Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 30 September 2006 02:31 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The wikipedia article on Zune is interesting
> and fairly to the point.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Zune
>
> Release set for November 15.
> Firmware is updatable.
> Which means exactly what this thing will and
> will not do is completely subject to change.
>
> Towards the top, the article says it supports
> mp3, wma, wmv, mpeg4, jpeg, and aac.
>
> What it does not say is whether or not any
> of the content can be distributed without DRM.
> Apparently it repeats drew's assertion that
> the 3-day limit is only applied to works
> distributed via wifi, which seems stupid to me
> in the first place, but what do I know.
>
> Whether or not DRM is attached to wifi content
> will be easy to determine as soon as two people
> have real hardware in their hands.
>
> Alice will put some open content on her Zune
> device. She will then transfer it to Bob via
> the wifi connection. Bob will then attempt
> to upload  it from his Zune to his PC. If the
> upload is prohibited, then you have a
> technological protection measure applied to
> the content, and Microsoft lied.
>
>
>
> Towards the bottom, the article says the Zune
> will have some sort of DRM that artists can
> apply to their content so they can sell it
> on Zune. Free samples via wifi that plays
> three times, and then you have to pay.
>
> Which brings me back to one of my earlier points.
> Anti-TPM is something needed by copyleft and
> sharealike licenses. If a work is licensed
> CC-BY or CC-ND or some such thing, then there
> is no community need for protection from DRM Dave's
> platform monopoly. CC-BY allows proprietary forks,
> so I do not understand why CC-BY would not allow
> a DRM fork.

Greg,

I think the point that was made back to you when you made this earlier is 
that 
while BY allows proprietary forks, it does not allow a change of license on a 
non-derivative work. That is, you can't put the original under a different 
license. Allowing TPM would be sort of like putting the original under a 
different license is what I think the logic is getting at.
>
> If Alice takes some CC-BY work, creates a proprietary
> fork, and wants to use Microsoft's DRM to sell that
> work, I don't see why this isnt allowed. Proprietary
> forking is not prohibited by CC-BY, and TPM/DRM
> is another type of proprietary fork. Platform monopolies
> are not a concern of works licensed CC-BY, or any
> license that doesn't invoke CC-SA. So I don't have
> a problem with anti-TPM only being applied to CC-SA.
>
> I wouldn't have a problem with CC keeping the anti-tpm
> clause in all its licenses, but I wouldn't have a problem
> if it dropped it for the non ShareAlike license.
>
> Do with that what you will.
> Greg London

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