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: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.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 12:19:39 -0400

Greg,

I haven't dug into this carefully, but from browsing on the subject and going
from memory, that 3 day limit is only for files that get on the player by the
wifi method. If you put them on the player some other way, that automatic 3
day limit does not apply.

Now, this will all shake out after people figure out exactly how the whole
shebang works, but we should at least see that it is possible to make these
sort of nasty players even if zune is not one at this time.

So the question becomes, do we want to surrender our content to the big
players making these players or those forcong the inclusion of such
"features" or do we want some protection from such tactics for our works?

Personally I think I want some protections. Now, I am open to hearing how the
protections I want will cause me more harm than good, but I think I would
like them.

On Saturday 30 September 2006 10:38 am, Greg London wrote:
> > 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.

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page