Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

> Greg London wrote:
>> Without any DRM clause of any kind, ShareAlike has a loophole
>> that allows DRM Dave to use the work without sharing the work
>> on his platform. Only he can distribute works on his platform.
>> Only he can create derivatives on his platform.
>
> This is true.  But the same is true if DRM Dave makes snow globes that
> play a CC-licensed song.  Nobody else can put derivatives (or anything
> at all) on this sort of snow globe--simply because Dave is the one with
> the manufacturing plant. Why is this not a platform monopoly of this
> troubling sort?

See my last email about broadcasting CC-SA works to televisions.
Just because the television can't record, copy, distribute, edit,
doesn't mean you want to prohibit that use.

The question is whether the platform allows everyone the same
rights regardless of who they are, or whether the platform
allows SOME people to exercise a right, but not ALL.

What if Dave sells the work on a Compact Disc and distributes
it to everyone? The disc does not come with the ability to
automatically replicate itself or its content. But no one
would consider that an issue for CC-SA content.

The question is whether the distribution comes with a
gate keeper that SELECTIVELY allows SOME to exercise a
right but NOT others.

What if Dave sold the CC-SA work in a magazine article?
Paper doesn't have the ability to replicate itself.
You'd have to get a hi-res scanner and pull it in and
clean it up with software and do some work before you
could get a .jpg version of that file, but no one would
consider that a violation of the license to distribute
CC-SA content in a magazine.

The thing is that with the snow globe, and the greeting card,
and the compact disc, and the magazine, Alice and Bob
do not get the SOURCE CODE. But Creative Commons long
ago decided that the source version of the content was
not a requirement, due to the complexity of trying to
write the legaleze for that requirement in every medium
that might ever exist.

So, CC decided source code is not a requirement.

So when Gary distributes a CC-SA work via a magazine
or a greeting card or a snow globe, he doesn't have
to provide the original work.

But, what the ANTI-TPM clause says is that however you
distribute it, you cannot bundle it with some sort
of gate keeper that selectively picks and chooses
who can exercise certain rights.

That doesn't mean that all rights must be allowed in
whatever medium you distribute the content in.

It means that whatever rights are made available
by that medium to one person must be made available
to all.



> The works are copyleft to the extent anyone is free to take them, copy
> them, modify them, and distribute them by starting from the parallel
> version.

Exactly. And on that platform, the work is distributed unfairly.
Alice can do something that Bob is disallowed from doing because of TPM.

> The only thing they are not able to do in practice is to place
>   their own copies or derivative works back onto the particular DRMed
> platform.  Or is there something else you think they are not free to do?

The "only" thing is what makes it unfair.
Alice and Bob and Dave are no longer SHARING ALIKE.
Share and share alike.
That is the point. If the platform allows Alice
to do something, it must allow Bob to do it as well.




>> Now, we can argue whether parallel distribution adds rights
>> that weren't there before or not. But it's irrelevant.
>> It adds a minor right, but doesn't solve the problem of
>> a DRM=only hardware platform using the works as if they
>> were no longer ShareAlike on that hardware platform.
>
> I do not think that your "ShareAlike on that hardware platform" is a
> meaningful concept.  You seem to be taking the word "alike" too
> literally, to assume that everyone who encounters a work must have the
> exact same abilities in practice.

The term as I understand it comes from the common sense phrase:

Share and Share Alike.

I could be wrong. Someone from CC can correct me if so.
It's a very simple concept, really. If Alice can exercise
a right on some platform, Bob must be allowed to do so as well.
If the platform does not support a right for anyone, then
it is still share and share alike.

The only additional distinction needed is that CC does not
require SourceCode. It does not require the Original Form
of the work.

So if someone Distributes the work via a magazine,
they don't have to make the original text files and
.jpg files available to its readers. But whatever rights
that magazine can allow Alice to do, Bob must also be
allowed to do.

Different mediums has never been a problem as long
as the mediums treated everyone fairly.
As long as Alice could do everything that Bob could do,
it's being shared and shared alike within that medium.

Dave shares the work with Alice exactly the same way
he shares it with Bob.

There are no gate keepers in these mediums.
There are no rights "managers" built in that allow
some rights to some people and disallow some rights
to other people.

Everyone can use the content in a magazine exactly
the same as everyone else.

The advantage your snow globe focuses on is one of
Source Code, not a technological gate keeper.
Dave distributes a snowglobe and keeps the source code
for the content. But anyone who gets a snow globe
can do exactly the same thing that anyone else can do.
There are not gatekeepers that allow some to out-copy
the content to their PC, but disallows others.

The content is shared and shared alike.

The solution to your snowglobe scenario would be to
require source code. Anytime anyone distributes a
work in some medium they would have to make the
source code available. If you put it in a magazine,
you'd have to have the text files and jpeg files
available for your readers.

That's the solution to your snow globe scenario.

But CC long ago decided that Source Code was not
going to be a requirement. It's a separate discussion,
but I can understand the reasoning behind it,
and I'll support CC's decision around it.

But your snow globe doesn't have a TPM.
It doesn't have a gate keeper.
It doesn't selectively allow some to exercise
a right but not allow others.

So it really doesn't apply to the anti-tpm versus
parallel distribution debate.


Greg London

-- 
Take the Courage Vow
http://www.couragevow.com/
Pass it on.