[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sean,
Good comments. Here are some responses.
On Oct 13, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Sean Gillies wrote:
Josh,
I'm sorry I wasn't able to attend the talk. I would have asked
something like this:
"Is GeoDRM just a terrible choice of name for an otherwise
well-intentioned effort, or does it signal a bias towards the vendor
end of the rights spectrum?"
Only the latter if you think that only vendors have rights. The working
group was initiated by a variety of groups vendors
And if you answered wrong, I'd pull the bag of rotting fruit out of my
backpack. Seriously, could you have come up with a more scary name?
It is unfortunate that certain vendors of schemes for enforcing digital
rights have (mis) appropriated the name "drm" and it happens to be the
original name of the working group at OGC. Some have started to use the
term "RM" instead. I kind of favor "RMF" for "rights management
framework". Whether it's a framework, a protocol, or a layer, the idea
is to develop common ways of defining and communicating the exchange of
intellectual rights in distributed geocomputing.
I also think that Creative Commons may object to being a part of any
DRM concept. See 5.12 and 5.13 at
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Is_Creative_Commons_involved_in_digital_rights_management_.28DRM.29.3F
CC and *DRM don't mix.
This isn't quite accurate, I believe. The CC literature makes the point
that enforcement mechanisms which are consistent with a stated rights
grant are not a problem. Any incompatibility is with mechanisms which
infringe on or restrict those rights which have been granted or implied
in the course of protecting rights which have not been granted.
Unfortunately many rights enforcement schemes have this flaw.
Josh,
I don't see CC making that point. The text I linked to states:
"""...
Why don’t we use technology to enforce rights? There are too many
reasons to describe here. Perhaps the most familiar is the fact that
technology cannot protect freedoms such as “fair use.” Put differently,
“fair use” can’t be coded. But more importantly, we believe,
technological enforcement burdens unplanned creative reuse of creative
work. We want to encourage such use. And we, along with many others, are
concerned that the ecology for creativity will be stifled by the
pervasive use of technology to “manage” rights.
Copyrights should be respected, no doubt. But we prefer they be
respected the old fashioned way — by people acting to respect the
freedoms, and limits, chosen by the author and enforced by the law.
"""
If the FAQ is accurate, CC views DRM as a problem for many users. You
might believe that CC is wrong, that you can develop enforcement
mechanisms that anticipate all future use cases and hinder no one. I
think that belief would be unrealistic. CC draws a clear line (to my
eye): they have nothing to do with DRM and discourage it. GeoDRM
proponents must stop asserting that GeoDRM is like, compatible with, or
complementary to Creative Commons licenses.
Cheers,
Sean
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
