OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

rights-requirements message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: 'right' vs 'permission'; was: RE: [rights-requirements] Parallel orComplimentary System


Especially in light of the further conversations that have continued to occur, I would still find it extremely useful if people could take a moment to consider the below.

 

If one is going to try to usefully distinguish the word ‘permission’ from the word ‘right’, then surely it is a simple and brief matter to argue the similarity or difference of my two statements A and B. Conversely, absent the ability to make such articulations (a task for which I find myself personally inadequate), I cannot see what progress can be made by structuring discussions along lines that rely on their essential difference.

 

John Erickson did respond (thanks John!) that essentially he believed neither proposition. As far as I can understand his argument, he concludes this based upon perhaps what are too-stringent words in my phraseology, namely the identification of the person of a teacher. I had not intended to be focusing particularly on this aspect of the matter: rather, I had hoped to be talking about an action that all considered was in fact a legal one to perform, and instead focus on the authority under which the action was performed. If I understand John correctly, he would rather I say something like “In the US, persons acting in the legitimate role of a teacher …” or something close to that. This seems reasonable, and I would be happy to reconsider my question in this or similar adapted forms, for these would apply equally to both A and B, and wouldn’t alter the nature of my fundamental question of the essential difference, if any, between the two.

 

So how about it? Can anyone take a stab? This originally arose, if I recall, as part of a phone exchange between myself and Deirdre; if she can find a moment, and can recall or invent the relevant context, perhaps she could help us here.

 

Bob

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Atkinson
Sent:
Friday, October 11, 2002 1:49 PM
To: rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [rights-requirements] Parallel or Complimentary System

 

Does anyone have any comments on this thought from last week?  I think focusing, as is done here, on ‘using the terms in a sentence’ might be profitable as a first step before attempting to agree on definitions of terms.

 

                Bob

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Atkinson
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:31 AM
To: Peter Schirling; rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [rights-requirements] Parallel or Complimentary System

 

I am very confused. But I’m getting used to that, I guess...

 

Unfortunately, the discussion below doesn't seem to help me much because (aside from the fact that it seems to assume as part of its premise a framework which to me is only a small part of the problem space, namely the transmission of a digital item from a producer to a consumer (though perhaps that assumption somewhat secondary to the argument) and it seems to imply (though perhaps I am just misunderstanding) that the current spec does not have the capacity to handle the concept of roles) it still makes a distinction between an “inherent right” and something else, and I have no means to evaluate what that might possibly mean.

 

To try to clarify that, I’d like to repeat here the seemingly simple question I asked on the phone this morning:

 

There seem to be those who are comfortable with the statement that

 

A.    “In the US, teachers have a ‘fair use’ right to certain copyright works”

 

but who are uncomfortable with the statement that

 

B.    “In the US, the US government has granted teachers permission to perform certain ‘fair use’ actions with certain copyrighted works”

 

My question is that of what the underlying argument to such a position might be, for I am at a loss to understand how one who agrees with (A) would not agree with (B), as it is in fact an act of Congress that established the ‘fair use’ right in the first place.

 

Is there someone who can educate me as to the fundamental distinction that I am missing here? Or am I in error, and there are none here that in fact are comfortable with (A) but not with (B)?

 

Yours,

 

      Bob

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Schirling [mailto:schirlin@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:05 AM
To: rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [rights-requirements] Parallel or Complimentary System

 

 

All,

 

per our conference call this morning, let me frame this notion. I am not

going to get hung up terms but try to express the concept of inherent

rights versus granted rights and how we might resolve a means to provide

technology that can enable each of these. Call it fair use call it rights

granted by the US constitution or by EU directive... The notion is:

 

ASSUMPTIONS.

1. Unless there is a continuous connection between provider and consumer,

even if it exists it will be impractical to modify an expression on how a

digital item can be used each time its "consumer" changes roles and when

the expression traverses geographies as well.

 

2. Roles are important when dealing with inherent rights. As expressed

today the role of teacher vs consumer, production executive vs consumer,

etc have inherent rights and for expressions to embody all possibilities is

also not practical. Each of us changes roles several times each day from

worker, to digital item creator, to consumer, to parent to.... and the list

goes on

 

POSSIBILITIES

 

1. define a complimentary set of expressions to those currently under

consideration (or maybe we have what we need and its only the context that

changes) and the behavior of an associated "enforcement" function that is

bound to a person. Allow it to define roles that that person plays, such as

children, parents, teacher, office manager, ticket agent etc... and define

inherent rights associated with each role.This will vary some not only by

role but by native geography.

 

2. The enforcement function would then be responsible for resolving

rights/permission (whatever) expressions delivered with the digital item

verses inherent rights and thus what can or cannot be done with a digital

item.

 

 

Pete Schirling

 

Digital Media Standards

IBM Research Division

Office: +1 802 769 6123/Mobile: +1 802 238 2036/E-Fax: +1 802 769 7362

Mobile text messaging 8022382036@msg.myvzw.com

Internet e-mail: schirlin@us.ibm.com

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription

manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC