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: Francesco Poli <frx AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement
  • Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:05:59 +0100

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:20:43 -0500 drew Roberts wrote:

> On Wednesday 29 November 2006 07:09 pm, Rob Myers wrote:
> > But if everyone is allowed to apply DRM to modified versions of the
> > work they do not need to receive DRM versions of the work as they
> > can apply the DRM to the original version themselves.
> Hence it just being a matter of convience as I have pointed out. They
> can do it for themselves, so why not let me do it for them and give a
> file with it already done.

Exactly. Most users don't even dare to install a simple program that
didn't come preinstalled on their computer: those users will probably
be scared by the idea of taking a file in a (clean) format and convert
it to another (DRMed) format in order to load it on their DRM-only
As long as their freedoms are not reduced by the application of DRM
being made by someone else, why not allow this scenario?

> I don't see any reason to appose the DRM witt paralled distribution in
> cases where anyone can apply the DRM.
> Does anyone see a reason?

I personally don't see any reason.

There are four possible ways to distribute a work (with respect to DRM):

A) without DRM
B) with DRM that anyone can apply, in parallel with an unencumbered
C) with DRM that only the blessed can apply, in parallel with an
unencumbered copy
D) with DRM (and no other parallel copy)

I think that A and B should be allowed, while C and D could be

And I have a doubt: could it be that the current CC-v3.0draft language
already does so?

I requote CC-v3.0draft (2006-10-25):

| When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose
| any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the
| ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise their rights
| granted under the License

A is obviously allowed, D is obviously forbidden.

Maybe B is implicitly allowed and C implicitly forbidden.
The key words are "effective" and "restrict".

Are TPMs "effective" and do they "restrict" the ability to exercise the
rights granted by the license, in case B? I don't think so: the
recipient can do whatever the license allows him/her to do; he/she can
use, copy, and distribute the work, either in unmodified or modified
form, thanks to the unencumbered copy and the ability to apply DRM as
needed to enter a possibly DRM-only platform.
So maybe B is allowed.

Are TPMs "effective" and do they "restrict" the ability to exercise the
rights granted by the license, in case C? I think so: the recipient
cannot distribute or modify the work and have the distributed copy or
modified version back in the DRMed format (so that it can be used on a
possibly DRM-only platform).
So maybe C is disallowed.

Is this analysis correct?
Can we have some real lawyer that shares his/her opinion on this

But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpzCAxxSgL5g.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page