Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

Greg London wrote:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004634.html
>
> > 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.)
>
> Now I'm totally confused.
>
> > 2) Everyone is free to apply the DRM.
>
> This can only occur if DRM-Dave gives everyone permission to
> apply DRM to the content that he provided.
>
> If DRM-Dave is willing to do this, then he isn't trying to
> monopolize his platform, and his platform should support
> either transparent DRM (DRM that simply tells the platform
> to place no restrictions on the work) or open format content
> (text files, jpgs, mpegs files, etc.) and then it won't be
> a problem anyway.

It is easily possible to envision platforms that that use DRM but do not 
support transparent DRM or open format content.  These platforms are 
driven more by (non-CC) copyright holders' desires to lock up their 
works than by a desire for platform monopoly.   Both are legitimate 
concerns.

> Also, the anti-TPM clause as it is currently proposed
> allows local application of DRM to CC-SA works.
> This means if Dave allows (2), then you can apply
> DRM to your local CC-SA copy and load it to your platform
> under the current proposed language for the license.
>
> The only restriction with the Anti-TPM clause is
> that you cannot distribute that DRM version if
> that version has restricted rights.
>
> But you can use it locally on your hardware platform.
>
> The only thing you don't get out of the current
> anti-TPM clause is a parallel distribution copy.
>
> But if Dave is willing to allow people to apply DRM,
> then it isn't a problem. You just do it to your local copy.
>
> Yes?

Much would depend on how easy it is to apply the DRM.  If it were 
expensive or difficult, this might not be a reasonable option.  One 
could fix that by amending (2) to read, "Everyone is free and reasonably 
able to apply the DRM for free."  But that, as I believe is pointed out 
later in this thread, complicates (2) even further.  It may be that the 
best argument against this compromise is that precise language would be 
too complicated or too difficult to draft.

James