Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <teloscorbin AT gmail.com>]

On 9/28/06, MJ Ray <mjr AT phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> > We need hardware, software and content to make the case that there is an
> > alternative to DRM.
>
> Yes!  We do not need licensing to make the case!  Especially not by
> suggesting that DRM is so compelling that we need to try to prohibit it
> entirely.
>
> Really, TPM-bans are like if an early GNU project had decided that it
> should ban compiled code, because users can't edit compiled code easily
> and decompilation is illegal in some places.  It is missing the forest
> for the trees.

If DRM-Dave designs teh hardware to play open formats that have
no DRM applied, then Alice and Bob can upload a non-DRM
version of the content on the platform and play it without
violating the anti-TPM clause.

The only time the anti-TPM clause prevents Alice and Bob from
playing content on a platform, is if DRM-Dave designed the
platform so that it will not play non-DRM'ed works.

And if DRM-Dave designed his hardware SPECIFICALLY so that
it would not play open, non-DRM formats, then DRM-Dave
is not to be trusted to monopolize his position. By designing
his hardware to play DRM-only works, he is attempting to
monopolize his position and prevent people from uploading
their own works, works they already own, to his platform.

In this case, DRM Dave cannot be trusted. The anti-DRM
clause is needed to prevent him from monopolizing his
position and becoming sole source provider fo works,
charging Alice and Bob for DRM-enabled versions of
CC-SA works, because Dave will not allow anyone but
himself apply DRM to works.

If Dave can be trusted not to abuse his position, then
he will design hardware to play open, non-drm'ed formats.
He will perform a strategic move so that he is not in a
monopolistic position. If he has no intent on maintaining
a monopoly, he will design his hardware such that he can't.
Any hardware smart enough to do all the hoop jumping to
play DRM enabled, encrypted works, can certainly play
non-DRM works in some open format. That a platform
does NOT play any open format is telling of Dave's intent.
He is reserving the right to monopolize his position.

So, the only time the anti-TPM gets in Alice's and Bob's
way of playing content on a hardware platform, is
specifically when Dave designed the platform to play
DRM-only works, and not play open formats. And in
this one situation, where Dave has designed into his
hardware the right to monopolize his position, this is
exactly when the anti-TPM clause is needed to prevent
Dave from abusing his advantage over Alice and Bob.





> > This is not the time for CC to concede DRM, no matter how much it would help
> > Debian.
>
> Equally, this is not the time for Debian to concede free software, no
> matter how much some CC supporters currently think it would help them.
> (Why does this even need saying?  It's unhelpful entrenchment.)
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > That is a mis-description of the DFSG. The DFSG insist on a user's
> > right to use *software *. DRM can prevent users from doing this. DRM
> > therefore removes your DFSG rights. In particular it removes freedom
> > 1.
>
> I think Evan was broadly correct in his description.  The reasoning in
> reply is flawed and does not prevent parallel distribution, else it
> would mean that debian's binary packages remove freedoms too.  They do
> not, because we require that users can get the sources too.
>
> > The point that the Debian-Legal has missed is that DRM is not given
> > its force by technology. It is given its force by law.
>
> That is true for copyright in general, as well as trademarks, software
> patents, non-disclosure agreements and yet all of those are covered by
> debian-legal and the DFSG.  The DFSG is not limited to technological
> constraints and I doubt most of debian-legal has missed that.
>
> > The DFSG were
> > drafted before the DMCA was passed. That they are silent on newer
> > developments in copyright law such as DRM is bitrot, not principle.
>
> It's unfair to compare *drafting* of one document with *passing* of
> another.  Both the DMCA and DFSG were drafted and presented to their
> ratifying voters during 1997.  Furthermore:
>  DMCA passed by Representatives on 4 August 1998.
>  DFSG Version 1.1 passed by DDs on 26 April 2004.
> I think it's obvious that the clarification of the DFSG is more recent.
>
> In my opinion, the main reason DRM is not mentioned explicitly is that
> it is already adequately covered by the points on integrity and
> non-discrimination.
>
> [...]
> > > Parallel distribution is the copyleft of DRM.
> >
> > This is not true in practice, despite the cosmetic similarities. If
> > you can parallel distribute you do not need the right to remove other
> > people's rights with DRM.
>
> What limits are there on the licensor saying what the licensee does not
> need to do?  When is the licensee no longer free to adapt the work to
> their needs?
>
> DRM-bans are micromanagement of a type that should not be acceptable in
> a free culture licence, like anti-church and no-nuclear-workers clauses:
> those have strong advocates too, but are not in the common ground.
>
> > If you cannot parallel distribute then the
> > right to do so is pointless.
>
> So prohibit distribution when one cannot parallel distribute.  That
> would be fine by me.
>
> Hope that explains,
> --
> MJ Ray - see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
> Somerset, England. Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
> IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses