Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Sunday 03 December 2006 12:25 am, Greg London wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 December 2006 08:33 pm, Greg London wrote:
> >> > On Saturday 02 December 2006 07:56 pm, Greg London wrote:
> >> >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004634.h
> >> >>tml
> >> >>
> >> >> >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 don't understand how this is any different than
> >> the current anti-tpm clause which allows local DRM.
> >> If folks are agreeable to the above then why are
> >> they in an uproar over the current anti-TPM clause.
> >>
> >> They are almost identical.
> >
> > Do you need to understand it if it is acceptable to them?
>
> I'd like to understand why folks object to
> Anti-TPM plus local DRM
> but would agree to
> parallel-distribution plus pre-authorization-to-apply-DRM
>
> Because I see only a subtle difference between the two.
> And that means either I'm not understanding something
> or they're not understanding something
> or something more weird.

Greg, now you are being funny. Were you not a part of a large family? If you 
were, perhaps it was perfect.

Actually, I understand your point and of course we want to understand things, 
but sometimes it is easier to get an agreement that we can live with than to 
figure out why the other party is OK with something.

I came up with the language as a way to kill what I saw as the danger in the 
proposed PD language while allowing everything else that the PD folks wanted. 
I wanted to see if they insisted that someone like DRM Dave who wanted his 
platform monopoly had to have that right over my BY-SA works to make them 
happy. Apparently not. I can make that compromise. That's about it from my 
point of view.
>
> > Do you object?
>
> Simply on the grounds that its near identical to the proposal
> but would require a full review cycle, again.

Perhaps I asked the wrong question. Could you accept it for the next version 
then? One without the timie constraints you see here.
>
> > Can it hurt?
>
> That I don't know. I haven't considered this particular
> flavor, because today is the first day I've heard it
> proposed. I'd have to ponder it a bit to see if there
> are any weaknesses in the system before I'd say.

This is from my post of 11/27:

"I don't understand the problem with allowing parallel distribution for DRM 
platforms which let regular user apply DRM without restrictions, but forbid 
it for those that don't. I also don't understand why no one will take up the 
discussion of that idea? (Or did I miss or forget that?)"

Going back further now...

This from my comment here:

http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/ip/20061124-00.comment

'
"For example, imagine that Dudley Do-Right wants to make Nell's novel 
available in a PlayStation version. If he puts the novel on a 
PlayStation-formatted disc, however, DRM protections will prevent that disc 
from being read except on a PlayStation."

You need to address this issue. How does Dudly do this? Can anyone? If so, 
parallel may be cool. If not, not.'

Perhaps further back still... (I think I floated this idea long ago.)

This from my post of 10/02:

"I don't yet get why the parallel distribution promoters are so gung ho on 
allowing it where ony the platform maker can apply the DRM. Why can't the 
anti-trp be in there with an exception allowing parallel distribution in 
cases where anyone can apply the DRM but not in cases where this is not so?"

OK, so there were some spelling errors.

This from 10/01:

"Or, and why will no one address this, on DRM only players where anyone can 
freely put on the DRM to protect their own works if they wish along with 
parallel distribution in such situations."

This from 10/01 addresses specifically to Greg within the body of the post:

"I keep suggesting something that I think may do this, but I don't recall 
seeing any full responses to the idea. Perhaps I am not explaining myself 
well enough."

This from 10/01 as well:

"Hence my earlier question about an anti-TPM clause with an exception for 
platforms where Alice and Bob can put on their own DRM but no exception for 
Dave's "Dave only" platform."

This from 9/30:

"OK, so why not talk of allowing it only where general users can apply the 
DRM 
if they wish?"

This from 9/29:

"In Greg's bad case, Dave get's a monopoly by being the only one who can 
apply 
the DRM and thus becomse the sole provider. In my example, anyone can apply 
the DRM for the platform. If they do, they must also provide parallel, 
non-DRM version. Anyone else can then get the non-DRM version, make whatever 
changes they want, and then re-apply the DRM to allow their modded version to 
play on the player."

From 9/28:

"So, should we have an anti-TPM clause with an exception for platforms where 
any actor can put the DRM on the file, but not allow it for platforms where 
only licensed actors can put on the DRM? (In cases of DRM only platofrms.) 
And that requires parallel distribution in cases where the exception is 
granted."

I am going to stop here. First let me say sorry for all the typos I have made 
the list members endure. Man. Wow, so many.

Secondly, I abviously was not expressing myself clearly as I have been making 
this proposal for a good while now but both sides of the back and forth just 
seemes to have picked up on what I was getting at.

In my defense, I even pointed this out in my posts, but still got nowhere. 
Still, I need to try and do better.
>
> And I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea of going
> through yet another alternative, especially if CC
> isn't going to change, which I wouldn't think they
> would because it seems like a minor difference, but
> the language of the license would have to be completely
> rewritten and one wrong word could pooch it.

The dog I feel I have in the race is to stop Big Bad DRM-Dave. Any way is 
fine 
with me. I will leave the rest of the fight to those with another reason to 
debate.
>
> I mean, seriously, there was a lot of wrangling going on
> just to modify the license to remove one word so that
> the DRM requirement only applies to distributed works.
>
> My question to the ParDist-Plus-DRM-Authorization folks is
>
> do you realize how close this is already implemented
> in ANTI-TPM-plus-Local-DRM?

I am not one of them, but Ido remember from an earlier post, and I think it 
was on this list and about this subject, is that there is a fear of 
unintended consequences where we will end up dis-allowing things we had not 
considered. this in my view is an entirely fair concern.
>
> Greg

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954