Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution and Non-Copyleft Licenses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution and Non-Copyleft Licenses
  • Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:55:19 -0500

Greg London wrote:
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.

Television comes with the gatekeeper of an FCC license (in the U.S.). If you do not have one, you cannot legally broadcast.


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.

I think this is not an accurate characterization of why CC does not require source code. It is simply not a relevant (or even meaningful) attribute for many of the non-software types of works to which CC licenses apply. For software, source code is critically important to modification. That is, with software, you need source code in order to make full use of the relevant freedoms; with many other sorts of works, you do not need the source code to enjoy those freedoms.

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.

In your framework, the parallel copy is the source code. Yes, you distribute a DRM-encumbered "object code" version, but you also make the "source code" version available -- a version that provides the necessary practical support for all of the relevant freedoms.

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.

I disagree that "by that medium" is a useful restriction. The goal should be that "whatever rights that are made available to one person must be made available to all." Parallel distribution accomplishes that goal.

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.

I think that this may be an essential point of our disagreement. (drew, I think that you and I disagree on other points than this one.) You are most concerned that everyone have identical freedoms in a ShareAlike work. I am most concerned that everyone have a baseline level of essential freedoms.

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.

ShareAlike does not refer to the particular rights and abilities Alice and Bob have. It means that if Wally distributes a derivative work, he must Share it under a the Alike license that he received the original under.

James




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page