Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Tuesday 03 October 2006 10:21 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 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.

As long as he is distributing any works with the same license elements hten?
>
> > > 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.

Sure.

> Our hypothetical community based TPM-keeper can't do it legally, because
> of the terms under which he receives the key.

Well, the community keeper could just keep functioning instead.
>
> > > 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).

Here is a fun condition:

Until the work goes into the public domain or until the keys are make Free.
>
> 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.

Perhaps, but we must remember that this DRM hairball is not something we 
created. We should perhaps think along the line of solutions where all but 
obviously bad intentioned actors can implement easily. (Is that clear?)
>
> 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).

Perhaps I don't understand DRM properly but can't there be multiple sets of 
keys for the same device? Can't they make a set which can only be legally 
applied to Free Works?
>
> 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.

Well, I am fine with them contacting me and paying me to use my work in a 
non-Free manner. (Possibly.) This is pretty much the dual license model after 
all.
>
> 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.

Well. Perhaps the simplest wording is transparent TPM + parallel distribution 
and that will in effect cover all the bases. Then we could draft a FAQ 
suggesting these various ways to achieve this.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

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