Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Elad Wieder" <ewieder AT creativecommons.org.il>]

Guys, I think I've got it:

 

Microsoft fact sheets say that the WiFi sharing may not work for all of the files on your device.

Therefore, I believe this is the constellation:

 

Microsoft cannot support copying files to begin with. They don't own the copyright, and even copying it with a 3d/3p DRM is an infringement. Microsoft, IMO, enable the sharing feature only for files downloaded from their new music store (like iTunes), where they came to an agreement with the rights holders. They don't DRM anything that wasn't DRM'ed before, but they're cont contributing to an infringement by making "an infringing device". Their device shares only what they can guarantee is legal.

 

And here I see the chance for CC-licensed files: If we can negotiate with Microsoft to consider CC metadata as a "license to share", they may enable the sharing option also for those files. Of course we're going to have a big problem here because CC metadata is easily embedded w/o any assurance that it was really licensed by the rights owner, but there may be 2 answers to that argument:

1. It's not their problem. They're not responsible for people maliciously altering copyright data. Their device check, and see a license. If anyone embedded false license data on a file it's not their fault.

2. We can maybe make use of the new RegisteredCommons project to "validate" the file.

 

What say you?

 

 

Elad
 

--
Elad Wieder, Project Lead
Creative Commons Israel
Haifa Center of Law & Technology
Faculty of Law, University of Haifa
Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel
Tel: +972-4-828-8569 Fax: +972-4-824-0681

http://creativecommons.org.il
http://techlaw.haifa.ac.il
 

On 9/30/06, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:

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
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses