[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme (was: Anti-TPM clauses)

Francesco Poli wrote:

> Well, I made a detailed analysis of the issues I see in CC-by(-sa)-v3.0
> licenses.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
> Just saying that they are "in spirit the same as GPL" is *not* a
> convincing rebuttal of my arguments, sorry.
> Other replies seen on this list are not convincing rebuttals either.


While I don't think I can remove you worries on the anti-TPM, especially
not if CC has not elaborated on it, I maybe can clarify a bit on one
other part of the CC: The "Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes".
In Dutch law, I know of at least one example. In the Netherlands, it is
legal to make a copy of a work *for strict personal use*. So, for
example, it is indeed legal to download MP3 from file-sharing (p2p)
sources, as long as you only use it personally (So it is illegal to
distribute them though!) This was done to allow sharing of a book or DVD
with your neighbour. Obviously, this law was created before any P2P
software existed. However, the law does have a circumvention to
compensate authors of works: we pay a fee for each media we buy. So
there is a tax on blank tapes, CDs and DVDs, which everyone pays, even
if you use the CD to burn a Debian distrib, not copy your music. This
fee is such a "Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes". I think author
can get a piece of the money by registering at a certain society
(Stichting Thuiskopie). According to the Dutch website of creative
commons, the addition of this text in the CCv3 license is a
clarification about these kind of fees.

So it seems to me that CC does not make any more limitations or
restrictions then those that are already there in the law (e.g. the
restriction "you can only buy blank CDs and DVDs if you pay a fee").
So this part basically says "we can't circumvent the law". Not much news
there, so I would consider the CCv3 equivalent if it simply had this
part removed. So in my view this is a non-issue.

Hope this helps.

I'm now stepping out of the discussion. Feel free to continue without
me, but I think I said all there is to it (or at least all there is I
know about it).


Reply to: