Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

> You seem reticent to acknowledge that there are a whole set of things
> that Alice and Bob might like to do -- e.g., move the data from their
> games onto different systems, play music on their stereos, remix stuff
> on their computers -- that parallel distribution makes possible and that
> your solution leaves impossible.

"Remix stuff on their computers"?

"Move the data from their games onto different systems?"

"Play stuff on their steroes?"

No DRM makes these more likely as ongoing possibilities for an 
individual than DRM does. And dual distribution makes DRM more likely in 
any given situation than anti-TPM does.

> You are in effect saying that the potential for abuse introduced by PD
> through the power disparity you describe outweighs all of the "good"
> things that PD would make possible. That may be a reasonable argument to
> make, but it's one that is extremely debatable. You should be able to
> acknowledge this.

Are you saying that without the DRM the user *cannot* play the CC 
licensed work at all?

Because if not, they can have full freedom over it elsewhere and it is 
better for them not to lose this. If so, they are not free and we should 
be concentrating on freeing them, not helping them to remain trapped.

> Our examples about snow globes and musical greetings cards are trying to
> describe how the technical power disparities of the type you are
> describing exist outside of DRM. 

This confuses existence with degree. And your examples do not work as 
they confuse read-only distribution media with use restrictions on 
platforms.

> By addressing this disparity through
> anti-DRM clauses, you are neither achieving a balance in favor of
> maximizing freedom to and through CC works, nor effectively working
> around power balance in total.

Then surely we should allow anyone to remove the freedoms that the CC 
licenses feature, and not just technologically.

- Rob.