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 09:01:37 -0500

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 08:33 am, rob AT wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz AT>:
> > 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.
> I appreciate that they are being said in the context of parallel
> distribution, and I am sorry if I have given the impression that I am not
> aware of this.
> >> How about when it allows no study, modification or sharing?
> >
> > Parallel distribution would allow it.
> Not in the instances where DRM has been applied. If the argument is that
> users should be careful to always download the non-DRM version in case they
> will need
> it in fifty years time, the same logic means that they should simply buy a
> non-DRM device and avoid the problem in the first place. Personal
> repsonsibility isn't something that starts only the millisecond after
> you buy a
> Zune.

Yes, well, I am still waiting for a nice player that will play oggs out of
box and heve some of the other features I want. I had bought an el-cheapo mp3
player in the mean time, but ended up not using it as I really don't want to
bother keeping an audio collection in mp3 format of converting on an as
needed baiss.

To me, DRM+parallel distribution (with my suggested restriction or something
similar) is only a matter of convenience amount friends.

It is claimed that the current porposed language allows personal application.
I have no real issue with one friend putting it on and giving a copy to
another friend who could also put it on but is in a rush. Or two friends
splitting a job and each applying it to half of their shared works and

Well, not true, I have a big overall problem with these types of platofrms in
general, but...
> If I have the capability to receive and use a non-DRM version I do not
> *need* a
> DRM version. If I *need* to receive a DRM version, I am not free to
> exercise the rights in the license, and I cannot redistribute because I
> cannot fulfil the dual distribution requirements.

Well, it might be a matter of multiple platform ownership where some can and
some can't.
> And in fact this is another problem with parallel distribution. Is it
> burdensome
> or ineffective? If I have to dual *re*-distribute, this limits the
> freedom (sic)
> of DRM hostages to redistribute and burdens ordinary users by forcing them
> to always give both versions to friends. If I do not have to dual
> re-distribute, dual distribution can be foiled trivially by me releasing my
> work in non-DRM and DRM versions to a trusted thrid party and them passing
> on only the DRM version.

How, wouldn't they also have to pass on both versions?
> The dual distribution proponents aren't looking at this two steps
> downstream from release, or two days after release. And they aren't even
> using Debian's thought experiments (Dissident, Desert Island, etc.) to
> examine what happens with dual distribution outside of the time and place
> of the last stages of the Web 2.0 bubble in the post-industrial west.

That is very possible. I will aks again for those who want the parallel
distributin to point out any actual cases where not having parallel
distribution hurts and how and who.

I understand I am asking this while putting forth hypotheticals on my own
> > [...] 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.
> Quite. This is a matter of law, not technology. DRM is law, not code
> (and not a
> string of bits or a file format or whatever).
> >> > 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.)
> The problem with DRM, and this has been demonstrated in The Real World
> by Apple,
> is that DRM vendors, not users, control DRM. Apple have slowly reduced the
> rights they give you over tracks you have bought from iTMS.

Well, in my proposed language compromise, at hat point all rights to
redistribute would cease... Build in a poison pill.
> >> 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.
> LOL @ myself. Yes I see what you mean. :-)
> > Can you explain how getting a DRM copy that can be used on a DRM platorm
> > violates freedom 0?
> DRM can remove my Fair Use right to quote the work or indeed any use not
> explicitly permitted by the DRM platform. If I have the ability to do so
> elsewhere I am better served by protecting that right than by helping
> to remove
> it.

There must be some catch 22 action here. I feel certain it is freedom 0
proponents of parallel distribution are concerned with which is the right to
play it on any platforms you have. We are in effect, proposing to deny this
right on certain conditions, which is the platform owner denying the right on
other conditions... Yes? No?
> - Rob.

all the best,

(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
861,535,038 words and counting.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page