Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

> 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.

anti-tpm-plus-local-application-of-drm should address this problem.

>> 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.

Parallel distribution alone allows DRM-Dave a monopoly.
I won't support plain par-dist because it allows a platform
monopoly on DRM-only hardware.

I'd probably support drew's par-dist-with-DRM-authorization
because the platform monopoly is not maintained in this
version. But then whatever issue you think exists with
the mandatory right to apply DRM exists in both

par-dist-with-drm-authorization
and
anti-tpm-with-local-drm

Either way, the idea of local DRM needs to get hammered out.

If not par-dist by itself allows a platform monopoly,
and anti-tpm by itself wont' allow local DRM.

Greg

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