Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 28 September 2006 12:13 pm, Greg London wrote:
> On 9/28/06, Greg London <teloscorbin AT gmail.com> wrote:
> > DRM and DMCA is intended SPECIFICALLY
> > to create a private channel for DRM Dave, that Dave does not want
> > to share this channel in any way, and that parallel distribution does
> > not get around the problem created by a private, proprietary channel.
> >
> > The metaphor that DRM is like a Binary fails to accurately describe
> > the problem. Parallel distribution of source code allows Alice and Bob
> > to create their own executable for the very same hardware. DRM,
> > in its worst case scenario, creates a problem that parallel distribution
> > does not solve.
>
> So, now that I got my head screwed on straight this morning,
> I just need to get one other thing clarified here.
>
> The whole crux of this issue boils down to hardware platforms
> that do not play open, non-DRM'ed formats. Is that correct?
>
> If a hardware platform plays non-DRM'ed formats, then
> the content can be played on the hardware without using
> DRM, and therefore, an anti-DRM clause does not prevent
> playing the content on the platform. Correct? Did I miss
> something here?
>
> If the hardware plays ONLY drm'ed works, if it will not
> play open formats, then the anti-DRM clause prevents
> Alice and Bob from ever playing the work on that platform.
> Correct?
>
> This is where the anti-DRM clause actually imposes
> a restriction on Alice and Bob: When the hardware
> platform ONLY plays DRM-ONLY content. Because if
> the platform plays open, non-DRM formats, then Alice
> and Bob can simply download an open, non-DRM version
> of the work without violating an anti-DRM clause, and
> they're off and running.
>
> Is this assessment correct?

I am not sure this is quite right. You could have a platform that plays only 
DRM content but where anyone could put the DRM on. In that case, Dave could 
put it on. The paralled distro clause would mean Alice and Bob can get 
non-DRM copies, make their mods, put their own DRM on for the same platform 
and also distribute files that can play on the platform.

Is that clear?

And of course Dave can limit the putting of DRM on to his close friends or 
those who pay him for the right. That is somewhere in between the two.
>
> If so, the only time the anti-DRM clause would hinder
> Alice and Bob is EXACTLY the situation where DRM Dave
> could become sole source provider for content on his platform.
> At which point, this is EXACTLY the point in time where the
> anti-DRM clause is needed to keep Alice, Bob, and Dave
> on equal terms with each other. No DRM.
>
> So, I fail to understand arguments that essentially say that
> Dave is a nice guy, that he'll never abuse his position,
> that he'll never make hardware that is DRM-only, that Dave
> can be trusted. Because the only time the anti-DRM clause
> actually affects Alice and Bob is if Dave specifically built
> hardware that plays DRM-only works, at which point
> Dave is NOT to be trusted and the anti-DRM clause is
> needed so that Dave does not become sole source of
> works for his hardware platform.
>
> If the hardware platform supports open formats,
> Alice and Bob dont' care about the anti-DRM clause.
> If DRM Dave actually makes his hardware so that
> open formats can be played, then the anti-DRM clause
> is a non-issue.
>
> The anti-DRM clause only becomes an issue for
> Alice and Bob when DRM Dave designs his hardware
> such that Dave could put himself at an advantage over
> Alice and Bob, become sole-source provider, and it
> is exactly at that one and only point when the anti-DRM
> clause is most needed to keep the playing field level.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, the anti-DRM is a
> no brainer. If Dave makes hardware that plays open
> formats, then DRM-enabled works are NOT NEEDED,
> and the anti-DRM clause impedes no one from enjoying
> the work on the platform.
>
> The only time the anti-DRM impedes Alice and Bob from
> listening to the work on a hardware plateform is if Dave
> designed the platform to be DRM-only, at which point
> the anti-DRM is needed to prevent Dave from maintaining
> an advantage over the rest of the community.
>
> Whether or not Dave can be trusted is determined by
> whether or not Dave's hardware plays open, non-DRM formats.
> If it does, then the anti-DRM clause impedes no one.
> If it only plays DRM-enabled works, then the anti-DRM clause
> is needed to prevent Dave from abusing and monopolizing
> his position.
>
> Alice and Bob can access the work on other platforms,
> on their desktop, on an iPod that plays open formats.
> To allow DRM to be applied on a platform that playes
> nothing but DRM-enabled works, is to hand Dave a
> monopoly, and fail to protect Alice and Bob.

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