Re: 'right' vs 'permission'; was: RE: [rights-requirements] Parallelor Complimentary System

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Bob,

Since I have never been shy about running where angels fear to step... ;-)

(I have retained the earlier discussion since the following assumes it 
as a context for the following. At some point, reponders need to simply 
refer to the archive for earlier discussion, just to save on length.)

Bob's two propositions (I am not necessarily agreeing with either one 
but using them as a starting place):

> A. "In the US, teachers have a 'fair use' right to certain copyright 
> works"
>
> B. "In the US, the US government has granted teachers permission to 
> perform certain 'fair use' actions with certain copyrighted works"
>

The difference in a "right" and a "permission" is subtle but also profound.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to distinguish in observed results.

Consider the following case: I have the "right" to drive a vehicle in 
any state of the United States, that is I need no affirmation or 
granting of that right when I cross into another state. The reason I 
have that "right" is because the State of Georgia has granted me a 
permission in the form of a driver's license. Clearly the other states 
have not granted me any such permission but my "right" to drive still 
obtains. (Ignoring for the moment all the legal reasons why it is really 
a reciprocal permission in other states so that the example works. ;-) )

A right can be exercised without any action or inaction on the part of 
anyone other than the person who is exercising the right. (Well, perhaps 
restraint of others if I decide to sing on the subway but that is 
another matter.)

A permission, on the other hand, implies that some other party, by law 
(government) or contract (vendor/provider) has taken some step to 
authorize my exercise of that permission, before I ever decide to 
exercise it. My cable provider has given me "permission" to watch 
certain channels, but I don't have the right to choose some channel to 
which I have not subscribed.

If pressed I would hazard that at least one way to distinguish rights 
and permissions is: Do I have to ask before I can do some particular 
action? If the answer is no, then we are talking about a right. If the 
answer is yes, then we are talking about a permission.

The problem with your example (although I think it helps clarify the 
issue) is that it tends to focus on the outcome and not the process. 
Whether permission or right, you can get the same result in some cases, 
but not others. In your example you get the same result and that is what 
I think may be confusing about it.

I think this is an issue that we could explore with examples of 
expressions. I don't know that I will have the time to reach any this 
weekend but that might help advance the discussion as well as give us 
all some exercise with the syntax.

Patrick



Bob Atkinson wrote:

> 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>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu