Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 27 November 2006 10:43 am, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> > Greg London email at greglondon.com
> >
> > Do you think maybe you could have actually engaged in the conversation
> > on the list first, maybe found out what the issues were, and then
> > at least give them reasonable representation on your position papers,
> > before you told everyone to swamp the list advocating parallel
> > distribution and they don't even know the reasons people are against it?
>
> We have been following the discussions on this list.  Our principal goal
> has been to bring more community members into the conversation, so we
> chose to give concise versions of the more common positions, rather than
> to go into the full depth and detail of the conversations here.

I honestly feel you did not do a very good job of this myself.
>
> > And I"m just a little aggravated that you put up a position
> > statement directing people to the CC-License list without
> > making any effort to understand the positions that the people
> > on the list had done a lot of work to finally get to.
>
> We have been thinking about these issues for quite some time, including
> the arguments made on this list.  Our characterization of them is not
> motivated (we hope) by a failure to understand those arguments or by a
> desire to mislead others about them.  We simply have a different opinion
> about the best course of action.
>
> > The strongest argument for anti-TPM and against parallel
> > distribution is made here:
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-October/004284.html
>
> We do address this argument.  We may not do so using the same exact
> framework that you do, but we argue (a) that CC should not be used as a
> weapon against systems monopolies in general, 

This is the key I think for me. I do not want to give a platform monopolist 
the rights to sell my works on his platform when I have no such rights. If 
you have some argument as to why it is good for me to do so, I am all ears.

I want my works to defend me where possible. (I think? I jus coined that 
phrase.)

> (b) that parallel 
> distribution solves monopolies over CC-licensed content in the sense
> that it allows users to make full use of the parallel copy, and (c) that
> introducing a parallel distribution clause takes away no freedom from
> the user that she would otherwise have enjoyed to put a CC-licensed work
> on the platform.  To me, at least, this exhausts the universe of
> possible harms.  Any unfair imbalances of power can be described in
> terms of these three (DRM is unfair in general; DRM prevents exporting
> CC-licensed works from systems; DRM prevents importing CC-licensed work
> onto systems).
>
> I think that our description of the issues fairly alerts readers to your
> concerns, even if it doesn't describe them in the full detail you would.

I don't think it does. If a reader were t ofollow the link, perhaps they 
would 
get a better idea, but I read your paper and found it lacking when explaining 
my objections.

>   We linked to Terry Hancock's essay, which discusses the "DRM Dave"
> scenario at length.  Again, we have not been trying to hide the  ball,
> and we want others to engage both with our views and the views of those
> with whom we disagree.  Our goal is wider, more informed participation.
>
> James

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
http://www.nanowrimo.org/index.php
785,006,026 words and counting.