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

[jonathon <jonathon.blake@gmail.com>]

Francesco wrote:

> DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about
> the right to collect royalties "for any exercise by You of the rights
> granted under this License" ?

That refers to collecting societies that have both a legal monopoly,
and legal mandate to collect royalty payments.

If the CC license excluded that clause, the collecting society would
still be collecting royalty payments, but the creator of the work
could not receive the money that was collected by the collecting
society.

> Hence I cannot understand how can those "Non-waivable Compulsory License
> Schemes" be things like sort-of-taxes on virgin media.

a) Collecting societies get a cut from those taxes, which are
disbursed with the rest of the royalties that they distribute.

b) That clause really refers to refers to collecting royalty payments
for actual performances or publication, not auxiliary unrelated
products.

I think that Joe Smith said it best when he wrote:  "Regardless of all
of that, I do not believe a program should be considered non-free
because of messed up laws in some countries. It seems reasonable for a
license to acknowledge the possibility of such messed up legal
systems, and try minimize the damage."

The Creative Commons Licenses are being tweaked to either conform to
laws in specific jurisdictions, and harmonize better with existing
FLOSS licenses. (Somewhere in the list archives of the cc-community
list, is a discussion of what is needed to meet DFSG guidelines, and
how the three existing tests (Desert island, political
dissident,malevolent corporation) can be passed by work that fails
freedom 0, 1, 2, or 3. The anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses
theoretically prevent that situation from happening.)

xan

jonathon