Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Mia Garlick wrote:
>  your response assumes that it is iTunes that puts it on the track.
>  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.

I think we all agree on that.

> 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.

So far, so good.

> 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...

EXCEPT: Benito is ONLY authorized to apply DRM in the first place, if he 
consents to ALSO authorize that DRM to be decrypted (for that work).

This is the copyleft concept again. Once again, the only thing that 
gives Benito the right to apply the DRM, is the license, which itself 
insists on Benito agreeing to certain terms, including the consent.  If 
he doesn't agree, then he can't apply the DRM in the first place.

None of this gives anybody the right to access other people's works on 
the same device, even if, by chance or design, the decryption key is the 
same as for the CC licensed work.

The point of this provision, of course, is to make DRM legally toothless 
for the work in question, so in that sense, it may seem silly.  But the 
reason is clearly that there may be *technical* reasons why only a DRM'd 
file can be used on a given platform -- which would be the reason why 
Benito would be interested in applying the DRM, even though he knows it 
doesn't buy him any exclusivity.

Consider this analogy...

If I buy a house in a housing development, and I accidently lock myself 
out, I'm still entitled to access my home.  I can do this by calling a 
locksmith to "crack" the lock on my house, making me a new key in the 
process.

Now even if it turns out that my new key will open every other house in 
the development, so that my new key would allow me access to everyone 
else's house, we can conclude that my housing developer is very stupid, 
but this can in no way be considered my concern.  I still have a right 
to access the house.

Likewise, the fact that, in principle, the same locksmith could defeat 
any lock, whether I have legitimate claim to the access it is 
protecting, isn't really relevant. Yes, that's what locksmiths do.

Likewise, wire clippers can cut any fence, but I am entitled to cut my 
fence, while cutting someone else's is a crime.

Cheers,
Terry

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