Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Some basic agreements?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Greg London" <teloscorbin AT gmail.com>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Some basic agreements?
  • Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:29:18 -0500

Sorry, maybe I should clarify.
I'm not looking for a "yes but"
followed by the reason you support your solution,
I'm looking for a yes or no as to whether the problems
as describe below actually exist or not.

The IMPORTANCE of each one may be weighed and traded
in coming up with a solution, but we need to at least agree
that a problem of some level exists before we'll ever
get any agreement.



On 12/6/06, Greg London <teloscorbin AT gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe we ought to start out and agree
on what the actual problem we're trying to
solve really is:

The problem:
ShareAlike without any DRM clause
(neither anti-tpm nor par-dist)
allows the DRM-Daves of the world
to monopolize two different rights:

(1) the right to the content itself
(2) the right to distribute/sell the work on Dave's platform.


(1) The content can be monopolized because
Dave wraps it in DRM and no one else can
extract the original content in a clear format.
Derivatives of CC-SA works could be closed
off inside of DRM so that no one but Dave
can access the content. This means that
Sam could create CC-SA work, and Dave could
create a derivative, wrap it in DRM, distribute
it on his DRM-only platform, and no one would
be able to extract a non-DRM file of the content.

(2) The right to distribute and sell the work on
Dave's DRM-only hardware could be monopolized
exclusively by Dave. Even if the content is not
monopolized by parallel distribution, no one but
Dave can distribute or sell the content on his
DRM-only hardware if he wishes to withold
permission to do so.

Can we all at least agree on these two points?

That these are the two basic problems that need
to be addressed in CC-SA, regardless of how
it is implemented in the license?

Could everyone throw in a yes/no to this?
Especially the Par-Dist proponents, since
it seems that we have been completely unable
to agree on anythign thus far.

Greg London





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page