Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nic Suzor" <nic AT suzor.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [cc-licenses] Fwd: Parallel Distribution and Non-Copyleft Licenses
  • Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 09:15:48 +1000

On 12/3/06, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> wrote:
allows DRM Dave to monopolize the entire CC-SA works.
Entire FLOSS community might see their works on
Dave's hardware with Dave using DRM and DMCA to
charge money to get a copy that plays on his DRM-only
player. But no one in the FLOSS community who created
any of those works will be able to sell their own
versions of DRM-enabled works that play on Dave's hardware.

Damage to community: minus 10 times size of community.
Say, negative several hundred.

I'm not convinced by this felicific calculus. Everyone can still use
and modify the licensed work, but they can't put it back on Dave's
hardware. They can still use other hardware. Snowglobes or iPods, the
content is still free. Yes, it is unfortunate that some manufacturers
can capture the majority of a market and reduce competition. But
disallowing them from using CC content won't stop that.

I think that the total loss to the community of people not being able
to make use of CC-licensed works on locked platforms outweighs any
benefit that can be gained from the PD clause. By forbidding Dave's
use, you are preventing him from exacting some level of harm which
results when community members see their content locked up and can't
compete on the same platform. But you are also preventing those
community members from accessing the benefits of licensed works on
that platform.

Sticking to the utilitarian analysis, your options become:

PD clause
(a) +10 to Alice and Bob, who can develop for Dave's platform
(b) -10 to each member of the community who want to compete with Dave
on Dave's platform
(c) +10 to each member of the community who benefit from being able to
use CC-licensed works on Dave's platform

Of course, the numbers presented are arbitrary and this method of
decision making is inherently flawed. However, I think that the loss
caused by removing an option to distribute altogether is greater than
the loss that will be caused by some people being unable to compete on
that platform _using CC works_. Better some use than none, because the
works themselves are still available, and people can use them in other
platforms.

I would support removal of the DRM clause for the BY license. For the
BY-SA licence, I agree with James:

On 12/3/06, James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net> wrote:
To rephrase your question, you're asking me whether I'd be okay with
a clause that said:

Use of DRM on a redistributed CC work is okay ONLY IF:
1) The work is also made available in an unDRMed parallel version, and
2) Everyone is free to apply the DRM.

I would moderately prefer the straightforward parallel distribution
clause to this one. I would much prefer this version to a license
without a parallel distribution. (And I would consider a license
without an anti-DRM clause at all unacceptable.)

cheers,


nic.

--
Nic Suzor
nic AT suzor.com
http://nic.suzor.com/
2B5F 5A21 7F3A D38E 99C0
7BC4 A2BA 7B79 B7E1 0D1C




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page