RE: [rights] Clarification...

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

Title: RE: [rights] Clarification...

> Hal writes:
> > I have been struggling for weeks now it find some
> > distinction (ed: between DRM and access control). First
> > of all, consider that unless some work is explicitly
> > in the public domain, the act of publication creates
> > an implied copyright...
>
> JSE: I think that "implied" is not quite the correct term.
> For example, under
> most law, any fixed creative work (published or not) *is*
> copyrighted, with
> various rights (specified by region) reserved to the creator,
> unless explicitly
> waived....

Perhaps it is not correct terminology, but prior to 1989 when the US joined the Berne Convention, an explicit copyright notice was required. (I remember discussions of the best way to provide this in a binary executable in various computer languages.) Under current law, the notice is not required, the act of publication "implies" that you claim a copyright. If you want to put it in the public domain you must do so explicitly.

[Lots of interesting background deleted]

> JSE: I will refrain from commenting on specific patent claims
> --- this is very
> dangerous.

My only reason for mentioning the patents is that I am trying to figure out precisely what DRM is and since these patents are about DRM, I was looking in them for the distinction I am seeking.

[Still more interesting background deleted]

> > ...The last seems like a possible distinction, but merely an
> > implementation optimization...
>
> JSE: If you mean "DRM can be distinguished by rights being
> attached to the
> work," then *no*, this is not acceptable.

So we agree.

> Policy enforcement for content usage is different, even
> though the policy
> expression, management and decision process SHOULD be the same...

This is a most interesting statement. However, since the subject of this TC as I understand it, does not include enforcement perhaps we should not debate it.

For the record, I do not believe a DRM vs. non-DRM distinction can be drawn on the basis of any systematic distinction between the enforcement methods which may potentially be used. I am willing to stipulate that there may be distinctions in the methods used historically.

For current purposes, it seems to me to be sufficient to point out that one of use cases mentioned includes digital works being accessed via an online server. Since the same used case applies to traditional access control, the enforcement methods certainly overlap and thus provide no clear method of distinguishing one from the other.

> > Can anyone draw a sharp distinction between these two?
>
> JSE: Hopefully I've done *something*, one way or the other...

I see nothing in your comments to suggest a systematic way of distinguishing DRM from Access Control other than the user's perception of the situation and the vocabulary he or she uses. Therefore I take it you agree with me.

Hal