Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement
  • Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:30:28 -0500

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 04:37 am, Rob Myers wrote:

Rob, as an overall comment, in all fairness to James, who's views I also do
not hold at this time, your rebuttals do not seem to take into account that
all of what he is saying is being said in the context of parallel
distribution. (At least, that is my take. James is that correct, or do your
answers below hold in the general case even where there is no parallel
distribution and your works become locked away and "un-get-attable" by those
who receive them?)

The rest of my comments below will depend on this assumption where
(Yes and I know about you and me but why break a streak?)

> James Grimmelmann wrote:
> > Speaking solely for myself as an author, I am delighted when my CC work
> > is ported to another platform, even when that platform doesn't allow
> > easy copying out.
> How about when it allows no study, modification or sharing?

Parallel distribution would allow it.

> > (One of my essays has been excerpted in two books,
> > which are not the easiest artifacts to copy from, even with scanning
> > technologies.)
> Does the book have a EULA or does it respect Fair Use?

This is a fair point. I have no problem with my works migrating out of the
digital realm and into the physical. Once there, copying can indeed be more
difficult, the question is, is it illegal, not is it difficult.
> > I would be similarly delighted if my work were ported to
> > DRMed platforms.
> I would not.

Neither would I unless any joe user wal legally and technically able to apply
the DRM. Well, not delighted as I am not delighted with the platforms in
general, but at least accepting. (With some means to also provide the
freedoms naturally, on of which could be parallel distribution.)
> Possibly we are viewing DRM laden devices differently. You seem to be
> viewing them as a souped up CD player. I seem to be viewing them as a
> broken general purpose computer. I have no problem with iPods as
> read-only devices any more than I think that the average home not having
> a record re-presser is a limit on freedom. But you do not need DRM for
> iPods and DRM on general purpose devices or for *distribution* is harmful.
> > In my capacity as a reader, I much prefer non-DRMed versions. With
> > parallel distribution, those versions would be available to me.
> At the moment of initial distribution. The GPL requires that source be
> made available for longer (if we must use that comparison), and why.
> > That some readers will not be careful about their backups and about
> > acquiring non-DRMed versions does not strike me as a good reason to
> > prevent them from being able to acquire DRMed copies at all. GNU/Linux
> > does not force users to keep backups. What is critical is to make sure
> > that those who wish to be responsible about their backups can be so
> > without unnecessary obstacles.
> Such as DRM.
> > I
> > don't think that Creative Commons licenses are a well-suited tool for
> > encouraging that adoption.
> Where has anyone said that they are?
> CC covers cultural works. If Free Software is a means to the end of
> cultural freedom this is good. If it does not then it is damage to be
> routed around.

Rob, careful here. The first time I read through it, I took your meaning, the
second time, I read it differently and couldn't believe what you were saying.

Second meaning... "If Free Software is a means to" "the endo of cultural
freedom" "this is good." What, Rob is interested in the end of cultural
freedom? Read that again! Perhaps a different wording would have been better.
> You are consistently taking a read-only view of culture, an impoverished
> "use" that doesn't even encompass Stallman's freedom 0. DRM prevents the
> very "redistribution" that you mistake for freedom, and prevents freedom
> after the point of its introduction.

"The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)."

Huh, am I missing something?

The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the
source code is a precondition for this.

Can you explain how getting a DRM copy that can be used on a DRM platorm
violates freedom 0?
> The CC licenses allow people to do this to themselves (if they have the
> right to anyway), they should not allow third parties to do so any more
> than the GPL 3 does.
> - Rob.

all the best,

(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page