Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution and Non-Copyleft Licenses
  • Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:37:33 -0500

Greg London wrote:

I think that this may be an essential point of our disagreement.
You are most concerned that everyone have identical freedoms in
a ShareAlike work.
Yes. And why do you think that it is important?

Hint: it isn't because I want to use cc licenses as a "weapon".

Why would I think it is important?

Hint: it isn't "just because" either.

Get this question right and maybe this conversation will
make some progress.
(skipping this question because it is rhetorical)

No. It wasn't. You have yet to grasp why I support
an anti-DRM clause and oppose a parallel-distribution clause.
Or at the very least, I haven't heard it said back to
me properly yet.

Since this is important to you, I'll try again.

Here is a scenario that you are concerned about.

DRM Dave could create a platform that is DRM-only. Anyone who wishes to place content onto the platform would need permission from Dave. Once content is on the platform, it is impossible for anyone who receives the content to exercise one of the freedoms guaranteed by the CC license. (Two very important examples are redistributing it to others and making derivative works at all.)

First, assume that the current U.S. 3.0 license proposals are in place:

DRM Dave may place a CC-licensed work onto the platform. He is the only one who is able to do so (because anyone else would need his permission). Because of the anti-DRM clause, DRM Dave may not distribute the work to anyone else using the platform, because the DRM would "restrict the ability of a recipient . . . to exercise the right granted to them under the License." Thus, no one may distribute CC-licensed works on the platform.

In contrast, assume that the current U.S. 3.0 license proposals are in place, with the addition of CC's proposed parallel distribution clause:

Here, DRM Dave is still the only one who can place any CC-licensed works onto the platform. And again, no one besides DRM Dave can distribute any CC-licensed works using the platform (because they don't have the ability to place the works on in the first place). Dave, however, can distribute a CC-licensed work on the platform by making available an accessible unrestricted version in parallel.

If Alice takes that work and makes a derivative work from it, she will be unable to place that derivative work on the platform. Bob, however, who has paid DRM Dave's licensing fee, will be able to. (And in the case of a CC-SA work, Bob must also make an unrestricted accessible version of the derivative available in parallel.)

If DRM Dave's platform enjoys wide exposure, it will be a popular platform for distributing works in the shared community of CC-licensed works. Every time a new copy or derivative is loaded on, DRM Dave will collect his tax. Others will be technically able to use their freedoms to make derivative works, but without access to DRM Dave's platform, they won't have the same practical ability to share their changes with others. Only those changes blessed by Dave can be shared and seen and go on to be drawn upon themselves, and so on. The result is that DRM Dave has successfully taxed the community, and has the ability to censor those in the community by denying them access to the platform. This kind of control is antithetical to the values that CC is trying to and should encourage with its licenses.


Does this statement of the problem meet your standards?

James




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page