Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

thanks rob - actually, you quoted line 5.  i meant to refer to line 6  
which states (using the same order you listed):

Parallel Distribution Amendment

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.


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.


On Oct 2, 2006, at 2:58 AM, rob AT robmyers.org wrote:

> Quoting MJ Ray <mjr AT phonecoop.coop>:
>
> > Mia Garlick wrote:
> > > On Sep 30, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> > > > - DRM cannot be added to CC licensed work for private use.
> > [...]
> > > > The first point is a breach of both the DFSG and the FSD. More
> > > > importantly it is a breach of Fair Use. It is therefore  
> > > > unacceptable
> > > > both for Free Software and more importantly for Free Culture.
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > I have no web connection at this time. What is line 6 of page 2?
>
> The relevent section is (in order of "topic", "comment" and  
> "response",
> formatted horizontally in the document):
>
> Parallel Distribution Amendment
>
> Debian is just asking that creators have
> the right to port works to the platform
> and formats that they choose, while
> ensuring the rights of downstream uses
> to copy, modify and distribute
> (emphasis added).
>
> One needs to be extremely careful in
> the terminology used when
> discussing this issue.  Creators (CC
> licensors) have the right to put their
> content on a DRM platform and a
> non-DRM platform, under a CC
> license or not.  The relevant issue
> here is whether a licensee, who may
> or may not be a creator, can do
> similarly.
>
> - Rob.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses