[IETF-IDRM] Re: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work -- "content holder" vs. "content owner"

[Sam X. Sun (@S2000)]

Ok, Thomas, I think we are getting closer here in understanding each other
:)...

Like you said, I was trying to see if it's appropriate to say that
"Content-Holder means a holder of an instance of a digital Content, where
that holder is *not* the legal owner of the copyright of the Content". The
emphasis is on the INSTANCE of a digital content, while the copyright might
be the metadata associated to EVERY instance of the digital content, or the
content class if such thing exists.

In other words, is it appropriate to say that copyright defines "ownership"
of the digital content, while digital rights defines "operational rights" of
the digital content? Clearly, they are also closely related, but the former
is independent of each instance, and doesn't depend on who the instance
"holder" is...

In the example you gave, could we say that you and your neighbor acquires
certain digital rights to operate on the acquired instance of the digital
content, but not the "ownership" (e.g. copyright, or some other legal
rights) of the WORK inscribed by that instance?



Sam

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Hardjono" <thardjono@mediaone.net>
To: "Sam X. Sun (@S2000)" <ssun@cnri.reston.va.us>;
<ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work -- "content holder" vs. "content
owner"


>
> OK, I'm still rather confused about the Content-Holder, but let me try a
> very simple example:
>
>   - Madonna issues a new song downloadable as MP3 through some
>     Content-Distributor.
>
>     Here Madonna (or he record company/publisher) is the Content-Owner.
>
>   - I download the song and pay $2 (reasonable I think :)
>
>     Here I am the Content-Holder (where the Content is that MP3 file).
>     I only own my copy (1 copy) of that Content.  I do not have further
>     rights.
>
> In this scenario, if I gave a copy of Madonna's MP3 song to my neighbor,
> then clearly my neighbour has to (again) pay the Content-Owner (ie.
Madonna
> or her record company/publisher).
>
> Neither I nor my neighbour own the *rights* to that Content/MP3.
>
> Thus, I think the term Content-Holder means a holder of an instance
> of a digital Content, where that holder is *not* the legal
> owner of the copyright of the Content.
>
> Hmmmm, am I on track here?  Isn't the Content-Holder = Consumer  ?
>
> cheers,
>
> thomas
> ------
>
> At 5/23/01||01:40 AM, Sam X. Sun (@S2000) wrote:
> >My second question is regarding the content holder vs. content owner.
> >
> >When I say "content holder", I'm using it as a general term of "owner of
an
> >instance of digital content", or "a kind of digital content sharing some
> >common attribute". The "content holder" can be "consumer", "distributor",
> >"retailer", "publisher", and "content creator", depending on the "digital
> >rights" he has and/or acquired for his copy of digital content. I tends
of
> >think of "consumer" as a relative term, depending on the view point. For
> >example, "retailer" and "distributor" may all be treated as "consumer"
(with
> >special "distribution" rights) from a "publisher", and the "publisher"
can
> >generate money, directly or indirectly, from any kind of "consumer" of
its
> >content.
> >
> >I was trying to avoid using "content owner" but "content holder", fearing
> >that the "content holder" is not necessarily the "owner of the content".
> >Should we first try to clarify these terminologies? I guess this is one
of
> >the reasons Mark started this thread.
> >
> >
> >Sam
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Thomas Hardjono" <thardjono@mediaone.net>
> >To: <ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
> >Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 3:17 PM
> >Subject: Re: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work -- drm framework...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Sam,
> > >
> > > I don't think you are off-track.  You have brought up some good issues
> >which
> > > I'll comment below (I'll send comments about Mark's posting
separately).
> > >
> > >
> > > At 5/19/01||10:47 AM, Sam X. Sun (@S2000) wrote:
> > > >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...
> > >
> > > I'm unclear about the term "content holder" above.  I assume you mean
> > > the Consumer that actually uses (reads/views/plays) the Content,
> > > since Content not in the Consumer's hands will not generate money.
> > >
> > > As I understand it, the Digital-Rights (or Rights-Metadata) can be
> > > Content-specific only or can be tied to both the Content and the
Consumer.
> > >
> > > The distinction becomes relevant when we talk about the Business
Models.
> > > Thus, say in one business model, the Content-Creator/Owner may
> > > specify usage rights in the Rights-Metadata (without mentioning
specific
> > > Customers).  Assuming the Content-Creator/Owner has a business
> >relationship
> > > with a Distributor, then perhaps it is up to the Distributor(s) to
> > > create further Rights-Metadata that is Customer-specific (eg. for
Customer
> > > who are members of the video-club, say).
> > >
> > > WRT your second bullet above, when the Distributor starts dealing
> > > with Consumers (i.e content holder) does the Consumer's authentication
> > > attributes becomes extremely relevant.  It here that I think
individual
> > > certificates will become a key issue.  A Customer's certificate will
> >become
> > > more important and persistent comapred to his/her credit card number.
> > > And accounting and tracking may also perhaps be based on certificates.
> > >
> > > In terms of the transferability of Contents, most systems I have seen
> > > or read about deploy some kind of verification/checking each time
> > > the Content's ownership is transffered.  Thus, in basic terms, if I
sell
> > > my (encrypted) MP3 file on eBay, then the purchaser will have to
register
> > > with the Distributor (or the entity claiming to be the contact-point
for
> >that
> > > Content) and obtain a copy of the key (or a derived version).
> > >
> > > This model does not really fit into the "pure" P2P distribution
scheme,
> > > but it ensures continuous revenue for the distributor (who gets
> > > additional new customer info).  This model also allos tracking of
> > > moved/sold Contents on the net.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > This idea is cool and reflects more of the pure P2P approach.  I don't
> > > know if the big players will like the notion of a Consumer (content
> >holder)
> > > taking the role of publisher/distributor/retailer.
> > >
> > > I think the term P2P itself has been overused and means different
things
> > > to different people.  I used it to mean the non-hierarchical/flat
> > > distributed system that runs democratically from one user's machine
> > > to another.
> > >
> > > Other people seem to mean P2P as "group-sharing of files" regardless
> > > of how the files are managed (ie. the files could be sitting on
> > > a single machine/server with everyone connecting to that server).
> > > This later view is similar to the mainframe usage model of the 70s.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >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).
> > >
> > > OK, so here is an interesting question: can BlockBuster Video make
> > > copies of videos (ie. a new instant of content) in their backroom
> > > and lease them? (and I don't mean replacements for broken/stolen
> > > videocassettes).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >A consumer may later become a retailer after obtaining the "retail"
> >rights
> > > >for its copy of digital content...
> > >
> > > Hmmm...
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > >
> > > thomas
> > > ------
> > >
>