[IETF-IDRM] Fwd: Re: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work -- drm framework...

[Thomas Hardjono]

>Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:47:39 -0400
>From: "Sam X. Sun (@S2000)" <ssun@cnri.reston.va.us>
>Subject: Re: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work -- drm framework...
>To: Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com>, ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
>List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-idrm-help@lists.elistx.com>
>List-Post: <mailto:ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-idrm-request@lists.elistx.com?body=subscribe>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-idrm-request@lists.elistx.com?body=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-idrm>
>List-Help: <http://lists.elistx.com/elists/admin_email.shtml>,
>  <mailto:ietf-idrm-request@lists.elistx.com?body=help>
>
>Hi,
>
>I think it's a good application model to classify in end-to-end DRM
>relationships in terms of content provider and distributor, and distributor
>and content consumer. They represent some real world scenarios that DRM will
>have to address. On the other hand, I wonder if we could further model the
>underlying DRM framework in terms of transactions of certain entities (e.g.
>digital content) among other kinds of entities (e.g. content holder), and
>the transaction may be reflected in terms of exchange/update of digital
>rights bound to each content instance acquired by the content holder.
>
>In other words, I wonder whether it's reasonable to categorize the entities
>that DRM framework has to deal with in terms of:
>
>    1. the digital content (per instance)
>    2. the content holder (current or potential)
>
>
>And think of the digital rights as state information of the digital content
>hold by content holder. From this, one may imagine building mechanisms
>within the framework to:
>
>     * Associate rights per digital content acquired by the content holder
>     * Identify content holder, along with its authentication attributes.
>     * Exchange/update digital rights per digital content among content
>holders
>     * Facilitate/monitor/trace legitimate digital contents for their proper
>use
>     * Report illegal content upon showing up within the framework (doable?)
>     etc...
>
>Assumptions here are that everyone can obtain a copy of digital content
>freely, but need to acquire (e.g. via purchase) adequate rights to be able
>to "use" it. Depending on the rights associated to the digital content
>acquired by the content holder, the content holder could act as a publisher,
>a distributor, a retailer, or end consumer. A transaction of digital content
>from a retailer to consumer could be modeled as retailer (with the right) to
>generate a new instance of the digital content, assign it with consumer
>rights, and "give" it to the consumer (along with the consumer rights). A
>consumer may later become a retailer after obtaining the "retail" rights for
>its copy of digital content...
>
>It's a bit off tracking to Mark's message:)... Just want to share some
>thoughts. Any comments?
>
>
>Cheers,
>Sam
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mark Baugher" <mbaugher@cisco.com>
>To: <ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
>Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 6:33 PM
>Subject: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work
>
>
> > Hi
> >    We wanted to begin work on developing a draft on requirements for
> > IDRM.  Sam Sun, Thomas Hardjono and I discussed this and we think that a
> > good first step would be to develop a taxonomy, which is a classification
> > of the parts of an end-to-end DRM system from which we can develop a
>common
> > model, or models, and common definitions - so we speak the same language
>to
> > one another.
> >
> >    Our focus in IDRM is with the IP network infrastructure aspects of
> > DRM.  To me, this means that we are less concerned with the syntax or
> > semantics of rights specifications than in the handling and use of rights
> > metadata in end-to-end systems; we are less concerned with the specifics
>of
> > watermarking technology or with technical protection mechanisms than in
>key
> > and license distribution systems; persistent and globally-unique names may
> > not be as much of a concern to IDRM as are trusted repositories of content
> > works and metadata.  So there are things in our taxonomy that are part of
> > end-to-end DRM systems like watermarks, TPM, and rights languages that are
> > not necessarily things that will be a focus of IDRM.
> >
> >    At our last meeting, Thomas and I proposed that there are two distinct
> > sets of relationships in end-to-end DRM.  First, is between content
> > provider and distributor (aka "service provider").  We would use "service
> > provider" if the content were to be delivered to consumers over a IP
> > network but the distributor could be a company that manufactures DVDs or a
> > TV broadcaster that receives files from a TV or film studio.  Trusted
> > repositories for the files and rights metadata, authorization, and
> > authentication are IP infrastructure components that the content provider
> > may need to properly manage this process.  It is unlikely that technical
> > protection mechanisms or digital licenses are needed in this
> > business-to-business transaction.
> >
> >   The second set of relationships is between the service provider and the
> > content consumer.  On the Internet today, it is hard if not impossible to
> > unambiguously identify illegal sources and uses of copyright content works
> > from illegal uses.  Trusted repositories and sources with rights metadata
> > are important to DRM in this relationship.  Authorization, authentication,
> > and technical protection mechanisms may be needed so standard ways to do
> > key and license management will promote inter-operability.   What we
>should
> > not overlook in digital rights-conferral and mechanisms that support it is
> > the flow of information assets from the consumer to the provider for the
> > purposes of authorization.  In this regard, "rights management" should
> > include the rights that consumers have with respect to information that
> > they provide and DRM is about information assets and not only copyright
>works.
> >
> > We want to begin developing our taxonomy and putting flesh to an IDRM
> > model.  This note outlines the general approach that we are taking and
> > we're soliciting any comments that people might have.  Also, if others are
> > interested in working on a draft document for the taxonomy, please let us
>know.
> >
> > Mark
> >