Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - RE: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Christian Ahlert" <christian.ahlert AT oii.ox.ac.uk>
  • To: "'Rob Myers'" <robmyers AT mac.com>, "'Cory Doctorow'" <cory AT eff.org>
  • Cc: 'Prodromos Tsiavos' <prodromos.tsiavos AT socio-legal-studies.oxford.ac.uk>, cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft
  • Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:17:38 +0100

Okay! Here a question from a non-lawyer, no-clue person about copyright.
Why (Rob) does the UK-license need to resemble so closely the US-license (as
you seem to imply)? Its clear to me that it needs to follow the "spirit" and
the "intention" of the US license...

Best
--Ch


Christian Ahlert
www.oii.ox.ac.uk
Oxford Internet Institute
www.ahlert.org
+44(0)1865 287 203


-----Original Message-----
From: cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Rob Myers
Sent: 13 July 2004 12:58
To: Cory Doctorow
Cc: Prodromos Tsiavos; cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft

IANAL, I'm nothing to do with CC.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 01:34PM, Cory Doctorow <cory AT eff.org> wrote:

>> Remove any mention of the Author from any new Version or larger piece
>> in which the Work is included, if the Creator requests.
>
>Somewhere above this term in the license, we need something that says
>that this doesn't derogate from fair dealing rights to criticise,
>etc...

I do see your point but this is from the original CC-2.0 license. I think it
was part of a fudge to keep those of us who wanted to keep a nonattribution
license happy, or more probably to make sure that your name doesn't appear
on a porn collection that includes two lines of your work. :-)

>> Allow the use of technological measures ? e.g., digital watermarking
>> or encryption devices ? to control use of or access to the Work or any
>> version of it.
>
>I hate DRM as much as the next person, but this is overly broad. If I
>create a private community for me and my friends to circulate our
>derived works, and I passowrd-protect it and encrypt its outputs, I'll
>be in violation of this term. Why do we need this?

This is from the original CC-2.0 . We need it so people can't lock CC
content behind a DRM barrier, making the license ineffective in practice.
This would be an example of Lessig's replacement of legal enforcement with
technological enforcement...

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
Cc-uk mailing list
Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page