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 14:14:25 -0500

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 10:29 am, rob AT wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz AT>:
> > 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.
> This would be convenient, but convenience is not the same as freedom. I
> say this
> as someone who has installed Debian unstable on their iBook and iPodLinux
> on their iPod. ;-)
> > Or two friends
> > splitting a job and each applying it to half of their shared works and
> > swapping.
> I think that would break the license though.
> > Well, it might be a matter of multiple platform ownership where some can
> > and some can't.
> If this is the case then I believe that we should concentrate on the some
> that can.
> >> [...] 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?
> Then it would be burdensome. If you ask me for a song that I have the DRM
> version of, I also have to give you the non-DRM version, which I had better
> have downloaded. If I can no longer download the unencumbered version I
> cannot give you the DRM version.

Well duh, but that is what you get for buying and playing with the DRM
platforms in the first place. Talk to you platform provider about the burdens
he is placing on you, if he had a sane platform, those burdens wouldn't
> Even if I did download both versions, a Zune will not send a non-DRM
> version. This means that, ironically, dual distribution would make the Zune
> break CC licenses twice as much as it does now (not allowing you to fulfill
> your dual distribution obligations as well as adding DRM to the clear
> copy).

I don't plan on buying a zune but from reading some a while back, I don't
think it is yet clear just how the zune will and will not work re zune to
zune transfers.
> Unless I only have to make both versions available, in which case I can
> just release the CC version to a single Zune user who doesn't want the Free
> version and we are back at trivially strippable dual distribution.

No, because that zune user will not be able to legally transfer as per the
parallel distribution clause? Or you think the parallel distribution clause
will only apply for the major distributors?
> GPL/FDL-style transparent source offers for CC licenses wouldn't sit well
> with the freewheeling ideal of remix culture that seems to have driven CC
> license adoption, and can easily be made unpalatable by offering expensive
> and low quality free versions with long lead times for orders.

??? If I could figure how to word "source" requirements into CC I would
suggest their additions. With non-code though, this is a tangled thicket of
> >> 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.
> There was something about mobile phones on the wiki for this debate but
> again I'm not sure that dual distribution solves that case. In fact it's
> pretty similar to the Zune scenarios.
> > Well, in my proposed language compromise, at hat point all rights to
> > redistribute would cease... Build in a poison pill.
> What if the poison pill was triggered by vendor revisions to the DRM
> rather than
> user revision? For example Apple's reduction of rights over FairPlay work
> downloaded from iTMS?

Yes, if I understand you correctly. That is what I meant by a poison pill.
not really. I can go for parallel distribution on ipod as ipods can play
non-DRM files. (Not that I relly like it... but still.) So the poison pill
woult trigger if Apple sent out an upgrage which stopped that functionality.
At that point, people with a DRM copy of my stuff on their ipod could keep
it, but not distribute it, copy it, etc. They could sell their file if it
were allowed by ???
> >> 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?
> Freedom 0 is not the right to play the work on any platform. It is the
> right to
> use the work freely *as work* once you have it. Freedom 0 is freedom of
> use, not freedom of distribution. DRM can remove both freedoms, but it is
> important to note that the GPL treats them as separate cases and it is
> therefore Freedom 0 that "Defective By Design" is defending.

My point is that some people (not me) see not allowing them to use the work
their platform of choice as denying them freedom 0.
> Some people don't like this idea. The most common objections are what I
> would characterise as an imaginary BSD license proponent's objection that
> it goes against economic freedom, and as an imaginary Debian Legal
> listmember's objection that it discriminates against a field of endeavor
> (DFSG-7 IIRC). Both
> are principled positions and have some ethical merit but are beside the
> point when considering the effects of DRM on Freedom 0. And if Freedom 0
> goes, your ability to economically exploit your work or pursue your
> endeavors is in serious trouble.
> The GPL 3 drafts and the CC 3 license drafts both treat distribution as the
> choke point for DRM. This preserves freedom of use without allowing freedom
> to be stripped for downstream users either by the imposition of DRM on
> users outside of their control or by denying users or developers the
> ability to impose DRM on themselves.
> This is the least worst and the most consistent solution to the problem
> of DRM.

Hey, this is why I have been trying to suggest modified parallel distribution
language which would allow it for convenience, but not where it would kill
> - 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