Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Quoting Evan Prodromou <evanprodromou.name>:

> This prohibition unacceptably limits Betty's rights
under DFSG #1.

This incorrectly views the work as an aggregate rather than
as a derivative if
the work Betty uses is not already DRM-ed. And if the work
is Betty's own she
can release it proprietary under DRM with no problem.

If Betty is trying to add DRM to derive work she is
effectively 
relicensing the
work proprietary, which DFSG certainly doesn't allow.

And even if it did, we are being asked to privilege Betty's

distribution rights
over the world's usage rights. This includes Betty if she
loses her 
original or
moves off of her DRM-ed system.

So I disagree with Debian's conclusion here.

> If
> licensees can't distribute works in their format of
choice, then the
> works are not compatible with the DFSG and cannot be
part of Debian.

And if that format is specifically designed to defeat the
DFSG?

For end-users the PS2 case is like the iPod case. In each
case there is an end
device that can recieve TPM'ed data, but that crucially
cannot and will not
transmit/distribute it. We need an "iPod clause"
for end users, not a blanket
permission for DRM manufacturers and distributors. It is
important that we are
clear that DRM can simply defeat the CC licenses even on
non-DRM platforms by
making content usable only with DRM *software*. A blanket
DRM allowance makes
the CC licenses useless.

It would be wonderful if the CC licenses could declare that
work 
covered by them
is not covered by DRM, like the wording in GPL3 Draft 1 that
declared that no
GPL3 code could be considered part of an effective TPM
system. But I think the
code trumps the content.

For the iPod case, personal use of weak DRM on one's own
system or of 
encryption
(which is not the same thing at all, despite much FUD to the
contrary) is OK.
For iTMS or PS2, parallel distribution does look like the
only option, unless
it is possible to have a shell program for the PS2 that will
load and run
unsigned code. In fact how do homebrewers write PS2 games???

CC licenses could be usefully modified to say "you can
store this on your
encrypted HD or on your iPod, and you may transmit it
encypted as long as the
recipient has the keys to decrypt it at no cost and without
restiction, 
but you
may not *distribute* it DRM'ed (or encrypted if the
recipient does not 
have the
keys to decrypt it at no cost and without restiction as
above).".

If we want to help sell PS2s and push DRM onto PCs rather
than allow people to
actually use CC content on their as-of-yet-unencumbered
PC's, the licenses
should say "If you cover this content with a TPM you
must make an unencumbered
version of at least the same quality available at equal or
lower cost and make
it the main version, listing or promoting it befoire the
TPM-encumbered
version."

It is too early to capitulate and simply give balnket
permission for DRM on
CC-licensed work.

> On a qualitative level, no one benefits from this
prohibition.
> Preventing Betty from distributing the game doesn't
help PS2 users in
> any way; they're unable to play the game otherwise.
Theoretically it
> could pressure Sony to drop the DRM restrictions on the
PS2 platform,
> but that's an improbable result. We don't think the
pressure advantage
> on Sony is worth the loss of functionality and choice
for users.

Everyone who doesn't own a PS2 benfits because the content
cannot be locked to
PS2. There are more non-PS2 owners than PS2 owners. PS2
owners also 
mostly have
unencumbered PCs.

And by *not* priviliging sony (not PS2 users, as they do not
benefit 
from DRM),
this removes some support for DRM. This is the absence of
pressure for 
DRM, not
pressure against DRM.

> Note also that the PS2 is not the only platform where
it's impossible
> to distribute works without rights restriction; several
text formats
> for PDA platforms, for example, have mandatory
rights-restrictions,
> and the upcoming Trusted Computing platform
("Palladium") may fall
> into this same category.

This is true, but it ignores the fact that these systems
explicitly 
defeat Free
Software, making Debian and its guidelines worthless on such
systems. Debian
supporting these systems is like a democracy electing a
dictator.

> The iPod is a good example of a music
> platform with mandatory rights restriction.
>
> Our recommendation #4 might better have been stated
like this:
>
>    Change the anti-DRM clause to allow the licensee to
distribute the
>    work in any format whatsoever, but require the
licensee to
>    offer at least one format that doesn't restrict the
recipients'
>    exercise of rights.

The problem is that the alternative will be offered in the
bottom of a locked
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on
the door saying
'Beware of the Leopard'. It will have a large handling
fee, and will be 16-bit
64kbps quality in mono.

> We see this situation as similar (but not equivalent!)
to the
> distribution of source code and binary versions of
programs in the
> GPL. Anyone can distribute binary versions of
GPL-licensed programs,
> as long as they also offer a modifiable source code
version, too.
> Similarly, the proposed modification to the CCPL's
anti-DRM clause
> would allow distribution of works in any format, as
long as a format
> without rights restriction was available.

It is more similar to dual-licensing, with all the
distortions that involves.

> As an alternate strategy, we suggest that Creative
Commons consider
> dropping the anti-DRM clause altogether.

Heck, no! 

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Thread: Version 3.0 - Public Discussion