Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
  • Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 20:10:08 -0700

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page