Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Mia Garlick wrote:
>  in relation to the first point, please see line 6 on page 2 of the
>  comments posted to the list back on September 8: http://
>  lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004027.html

Ms. Garlick, you are *such* a lawyer. ;-)

Cutting and pasting with my almighty xpdf powers:

6) Parallel Distribution Amendment

Comment:

Scenario: Alejandra records a spoken-
word piece and releases the work as
BY-SA 2.5. Benito mixes Alejandra's
recording with a beat and a guitar
background and makes the resulting
song available as an MP3 and an Ogg
Vorbis file, also licensed under by-sa-
2.5. Carlos has an iSuck music player
that only plays iSuck DRM-mandatory
files. Carlos asks Benito to make an
iSuck version available, but Benito
can't because of the anti-DRM
provisions in the 2.5 licenses. So
Carlos can't listen to the song.

Comment: Carlos doesn't need for
Benito to be able to make an iSuck
version. He only needs to be able to
make it himself.

Response:


The discussion of this scenario
highlighted an important issue that is
perhaps not clear in the current
amended "anti-TPM" provision but
that was clear in the original
wording.

The original wording stated that the
licensee may not "distribute, publicly
display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform" -- significant in
its omission is the word "copy."
Consequently, the comment is
accurate that Carlos can make a copy
of a CC licensed work into an iSuck
version, he just can't share it with
anyone.

The current amended anti-TPM
provision will be further amended to
reflect this distinction.

[it's not clear to me whether this is meant to have already been amended 
in draft 2, or if this response is talking about a later draft]

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com