cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

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

From: MJ Ray <mjr AT phonecoop.coop>
To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org, email AT greglondon.com
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:36:40 +0100

Greg London wrote:
> 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?

No. Use of the free format does not require circumvention, so would not
be limited by the DMCA saying only Dave can circumvent his DRM.
Parallel distribution is one format staying out of DRM: a DRM evasion,
which is not circumvention, as far as I know.

I do not see why you think this would not be copyleft: all copies give
recipients the same freedoms to the work. Some just have duplicated
information that makes them easier to use for some people.

Also, the above question is conditional on the DMCA saying that: does
it? Even if it does, then that is arguably a DMCA bug, which should
only affect the US licences, not the generics.

[...]
> What you continue to do, rather than answer that question,
> is to change the subject. [...]

Please do not post such personal attacks to this discussion. Please
stick to the issues, not the people.

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

Probably not, but it depends if users entered into other agreements when
obtaining the hardware and so on. I don't know how things sit in US law
and IANAL, but I think most attempts to do so in England would involve
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts and so fail.

No licence will stop Dave *attempting* to use the 'make an example'
tactics you describe, the same as CC-SA today can't stop him trying to
screw small licensors and licensees. Our best tactic is to make sure we
don't unnecessarily hurt our friends who follow our licences in good
faith by, for example, creating an Iron Curtain between platforms.

Hope that answers adequately,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses , (continued)
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, MJ Ray, 09/26/2006
  - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Rob Myers, 09/26/2006
    - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Evan Prodromou, 09/26/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Greg London, 09/26/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Terry Hancock, 09/27/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Greg London, 09/27/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, MJ Ray, 09/28/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, drew Roberts, 09/28/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, rob, 09/27/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, MJ Ray, 09/28/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Greg London, 09/28/2006
    - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, MJ Ray, 09/28/2006