Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

drew Roberts wrote:
> > 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.

What is good for you as an author and a Creative Commons licensor is 
your business alone.  Some authors feel it is good for their works to 
receive wider distribution, even on platforms that use DRM or from which 
it is hard to extract works.  Some feel that it is good for their works 
to receive this distribution only if the platform monopolist can't lock 
up the works exclusively onto that platform.  Others feel that it is 
never good for their works to go onto DRMed platforms unless everybody 
(especially the authors themselves) has the same freedom to put those 
works onto those platforms.

All of these are fair points of view, and authors themselves should be 
entitled to say what they think would be best for them.  All I am 
arguing is that if Creative Commons must pick one DRM strategy -- given 
that there are authors who hold all of these points of view about what 
they want -- the parallel distribution solution is the best overall.

James