Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: MJ Ray <mjr AT phonecoop.coop>
  • To: zotz AT 100jamz.com
  • Cc: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
  • Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:37:39 +0100

[Apologies for the lag, I was leafletting against DRM at an Apple Store
and replying to some of the members of this list on debian-legal.]

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday 28 September 2006 10:36 am, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Greg London wrote:
> > > So, what you have yet to make clear here, is if DRM Dave can
> > > use DRM to become the sole source of a work that plays on
> > > some DRM platform. If the solution is "parallel distribution",
> > > but the DMCA says only Dave can circumvent his DRM, then
> > > does not that mean that Alice cannot provide the exact same
> > > work in DRM-friendly format for the DRM platform?
> >
> > No. Use of the free format does not require circumvention, so would not
> > be limited by the DMCA saying only Dave can circumvent his DRM.
> > Parallel distribution is one format staying out of DRM: a DRM evasion,
> > which is not circumvention, as far as I know.
>
> The only way I can see you putting this as an argument to what Greg says is
> if
> you intend it to mean that the parallel version distributed must be
> playable
> on the same platform. Is that what you are saying?

No, nor do I see why that would be the only way the parallel version
would be useful to Dave's prey.

> > I do not see why you think this would not be copyleft: all copies give
> > recipients the same freedoms to the work. Some just have duplicated
> > information that makes them easier to use for some people.
>
> He thinks this because in the situation he is putting forth. the other
> versions will not play on the player. Do you intend to insist in the
> parallel
> distribution language that the parallel version must be playable on the
> same
> player?

See above, as well as previous messages where I have suggested adopting
the Scottish licence's TPM language.

> [...] If Dave makes a platform that only plays DRM protected
> files and only he or selected "friends" are able to put the DRM on files,
> how
> is that to be handled?

Maybe through adding conditions that Dave can meet but hinders his
business model, but mainly through using anti-cartel laws. I believe
that has been done in other situations to force monopolist broadcasters
to provide non-discriminatory encoding access to their platforms.

Copyright licences are not a panacea. I feel that using copyright
licences to try to enforce private law changes - like outlawing
potential cartels enabled by other parts of copyright law - is almost
always a dumb idea that tends to cause 'friendly fire' damage,
discriminating against some friends as well as some enemies.

Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page