Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION
  • Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:21:54 -0500

drew Roberts wrote:
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 09:06 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> One possibility is that he must maintain such a service for X years
> after the last time that he provides the DRM'd work.

As long as he wants to have the rights to distribute the licensed
works with TPM applied?

Merely "as long as" isn't all that great. What if he only decides to publish these works during their "top of the charts" period (well, probably "top of the free-licensed charts")? Or for only a couple of weeks after they are released. Then he abandons the work, so as to avoid any responsibility to the "conducers" in the audience who want to publish remixed versions.

I don't think that's adequate. It still leaves the work in Greg's non-free platform monopoly position, for all practical purposes.

> Or he might publish the key, rendering the DRM
> ineffective/transparent (this might be a good platform-retirement
> option).

This might be an important line of thinking to explore.

But remember he can only do this if he is also the TPM platform owner. Our hypothetical community based TPM-keeper can't do it legally, because of the terms under which he receives the key.

> Of course, the biggest question here is why is this more attractive
> to the TPM platform owner than just allowing their platform to play
> free, non-TPM content? (Which we'd prefer anyway).

I thought I answered this when I pointed out that the platform owner
could still have sort of monopoly position when it came to non-Free
works. He could still charge his rent for those works. If he allowed
the platform to play non-DRM works, he could not charge this rent
from anyone.

Yes, you're right. There's even a certain business logic to that.

Still, I feel that the obligation has to go a bit beyond the immediate moment. That's a bit like the 3-year source code offer that GPL insists on. However, it's unclear whether 3 years is adequate. Cultural works don't become obsolete so easily (and especially when we are considering derivative works. It's not at all difficult to imagine a 2000s techno remix of a 1930s song like "Over the Rainbow", for example).

So maybe we need an almost "in perpetuity" promise. Or to put it another way: you must provide the service as long as you keep the DRM key secret. But note how this forces us to put these requirements on the DRM owner, not any recipient of the content. So it becomes more like a requirement that "you can distribute this content in DRM form, but only if the DRM owner has provided a promise to DRM all derivative works on demand for the entire time that the DRM key is held secret". But of course, we then have to ask how the DRM party (not party to the license!) will be held accountable to such promises. Or what the responsibility of the would-be DRM'd distributor will be if the DRM platform or technology owner stops offering this service.

At this point, ideas like international DRM key registries and deposit of keys in escrow start to pop up as the sort of solutions you need for that kind of trust (and this is the RIAA/MPAA partisans depositing their crown jewels with the likes of Creative Commons and Debian, mind you -- this requires a political miracle to happen! Of course, the Space Shuttle did eventually dock with Mir after all, but only after a lot of walls fell).

And if we require such involvement from the DRM distributor, DRM platform owner, and DRM technology provider, why aren't we just asking them to contact the authors, get permission, and pay a royalty in order to sell the DRM'd version? They always have this option.

It seems like we're in for some major slogging through the mud if we want to draft this kind of requirement. Lots and lots of details with risks at every step.

Cheers,
Terry

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page