Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

James Grimmelmann wrote:

> The language in the CC 2.5 licenses on point refers to both "access" and 
> "use," which would seem to be a clear attempt to track the DMCA.  Under 
> that language, that the artifact was designed without digital copying 
> features may itself be the "technological measure" that protects the 
> copyright holder's rights.  Reverse-engineering the pinout of the 
> greeting card's internal chip and extracting the music seems like a 
> straightforward DMCA violation.  Since breaking the lock would violate 
> the § 1201(b) rights-protecting portion of the DMCA, given the CC 2.5 
> language, I think the lock itself qualifies as a TPM.

The undocumented nature of the chip is not the same as an intentional 
encryption of the content. It may be closer to a garage door remote 
control than to CSS.

> Why not the photo on paper case?  Because the use of paper doesn't seem 
> like it "restricts" the exercise of a right.  Given the format in which 
> the work exists--on a piece of paper--the rights of, say, copying that 
> piece of paper with a scanner, aren't restricted by the fact that it's 
> on paper.  

You've never seen a copy protected printed document? Dark and light 
brown or blue? :-)

Or a book with a restrictive license claim printed on the copyright 
page? Or a sticker on its shrinkwrap?

I've seen technological measures used in print media. Indeed I worked at 
a company that did prepress for companies like Gilette, and we spent a 
lot of time incorporating technological measures into the printing of 
designs to make copying them difficult.

But these were different from DRM as they they did not cause any novel 
legal protection as a result of their addition.

- Rob.