Josh,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sean,
The operative clause of a CC license seems to be:
"You [being the licensee, not the licensor] 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."
Certainly work on Creative Commons has been motivated in part by
dissatisfaction with some protection technologies, but the focus here is
on rights consistency, not opposition to technology.
Dissatisfaction? You make it sound like CC would be in favor of better
DRM. CC (the entity) separates itself explicitly from the concerns of
DRM, and the CC community is quite opposed to technological enforcement.
Discussion in Creative Commons does also seem to be shifting from
reference to "DRM" or digital rights management to referencing "TPM" or
technological protection measure, apparently to distinguish the general
field of addressing digital rights from specific enforcement technologies.
Josh
I see references to TPM in CC discussions and blogs, but no sign at all
that the "anti-DRM" clause is going to be deprecated in favor of
"anti-TPM clause".
Cheers,
Sean
On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Sean Gillies wrote:
[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
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
