Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

<quote who="Greg London" date="Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 02:24:53PM -0500">
> 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.

<snip />

> 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?

I think everyone agrees that monopolizing rights to a derivative version
of CC content (1) is in violation of the terms of the license and should
be avoided even when it introduces other inconveniences. That's a very
clear "Yes" to (1).

I also agree that platform monopolies are bad. I feel similarly about
unmodifiable technologies like snowglobes or, more strongly,
intentionally feature-limited mobile phones or network appliances which
have the same effect of limiting freedoms. I don't, however, think this
is a problem that the CC anti-DRM clause can or should try to fix -- for
the same reasons that it shouldn't try to ban distribution on snowglobes
or mobile phones.

I also think it's bad if CC works can't be distributed to the world's
systems and that *any* approach to DRM clauses has complex trade-offs. I
think that Dave has a monopoly on his system regardless of whether CC
works get involved and the role of the CC license should be to ensure
that users of CC works, on Dave's platforms or elsewhere, should have
all the same rights that Dave did.

> 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.

I'm making a tactical argument that parallel distribution is the correct
thing to do. You are trying to force people to adopt a hard-line
"yes/no" approach to the very  complex problem of platform monopolies
that I believe hides important muddiness necessary to make the best
tactical decision. I think my arguments represents a more nuanced
approach to this problem. My non-answer to number (2) is:

  A straight forward "it's always and absolutely wrong" or "it's always
  and absolutely right" hides important complexity of this issue
  necessary to make the correct tactical decision.

You have a far-from-universal approach to analyzing this problem that
leads you to certain conclusions. Anyone who adopts your framing is
probably going to agree with you. You seem to frequently conclude that
those that don't adopt your framing do not understand you or being
slippery or stubborn.

I understand what you think the problem is and why you think that
parallel distribution is a bad choice. I disagree with the way that you
are constructing and presenting the problem and that is why I disagree
with your conclusions.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

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