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

[Mark Baugher]

Thomas, Sam
   I think Renato has a good point about working from an existing framework 
such as Indecs.  Page 16 of the Indecs framework shows the legal view of 
"persons, "intellectual property," and "(intellectual property) 
rights."  This is what I think what you and Sam are discussing.  Our 
exchange will be better grounded if we can relate these concepts to what 
the products of related efforts.  Indecs recognizes that only a person or 
collection of persons have legal status, but other types of parties that do 
not have legal status are important to intellectual property rights, such 
as "Modonna," "Lassie," or the "Rolling Stones."  The Indecs Directory of 
Parties: Outline Specification 
(http://www.indecs.org/pdf/DirectoryofParties.pdf) encounters the problems 
of uniqueness, persistence, privacy, operations and governance that are 
germane to the current idrm email threads, taxonomy and handle system.

Mark

as Indecs, which represents multiple person-years of work.
At 11:16 AM 5/23/2001 -0400, Thomas Hardjono wrote:

>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
>> > ------
>> >