Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

I applaud Greg's effort in this thread, I think that both the answers
and the non-answers are quite revealing as to the real issues.

I have realized furthermore, that the so-called "tactical" or
"pragmatic" argument from the ParDist side has a serious flaw of
reasoning. This can be demonstrated logically, and confirmed empirically:


If a manufacturer makes a platform designed to exclude other content,
then he is expressly locking content *off* of his platform (as well as
onto it), which effectively de-values the platform. If there is only one
popular platform and practically everything the end-user would want is
available for it, then this monopoly can amount to effectively
destroying competition and locking users into to content that he provides.

However, in a world with either 1) significant free content or 2) many
different DRM-locked pools of work, said manufacturer is doing nothing
but shooting himself in the foot.

ParDist proponents have argued that not allowing free content to be
monopoly-distributed for specific DRM-locked platforms will effectively
kill or impede growth of free content through lack of exposure.

They then go on to discount the importance of free content, saying that
it is such a tiny volume of work compared to the proprietary, DRM-locked
work, that it represents no significant disadvantage for manufacturers
of DRM-locked platforms.

We should get our first intimation that this argument is flawed when we
see a DRM-happy company like Sony capitulating to the needs of "home
brew" gamers with their new PS3 platform (which was specifically
designed to allow Linux to be installed on it). If they didn't see a
profit motive in doing this, I am mystified by their choice (I don't
credit Sony with much in the way of altruism).

But in fact, this is logical. Free content may be a tiny volume compared
to all proprietary work. But that's not where the break falls for a
DRM-locked platform. On a DRM-locked monopoly platform, only the works
that the monopolist has distribution rights for can be played on that
platform. The DRM locks out:

1) all independent non-DRM free works
2) all independent non-DRM proprietary works
3) all competitors' DRM-locked works

(Note however, that all three categories *including free works* may be
licensed by special permission with or without fee on the platform,
according to the authors' wishes).

It may well be that, as the ParDist proponents argue, the denial of free
works to the platform creates insignificant pressure *by itself*. But,
in combination with the large body of proprietary works that are also
locked out, the manufacturer is doing himself considerable damage by
locking out other work.

He's going to have to decide if and when this damage is compensated by
his "SDK tax" that he subsidizes the hardware with.

Empirically, Sony has done something very interesting by upping the
price-point on the PS3. It's still being sold below cost, but the
increased price creates an opening for free platforms which do not have
the benefit of such an SDK tax.

To me, this suggests that Sony is considering migrating away from the
SDK-tax model. The PS3 can be viewed as an experiment in that direction.
This makes a lot of sense when you realize the degree to which
technology costs are dropping. Free gaming/entertainment platforms are
starting to become viable, and the move by Sony is a recognition of this
threat. Only by opening up their platform to free content can they
remain competive in a more open marketplace (obviously, they are still
only dallying -- the free platform still is disadvantaged relative to
their proprietary SDK platform, but it's a start).

At the same time, a market which was once strongly dominated by one
player (Sony's Playstation 1 & 2), is becoming a three-way free-for-all
between three big-name proprietary platforms: Microsoft's XBox,
Nintendo's Wii, and Sony's Playstation 3.

Given this climate, I think that predicting the failure of free content
to motivate change is premature. It seems very likely that it is good
sense for free content to join the existing opposition to DRM-locked
platforms, rather than capitulating to it.

So, while it remains true that this tactical reasoning is not the
principle reason for supporting anti-TPM, I think it's also true that it
is likely to help defeat DRM, contrary to the claims of the defeatists.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com