Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Benj. Mako Hill" <mako AT atdot.cc>]

<quote who="Greg London" date="Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 02:38:42AM -0500">
> > In the essay, we used the example of a mobile phone but I think I can do
> > better here:
> >
> >   Let's say that there is a popular piece music under a permissive
> >   CC license. Now let suppose that a manufacturer of electronic
> >   greeting cards and small musical snow-globes wants to use that
> >   piece of music as part of their cards and music boxes. Neither
> >   devices have the ability to modify the music or even to copy it
> >   off.
> >
> > First, is this a violation of the current anti-TPM language?
> > It seems to me that it probably is. If you think that is not,
> > I'd love to hear why
> 
> I assume that the license wording for "TPM" would mean something
> that actively restricts the rights.

It's not in the current draft. But this has been discussed elsewhere in
this thread so I'll hold off from doing it again here.

> But no one considers an iPod's inability to "DERIVE" a CC-SA song
> to be a violation of the CC-SA license.

This is precisely my point.

> Your greeting card thingy can't even COPY or DISTRIBUTE a song by its
> hardware design. It's more like an iPod that just wasn't built to do
> certain things than some Technological Protection Measure intended to
> create some channel that allows distribution of CC-SA works without
> respecting ShareAlike.
> 
> Now, if you can plug your SnowGlobe into your PC and download new
> songs, you damn well better be able to get access to those songs
> somewhere along the path.

Let's assume you can't. It's just a snowglobe.

> And if on the off chance that you can access the internal memory of
> that snowglobe via the 4-pin JTAG port, then a little bit of software
> and a bit of wiring to create an interface from you PC should do the
> trick.

Let's assume I've not built a J-Tag port.

> And this won't invoke Anti=Circumvention violations, so should be
> legal, and shouldn't be a problem.

OK. Now imagine I design my snowglobe in a way that might be seen as
specifically designed to make removing the song difficult. No J-Tag
port, no circuit documentation or protocol documentation that might make
taking the data off possible, no easy solder points. If you ask I don't
give you a data sheet. I don't use encryption and because the components
I use are cheap, it's hard to to determine if this was intentionally
designed to keep people from doing it or not.

Here's another example: 

Apple might claim that they've designed the iPod/iTunes to only sync
with one computer because it causes less problems. The fact that it
blocks sharing and copying between iPods and computers, of a sort that
is legally permissible for any CC content on the device, is a real
effect of this. The iPod/iTunes design is a technological measure that
keeps you from taking advantages of your rights under any CC of the
major CC licenses. Is it in violation? 

The point I'm trying to make is that it bad intent that you are
ultimately trying to fight, not any particularly technological decision.

> > If not, why can works licensed under CC licenses without ND clauses be
> > distributed to devices that cannot modify their content (i.e., anything
> > with read only media)?
> 
> The difference is actually very, very simple.
> 
> DRM-Dave can exercise some right on the platform.
> But you can't.
> 
> If the HARDWARE ALLOWS COPYING, but TPM Prevents everyone but DAVE
> from Copying, then you're looking at special priviledges for Dave.
> The work is no longer being shared equally.

My snowglobe example was an ROM. The designer of the system, we can call
him Dave, can copy data onto the ROM before he ships it out. You, the
person who buys it, can not. Nobody other than Dave can.

Apple can copy data onto your iPod using iTunes. You, as an iTunes user,
must only do it on their terms.

There's not crypto involved in either situation.  But there is a real
power disparity of the same type you claim PD is broken because it
cannot address.

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako AT atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results. --RMS