Re: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission

[John Erickson <john_erickson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>]

I'm told that this didn't make it through the first time...

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Erickson" <john_erickson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>; "Hal Lockhart"
<hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>; <pdurusau@emory.edu>
Cc: "Rights-Requirements (E-mail)" <rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org>;
<robin@isogen.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission


> As I pointed out at the W3C workshop, we should assume a context or general
DRM
> reference model that would define open interfaces between three architectural
> levels of abstraction: rights expression languages, rights messaging protocols
> and mechanisms for policy enforcement and compliance.
>
> Within that context, rights expression languages should provide the basis for
> expressing rights information and policies, and as such are useful for a
variety
> of rights messaging applications including
>
> * Rights information discovery
> * Simple policy expression
> * Rights negotiation and trading --- offer discovery, presentation and
> acceptance (AKA making a rights request)
> * The expression of rights agreements and electronic contracts (e-Contracts)
>
> Minimally, a rights language must provide the vocabulary and syntax for the
> declarative expression of rights and rights restrictions. In order to
guarantee
> interoperability and evolvability, we would also expect a rights language to
be
> inherently extensible: it must provide an open-ended way to express rights not
> anticipated by the language "core." Such extensions might include new
operations
> on content or new contextual constraints...
>
> Clearly, rights languages should not be thought of as e-Contract languages.
> First, this is obvious because the domain of a rights language should also
> include the vocabulary for expressing offers and requests. Secondly, the
rights
> specifications contained within rights packages are not e-Contracts! It is
clear
> that one possible use of a rights language is to express the parties, terms,
> rights and obligations typically enumerated in e-Contracts. [c.f. FIRM]
However,
> e-Contracts go beyond the immediate scope of rights languages (and, arguable,
> DRM in general) since they require complex, dynamic behavior, not just
> declarative expression of state.
>
> Note: The rights specification created by a rights expression language and
> contained within in a license package can be thought of as a manifestation of
an
> e-Contract, held and maintained by some license server and generated based
upon
> a specific context of use. Such e-Contracts are reifications of usage
licenses.
>
> On the issue of representing principles of copyright law (e.g. fair use), I
> believe that this *does* belong in the domain of the rights language. As I
> suggested in last week's call, this is part of the context of the rights
*claim"
> that the user is making when they make a so-called "rights request," and this
is
> precisely at the semantic level of the rights expression language.
>
> It also impacts on the so-called "system," because we also require an
extensible
> rights messaging protocol to enable this level of expressiveness...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>
> To: "Hal Lockhart" <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>; <pdurusau@emory.edu>
> Cc: "Rights-Requirements (E-mail)" <rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org>;
> <robin@isogen.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission
>
>
> > Hi Hal:
> > I believe the operative phrase is "should be able to express". As you
> > articulate below, there is a delineation between a rights language and the
> > system that uses the rights language. While the merits of a rights language
> > pertain to its expressiveness it is ultimately the decision of the system to
> > use those expressions. It might be helpful for people to review the
> > Requirements SC's work in progress which may illustrate this a little more (
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200207/msg00019.htm
> > l
> > <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200207/msg00019.ht
> > ml> ).
> >
> > Patrick, I, too, share Hal's question...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hari
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@entegrity.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:00 PM
> > To: 'pdurusau@emory.edu'
> > Cc: Rights-Requirements (E-mail); 'robin@isogen.com'
> > Subject: RE: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission
> >
> >
> > Patrick,
> >
> > I am pleased to see this submission. There have been (negative) comments on
> > the lack of repesentation from the academic community on this TC.
> >
> > With regard to your specific requirements, I would like to act as a devil's
> > advocate for the moment.
> >
> > You state that the rights language should be able to express the doctrines
> > of Fair Use and First Sale. However, it is my understanding (as a
> > non-lawyer) that these doctrines are currently the law of the land and apply
> > to ALL copyrighted works. Therefore I assume any digital rights management
> > system would be aware of the need to honor these doctrines. So, it is
> > unclear to me why a digital rights language would need to contain some
> > element that would have to be applied to EACH AND EVERY digital work.
> >
> > Can you clarify the intention here?
> >
> > Hal
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Reddy, Hari [mailto:Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:40 AM
> > To: Rights-Requirements (E-mail)
> > Subject: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello All:
> > We received this from Patrick this morning. Patrick, on behalf of the RLTC,
> > I thank you for your submission and look forward to working with you.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hari
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Durusau [ mailto:pdurusau@emory.edu
> > <mailto:pdurusau@emory.edu> ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 5:01 AM
> > To: Bob.glushko@commerceone.com; hari.reddy@contentguard.com;
> > robin@isogen.com
> > Subject: Rights Requirements Submission
> >
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I have attached a brief rights requirement document on behalf of the
> > Society of Biblical Literature. Please accept it for consideration by
> > the Rights SC and ultimately as part of the process of the Rights
> > Language TC at OASIS.
> >
> > By separate post I am making application to Hari Reddy for the SBL to
> > become a member of the Rights Language TC.
> >
> > Please acknowledge delivery of this post with its attachment. (The email
> > provider I use while traveling is sometime unrealiable and does not
> > always indicate delivery failures. Thanks.)
> >
> > (It was not entirely clear from the website who was the contact for the
> > submission so I am writing to the co-chairs and Robin Cover, who
> > appeared in the email archives as a collecting point for requirements.)
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Durusau
> > Director of Research and Development
> > Society of Biblical Literature
> > pdurusau@emory.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
>