Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 25 September 2006 10:13 pm, Greg London 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.  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;
>
> So, it may very well be that this is the legal interpretaion
> of anti-circumvention. But as I read this, it sounded more and
> more familiar to yet another obnoxious copyright law mentioned here:
>
> http://community.livejournal.com/veronicamarsfic/1352553.html
>
> :: the treaty would give broadcasters, cablecasters
> :: and potentially webcasting companies 50 years of
> :: copyright-like rights over anything they transmit,
> :: including public domain and
> :: Creative Commons-licensed works.
>
> DRM, as you describe it, is creating a channel, a medium,
> though which works are broadcasted, distributed, etc,
> and the anti-circumvention clause places ownership
> of the content, i.e. the ability to circumvent the DRM
> to a work, in the hands of the owner of the channel,
> rather than the owner of the content.
>
> That the owners and operators of the DRM channel,
> gain a level of control over the works they bring
> into their channel that is not available through
> normal copyright law. To the point, DRM Dave gaining
> control of a copy of ShareAlike Sam's work, and
> preventing anyone from circumvention the DRM to have
> full access to Sam's work, is no incentive to Sam
> to create new works, which, allegedly is the sole
> constitutional reason that copyright law exists:
> to reward authors for creating new works.
> DRM rewards broadcasters by giving them rights
> over other people's works, simply because they
> broadcast the work through their channel.

Greg,

the DRM thing may be even worse than that. It may be more like giving the 
rights to the people who made the radio equiptment that the broadcasters 
used....
>
> And I think that sucks.

It does indeed suck. Time for a license that forbids anyone from transmitting 
my BY-SA works if they are claiming such rights over their transmission?
>
> No point. Just griping.
> (Gets off soapbox.)
>
> Greg
>

all the best,

drew

-- 
(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