstacle (at least barring Mia's objection, which as I
say, I
haven't seen yet), it still potentially leaves the technical
obstacle
in place (IOW, we're still limited by the sophistication of our
cracking
technology -- on the plus side, that provides a legitimization of
such
technology projects, but I don't think that's a good enough
reason).

A potential half-way point would be to re-word the anti-TPM
language
to be more evidently anti-"use of TPM to impede distribution",
e.g.:

"You may not use technological protection measure in such a way
that
they impede the further distribution or examination of the
content,..."

and then one could add the permission incidentally:

"furthermore you grant permission to circumvent any TPM measure
imposed on this content by you or others"

(obviously, IANAL, but I hope this conveys the general idea).

The point is, I'm pretty sure that enables Debian's "parallel
distribution"
concept without a lot of complexity, without much change from
what's
already in the license, and while still retaining a negative
connotation
for TPM (which ISTM was the real objection at iCommons, from the
description I've heard).

On a related note, the United States congress is now considering a
bill to make this permission an implicit part of US law (a much
better
long-run solution), in the form of "HR 1201" which is supposed to
amend the DMCA to allow circumvention, whenever access would
otherwise be permitted by copyright law (my paraphrase). The EFF
has a nifty tool to help send your opinion to your congressman if
you
are a US citizen:

http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=115

Cheers,
Terry


--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
(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
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
(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
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
(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
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page