Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] CC licenses and Zune DRM are a good match?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CC licenses and Zune DRM are a good match?
  • Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:38:17 -0400 (EDT)


> I've been reading the comments and the many reports on the Zune v CC
> DRM, and I must admit that I'm having a difficult time imagining why
> this is important for CC content.

My guess is that Zune *used* to apply DRM to everything.
Then someone leaked that bit of info.
And Microsoft has backpedaled a bit,
and either changed the actual design
or performed a "Humpty Dumpty" to
try and say "No, we don't really apply
DRM, it's just that the player has a
3 day limit on anything it recieves,
and that isn't DRM."

Whether a 3 day playing limit is a
technological protection measure,
is probably going to be decided by a
court case at some point in the future.
(Unless it already went to court in the past)

There may be know software "Rights Managment"
to implement the 3 day play window, but CC
licenses prohibit any "Technical Protection
Method" which inhibits the rights to the work.

And being inhibited from playing a work
after 3 days might qualify as TPM.

Then there's the question of how do you
play the song after 3 days? Can the player
even do that?

Must a song have DRM applied to it if the
song is to be played after 3 days? Or do
all songs have to be re-downloaded?

All of which ties into the current
discussion as to whether CC should
have parallel distirubtion or anti-TPM.
And here we have the case where microsoft
appears to be creating a platform monopoly,
something that puts TPM on everything,
(maybe not DRM, but TPM), and the intereseting
bit would be whether you need DRM applied
to a work to play it longer than 3 days.

If so, this is DRM-Monopolistic-Dave.
The player does not actually allow works
to be played beyond 3 days without DRM,
and it sounds like no one but Microsoft
and approved vendors can apply DRM.

So, then the question is whether we should
scrap the Anti-TPM on CC licenses, and allow
Microsoft to monopolize CC content on their
player, letting them charge a small fee to
apply DRM to what should be Free content,
and legally preventing anyone else from doing so,
or whether CC should prevent that sole-source
monopoly and keep the anti-TPM clause, and
have users find a different channel to listen
and distribute their content.

If Zune does not apply TPM, then this is not
an issue at all. Keep the anti-tpm clause
and be done with it.

If Zune does apply TPM, then either surrender
the anti-TPM clause, trust Microsoft not to
abuse their position as DRM provider, and let
users play their content on Zune,

OR keep the anti-TPM and keep CC content off
of Zune.

Personally, I'm for keeping anti-TPM.
Platforms should provide a non-DRM way
to play open formats. If they don't,
I don't think they can be trusted to
not abuse a monopolistic position.

And of course, there are always other platforms
which DO allow open formats.

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

What happens when one editor prefers
Sneetches with stars on their bellies,
and another editor prefers no stars on thars.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page