Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Benj. Mako Hill" <mako AT atdot.cc>]

<quote who="rob AT robmyers.org" date="Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:42:50PM +0000">
> Quoting "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako AT atdot.cc>:
> 
> > Perhaps more importantly, everyone in this discussion (myself included)
> > seems to be indifferent, at best, to the most popular CC licenses.  Do
> > you feel that any consensus we might come to is representative of CC
> > users given that a majority of licenses choose non-SA and NC works and a
> > good chunk choose ND?
> 
> I believe that the single most used license is NC-SA:
> 
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5936

That's where I got my numbers. Perhaps I wasn't as articulate as I
should have been. Less than half of licenses have an SA component. Much
more than half have NC. Even if the numbers were swapped, there would
still issues with the representativeness of this group.

> 1. Who is allowed to add DRM to the work? Do you have to be a rights
> holder?

My understanding is that it can't happen under a CC license. The rights
holder or anyone with a copy under a non-CC license that permits DRM
could place DRM on it.

> 2. Isn't DRM distribution allowed by the current licenses anyway?
> 
> See, er:
> 
> http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/ip/20061115-00.html
> 
> (via MJ Ray) for why I ask whether distribution is already permitted.

IMHO, the issue boils down to whether you think that fair use rights are
satisfied by a given system. No deployed DRM system even tries. DReaM
is interesting because it seems like it wants to. Most people I've
talked to feel that if you had a a "fair use" button that caused the
program to output a clear copy, that would be free. The only casualty
in this system is anonymous fair use. Others have said that something
less might be OK.

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako AT atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results. --RMS