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

[Thomas Hardjono]

>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:16:09 -0400
>From: Thomas Hardjono <thardjono@mediaone.net>
>Subject: Re: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work -- "content holder" vs. "content owner"
>X-Sender: thardjono@pop.ne.mediaone.net
>To: "Sam X. Sun (@S2000)" <ssun@cnri.reston.va.us>, ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
>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>
>
>
>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
>> > ------
>> >