Re: call for input on digital rights management

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hari,

Reddy, Hari wrote:

> Hello Patrick:
> A colleague of mine forwarded to me your email below that was sent to 
> the digital-copyright list regarding the OASIS Rights Language 
> Technical Committee ("RLTC") request for DRM Requirements. I am the 
> Chairperson of this committee and would like to take the opportunity 
> to respond.
<snip>

> Although the RLTC did not initially receive members from the classical 
> academic community during our open call for participation, this does 
> not imply at all that we intend to ignore its needs. On the contrary, 
> the charter specifically includes the need to solicit requirements 
> from "user communities" which includes academia. In fact, a number of 
> us came from the academic community. To support the RLTC charter, we 
> have identified certain communities and organizations and have 
> assigned RLTC representatives to each to act as the initial conduit 
> for requirements. Robin Cover has volunteered to collect some of these 
> requirements from the academic community. I invite input to be sent to 
> Robin (_ robin@xxxxxxxxxxx) who will present the material to the 
> Requirements Subcommittee.
I tried to make it clear that my post was not a criticism of the TC or 
of OASIS but a call to the academic community to express their needs. 
Only in the last couple of years has the SBL (Society of Biblical 
Literature, my employer) begun to make a systematic effort to even 
become aware of standards efforts, much less participate in them. With 
the support of the SBL, I have been actively participating in a number 
of standards efforts (including representing the SBL in OASIS) for some 
time.

I have always found OASIS and its TCs open to input from all user 
communities and my post was an attempt to make the task of getting broad 
use cases a little easier by prodding my colleagues to take a more 
active interest in standards.

I think the SBL will be taking an active interest in this TC and its 
work and hope that I will find new friends among its current 
participants as well as see old friends from academic circles as well.

<snip>

> Finally, let me emphasize that this is not a one-time opportunity to 
> determine academic requirements. As noted above, since the 
> architecture supports the development of future extensions and 
> profiles, the needs of academia (or for that matter, any other 
> community) can be accommodated either today or at anytime in the 
> future. This approach has the benefit of enabling efficient 
> specification development today for areas that have defined 
> requirements, without stranding future needs.
It is certainly the case that future needs (or needs not presently 
recoginized by people who have them) can be addressed by the standards 
process. I would not like to find, however, that standards for software 
defaults for digital rights management for example, were inconsistent 
with the sort of exchange of information that normally occurs in most 
academic environments.

I look forward to seeing the work being done by your TC in this 
important area! 

Patrick

> On behalf of the RLTC, I look forward to your input and support. If 
> you have any questions with regards to the RLTC, please feel free to 
> contact me.
>
> Regards,
> Hari Reddy
> Chairperson
> OASIS Rights Language Technical Committee
> _hari.reddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> >Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 07:51:55 -0400
> >From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >Greetings,
> >
> >I deeply appreciate Robin Cover's post to the list requesting DRM
> >requirements and would urge the academic community to response
> >appropriately, even given the rather short deadline for requirements
> >(7 August 2002).
> >
> >In terms of deciding to devote summer hours to this task, please
> >consider the membership of this TC:
> >
> >Hari Reddy, Chairperson ContentGuard
> >Carlisle Adams, Entrust
> >Bob Atkinson, Microsoft
> >Thomas DeMartini, ContentGuard
> >John Erickson, H.P.
> >Brad Gandee, Secretary ContentGuard
> >Bob Glushko, CommerceOne
> >Thomas Hardjono, Verisign
> >Hal Lockhart, Entegrity
> >M. Paramasivam, Microsoft
> >David Parrott, Reuters
> >Harry Piccariello, ContentGuard
> >Peter Schirling, IBM
> >Xin Wang, ContentGuard
> >
> >While I am sure all the members of the TC will try to develop a
> >standard that represents the interests of everyone affected by the
> >DRM standard, I fail to see any representation of the academic,
> >library or other communities. That is not to imply any fault on the
> >part of the TC or OASIS, as a community academics have tended to
> >absent themselves from such discussions.
> >
> >The interests of the academic community in issues such as "fair use"
> >and allowing free (or at least non-commercial) use of texts and
> >research will not be well served by a standard that protects the
> >commercial rights in the "Lion King" and similar artifacts. Our
> >requirements are different and any standard for DRM should not
> >attempt a one size fits all solution. I am sure that the TC would
> >welcome academic input that would lead to a more nuanced standard
> >that meets a wide range of needs, one of the hallmarks of a
> >successful standard.
> >
> >Note that a DRM standard will eventually find its way into
> >hardware/software and it will be too late to complain at that point
> >that it does not meet the needs of the academic community.
> >
> >Please forward Robin's note (and my comments if you think
> >appropriate) to anyone you know who is interested in "fair use" or
> >more generally access to academic materials, since a DRM standard
> >will deeply affect both issues.
> >
> >Patrick
> >

--
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@xxxxxxxxx