Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 27 November 2006 06:35 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> 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.

I understand you to be saying that. I don't agree and am pointing out from my 
point of view why.

Does CC have to pick one strategy? If so, could anti-DRM be another "module" 
alongside BY,SA,NC,ND?
>
> James

all the best,

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