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

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

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
>
>
>
>