Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

> The battle over this technology is important
> but Open Content licenses are the wrong place to fight it.

Unless "IT" is used to create a proprietary fork,
to give someone a priviledged advantage over others,
when the work was intended to remain equal to all.

> I think we have some different fundamentals going on here. Our
> fundamentals are the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which insist on a
> user's right to experiment with various platforms for any reason.

So, what you have yet to make clear here, is if DRM Dave can
use DRM to become the sole source of a work that plays on
some DRM platform. If the solution is "parallel distribution",
but the DMCA says only Dave can circumvent his DRM, then
does not that mean that Alice cannot provide the exact same
work in DRM-friendly format for the DRM platform?

If Dave is in a position to be sole source of all copies of
CC-SA works on his platform, then you have left the barn door
wide open for the community to be abused by Dave in the name
of "experimentation".

This is the deal breaker.

The entire point of CC-SA, of copyleft, is that NO ONE,
is at an advantage over ANYONE ELSE with regard to the
rights to the work. If DRM-Dave is at an advantage to
be sole-source provider for works that will play on his
platform, and the DMCA makes it illegal for Alice or Bob
or anyone else in the entire community to apply Dave's
DRM to a work, to make it compatible with Dave's hardware
platform, then, the license has failed to maintain everyone
in the community as equals with regard to the work.

That is the point of copyleft, to propagate the license
to all copies of the work specifically so that all copies
of the work have exactly the same rights, available to
everyone in the community, and that copying, distributing,
and deriving the work maintain that equality among community.

If DRM can put Dave in a position of being sole source
provider for copies of his work that play on his hardware
platform (and yes, you must assume worst case, that the
hardware platform will ONLY play DRM'ed works, not open
formats), then how exactly has that maintained an equality
among the community?

What you continue to do, rather than answer that question,
is to change the subject. You say anti-TPM is a politically
motivated clause, while ignoring the gaping barn door swinging
on its hinges above. You say that anti-TPM is anti
experimentation, while ignoring any possible abuses that
could be brought upon the community that wanted to prevent
any such abuse.

That is the point of copyleft. to maintain equality of rights
to the work (and all its copies, distributions, and derivatives)
among all members of the community.

And if DRM Dave can put a work on his hardware platform,
and make an open format available to play on your PC,
but set himself up as sole source for works that will
play on his platform, then you have failed to give the
community the protection it needs. It doesn't need the
right to experiment if proprietary interests can abuse
that loophole and monopolize access to the work on their
hardware.

So, before you go and tell me about experimentation,
about the right to "play with different formats",
and about "freedom", you seriously need to answer
one simple question:

Can DRM Dave use parallel distribution to become
sole source provider of CC-SA content for his hardware?

And assume malice on Dave's part. Assume Dave is
a Microsoft, or a RIAA, or a MPAA, or some equally
selfishly motivated actor that they will bribe
politicians to pass unfair monopolistic laws,
that they will change hardware platforms and formats
just to get you to buy new copies, that they will
sue people for committing the most minor infractions
simply to make "an example" of them, and that they
will do whatever it takes to maximize their benefit
at the expense of the community's rights.

Because, well, history has proven that's what they're
willing to do.

Greg

-- 
Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War
http://www.somerightsreserved.org