Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

> * Who has the right to add DRM to CC work?
>
> According to Mia’s responses to the draft comments, possibly only the
> copyright holder(s?). This would mean that only the original author and
> possibly authors of derivative works could add DRM. End users would not
> be able to.

That question would need to get a hard answer since
both anti-tpm and par-dist want to be able to apply
DRM to local copies as a minimum.

> * Should a transparent copy clause be added?
>
> Dual distribution or transparent copy clauses for cultural works do not
> sit well with CC’s style of remix culture licensing. It would be very
> difficult to get right. We would need to look at the FDL/SFDL, which
> have a similar requirement.

The whole idea of Parallel Distribution will need to nail down
what exactly is an acceptable format so that it is put into the
license as a requirement. i.e. can my SnowGlobe parallel copy
be a Hex Dump of my ROM? Would that meet the par dist requirements?
The complexity of the languge needed here seems to be missing
from the conversation so far. Would it be the reduced sampling
rate of the SnowGlobe? Or the original, high sample rate content?

Defining this will be a hard task.



More importantly, it seems that some folks pushing for
par-dist are presenting it as a solution for getting
clear copies of works out of hardware obscurity
(obscurity, such as the ROM in a SnowGlobe).

However, I don't think ReadOnly devices or PlayOnly devices
qualify as TPM. Just because your iSuck can't copy-out the
content to another iSuck doesn't mean it's a TPM.

And if it isn't a TPM, then the Par-Dist clause does not
get activated. Which means the content inside the snowglobe
does come along with a parallel copy of the work.

I do not think a SnowGlobe qualifies as TPM.

Greg
-- 
Take the Courage Vow
http://www.couragevow.com/
Pass it on.