Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
Updating the Creative Commons Licenses
It isn't just the GPL that is being updated. Creative Commons is working on
changes to its licenses also, and for some of the same reasons. It was announced
early in August that changes were in the works, and you can read the
proposed draft language on that page, and while it was hoped that the
license would be finished by the beginning of September, the discussions
continue on the CC public discussion board. A major sticking point? What
to do about DRM.
There is already an anti-DRM clause in the Creative Commons licenses which reads like this:
You may not distribute,
publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the
Work with any technological measures that control access or use of
the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License
Agreement.
What is proposed are some amendments to clarify the language, but some, particularly in the Debian camp, worried that the language in the draft was inconsistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and instead proposed a kind of parallel distribution clause, in order to give programmers freedom to code for both open and closed systems. Creative Commons project lead Mia Garlick opened the topic up for discussion. Some find it ridiculous to argue that the way to promote freedom is by allowing DRM, with its potential to take CC works and close them off. They see DRM as the fast track to destroying the share-alike community that Creative Commons authors are choosing to be a part of. The whole point of having such a license, after all, is precisely to avoid the sort of total freedom to do whatever you wish with the work, as would be possible by the author choosing to release into the public domain. As one comment put it, allowing DRM on CC'd works in the name of freedom is like saying the way to promote democracy is to vote in a dictator. And so the upgrading to CC version 3.0 is going through a similar discussion as the GPLv3. Because of the opposition, the dual license idea isn't currently in the draft, as Garlick explained:
Consequently, CC is currently not proposing to include this new
parallel distribution language as part of version 3.0; however,
because it is not clear whether the Debian community will declare the
CC licenses DFSG-free without it and because it represents an
interesting proposal, we felt that it was appropriate to circulate
the proposal as part of the public discussions of version
3.0.
It's a fascinating discussion, and polite. If you wish to join in, here's where you go. You must subscribe to post a comment. To get up to speed on what has already been discussed, here's a PDF that summarizes the discussion so far, along with Creative Commons' reactions to various suggestions, available here. The Debian point of view, as far as I can see, is being expressed by Evan Prodromou, and the contrary view by many, but outstandingly by Rob Meyers and Greg London. You can find the archives by author here. My best suggestion would be to start here, and just click on "next message" for a while to follow the discussion in a straight line. At that starting link, London suggests making sure "DRM can't be used to take a work private or set someone up as sole source for DRM-versions of works," and Meyers answers Prodromou's expressed concerns about "licensees being free to distribute works in their format of choice." Prodromou expresses this worry:
Sony's not going to change their platform for
us. They're just not. Millions of users aren't going to throw out their PS2's because they can't play Free Content games on them. It's not going to happen. So the question becomes whether we're going to hamstring Free Software developers who want to port to this kind of platform. What purpose does it serve, besides restricting the freedom of those developers? Again, I'll contrast to Free Software applications running on proprietary operating systems. If the GPL had forbidden running or developing a Free app on a propriety OS, there would be no Free Software today. Letting people make their own accommodations with the increasingly DRM'd world means we will see Free Content on more platforms, not less. Turning up our nose and saying that our content is too good for DRM'd platforms won't stop DRM; it'll just impede the distribution of Free Content. I don't like DRM. I think it sucks. But license provisions are the wrong place to fight it.
There are millions of people who have
game consoles, text readers, and music players that require some sort of
DRM. And even if it's just one person who can't use a work on one piece
of hardware, it's still wrong.
Of course, that's when the discussion gets really interesting. Meyers points out:
Embracing DRM will not move the movement
forward. Unless you spin it
180 degrees.
My son tells me that Sony are now allowing people to play vanilla MPEGs on PSPs. So problem solved. We don't need a blanket DRM permission to use free culture on PSPs. When one comment states, "That's why pleas for DRM are *not* pleas for user freedom," Prodromou argues,
Parallel distribution doesn't restrict freedom. It gives *at
least* the
same freedoms as distributing in an unencumbered format, *plus* the
freedom to run on a DRM-only platform. That's more freedom, not less.
To which London responds:
If it means you can put FLOSS work on an DRM-only
player, and you can't play non-DRM versions on the player,
and you cant even legally convert your works to a
DRM-compatible format without paying iSuck Corp a lot
of money, then the barn door is open and it's only
a question of when the wolves are coming in.
Another issue, and again this is identical to efforts in GPLv3, is to internationalize the license. The CC proposed solution is this, according to the August announcement:
Another big feature of version 3.0
is that we will be spinning off
what has been called the "generic" license to now be the US license
and have crafted a new "generic" license that is based on the
language of international IP treaties and takes effect according to
the national implementation of those treaties. This may only be
something that gets IP lawyers excited but I thought it might be good
to share this draft with the community as well in order to ensure
full transparency and in case people were interested and/or had any
comments.
And finally, there is discussion on just what the definition of "noncommercial" is. I would suggest that you take the time to read all the comments themselves in August and September, though, and not just rely on the PDF summary, as there is already a comment indicating the summary didn't get every point precisely as the commenter intended. Besides, figuring out the appropriate response to DRM is a very important task, one the community needs to get right. (Log in to post comments)
Do as I Say, Not as I Do Posted Sep 21, 2006 6:41 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Allow DRM ? That's worst proposition I've ever seen. While Apple, SONY and others are STILL claiming blanket-DRM is essentional... they are doing something totally opposite. Take a look on a PS2 (I'm glad you've raised this as a sample). Take look on PS3 (where main CPU was designed with the goal of having BOTH DRM-encumbered content and DRM-unencumbered content in the same system) ! In both cases you CAN load unsigned content - you just can not load load signed content without proper signature. That's the way SONY does it. Apple ? It allows MP3 and some other non-DRM'ed content. And so on. Most companies while loudly claiming it's essential to have DRM doing enough to make non-DRM'ed content playable on the same system. Please don't listen to the big companies - take a look on what they are doing instead. If they want to spent billions to develop content which will be lost forever in 20-30 years time... let them. Why to do the same with our own content ?
DRM =~ binaries Posted Sep 21, 2006 9:01 UTC (Thu) by dion (subscriber, #2764) [Link] If some platforms needs a DRM layer to be able to play some content then how is that different from compiling code for a platform and distributing the resulting binary.
As far as I'm concerned DRM'ed content is as useless as a binary of a program, in that it can only be used on the targeted platform and that changing it is impossible.
Why not simply put a clause in the license that says:
You might add a second clause forbidding DRM in situations where it's optional (CSS on DVDs come to mind).
DRM =~ binaries Posted Sep 21, 2006 13:06 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] I believe that is what is meant by a 'parallel distribution' clause, in the article. i.e. you can distribute a DRM version so long as you also make it available is a useful format. This is indeed analagous to the binary/source case.
Updating the Creative Commons Licenses Posted Sep 21, 2006 13:03 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] The way I see it, we are at a crossroad in history. All content of our society are moving to digital format. Either we go digital all the way or we do soft of emulate analog with digital to protect the analog industry's interests. (That is, DRM.) Whether Sony will change their platform or not is completely beside the point. Is Sony even relevant in the future? Odds are that if they don't move with the rest of society to digital they won't be. Yes, I know thay the control a lot of the content today. But pay attention to the fact that they don't create any of it. They just control it. I a non-DRMed future there are other production companies which have taken over their role. There is nothing to indicate that consumers will spend LESS on entertainment and other kinds of content in the future.
Anti-DRM licenses vs. DFSG Posted Sep 21, 2006 17:38 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] If license X is incompatible with the DFSG solely because license X prohibits the use of DRM, the solution isn't to change license X, but rather to fix the DFSG. The purpose of the DFSG is to promote freedom, and DRM clearly does not. The DFSG should be revised to allow the use of licenses that have anti-DRM clauses (provided such licenses meet all of the other requirements).
Updating the Creative Commons Licenses Posted Sep 28, 2006 17:06 UTC (Thu) by obi (guest, #5784) [Link] It's somewhat surprising but the Debian point of view on CC mirrors Linus' point of view on GPLv3. I wonder what these same persons think of the DRM clauses in GPLv3, or what Linus thinks of this clause in CC.
Personally I think "parallel distribution" is just fine, if my understanding of it is correct: "you can DRM-ify it if you also provide the same content unencumbered".
|
|||||||||||||