© 2005 Rightscom – All rights reserved Rights and Licence Metadata – making DRM happen A presentation for the IDF Members Meeting Bologna, 14 June 2005.

© 2005 Rightscom – All rights reserved

Rights and Licence Metadata –making DRM happen

A presentation for the IDF Members MeetingBologna, 14 June 2005

Mark Bide, Rightscom


Rights and Licence Metadata; IDF Members Meeting Bologna June 2005

What is “Digital Rights Management”?

►A technology for stopping people accessing digital content?

►A set of technologies for the expression and implementation of policies, designed to facilitate and manage access to digital content►Structured rights and licensing metadata for managing

information about policies►Communication protocols, for communicating this

information between people and machines – and critically between machines and machines

►Technology to manage access and use in accordance with policies

►Structured usage metadata – and protocols for communicating that information



In other words….

►….DRM may not be what you think it is►A technology for stopping people accessing

digital content?



METADATA not APPLICATIONS

►Applications change►Metadata is “for ever” – if you get it right!►Semantic and syntactic standards are central to

effective machine interpretation►Machines don’t deal with ambiguity very well

► It’s all about persistent, unambiguous identity►Of stuff, of people/organisations, and of the policies

themselves



POLICIES not RIGHTS

►“Intellectual property” is only one basis on which policies for access and use are established►Privacy & confidentiality may be more significant in the

development of a trusted network computing environment

►A generic issue – but one which requires specialisation in particular environments


Case Study: ONIX for LicensingTerms

The development of a messaging standard for communication of key licence term information within the academic library supply chain – publishers, intermediaries, libraries, library users



Why is there a requirement now?

►Growth of digital collections in libraries►Cannot be managed as “exceptions” any longer

►Variation in licence terms►What are library users permitted to do?

> Under what conditions? > Which classes of library users are permitted to do what?> What exceptions are there to what they are permitted to

do?

►How can libraries comply with licence terms in the absence of systematic support?►How can users even know what the licence terms are?



What is required?

►A standard mechanism for the communication of unambiguous licensing information within the “library supply chain”►Libraries►Content and transaction management intermediaries►Publishers

►To form part of the ONIX family of standards (EDItEUR)► Initial “proof of concept” project undertaken by

Rightscom►Sponsored by JISC and PLS



What is not required

►A “rights expression language”►We have XrML (ISO/IEC 21000-5) and ODRL

►These are declarative programming languages►Controlling “rights enforcement technologies” – what we

usually call DRM►Require substantial functionality beyond simply

communicating information

►The ONIX focus is entirely on communication (rights metadata), not enforcement

► It is about communicating licence terms – not the law



Taking an ontological approach to the problem

Thing should be as simple as possible…but no simpler

(Einstein)



LicensingEvent UsagePermits (MAY)

1-n

Usage

Prohibits (MUST NOT)

0-n

Payment

Activity Report

etc

Requires (MUST)

0-n

Has Exception

Has Condition

This structure allows for whatever level of flexibility or granularity may be required now or in the future.

Adopting a generic structure:the terms of a Licence are a group of Events



WHAT

WHEN WHERE

WHO

Act

What’s in an event?



Resource

Time Place

Party

Act

The context model



Resource

Time Place

Party

Act

Resource

Time Place

Party

Act

Chains of events…



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use

The main event in

Licensing is a Usage

Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use<PartyRole> (1-n)

10 basic usesSearchAcquireAccess

PossessIncludeRecordDerive

ProvideRelate

Destroy

Copy eCopy CopyPart Adapt AdaptText Translate Transform etc

Each of these uses has differentspecialized “children”

You can go as far as you like with verbs…ProvideLimitedNumberOfPrintOrDigitalCopiesForAuthorizedUserOfAnotherLibraryInTheSameCountryToAccessAndPossess”

…but better to keep the verb simple and look at the other variables in the event.

UsagesAllowed values



A “simpler” model?

►Example drawn from a non-ontologically based approach:►Complex element: Permission

> Permitted Use: ILL> Constraint: Record-keeping required



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use

<Condition> Record Keeping

Act

<UseType> ILL

Why not take the simple route?



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL

“ProvideLimitedNumberOfPrintOrDigitalCopiesForAuthorizedUserOfAnotherLibraryInTheSameCountryToAccessAndPossessForNonCommercialUse”

This is too many variables.

Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL



Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL



Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL



Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL



Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL



Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL



Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL



Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL



Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use


Act

<UseType> ILL

“ProvideLimitedNumberOfPrintOrDigitalCopiesForAuthorizedUserOfAnotherLibraryInTheSameCountryToAccessAndPossessForNonCommercialUse”With 8 variables – if each has just one alternative – there are 256 possible variations on “InterLibraryLoan”.

Usages



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use

1 Verb1 Party1 Resource

Usages



Resource

TimePlace

3 Verbs3 Parties 2 Resources2 Usages1 Purpose1 Place

PartyParty

[The Licensee may supply to an Authorised User of another library {within the same country as the Licensee} a copy of an individual document being part of the Licensed Materials by post, fax or electronic transmission via the Internet or otherwise, for the purposes of research or private study and not for Commercial Use.]

InterLibraryLoan_1

Clause from a model contract



Resource

TimePlace

Party


{P1}AcademicLibrary

PartyParty

InterLibraryLoan_1




Resource

TimePlace

Party


{U1}Provide

{P1}AcademicLibrary

Resource {R2}DigitalResource,Printed Resource

PartyParty

InterLibraryLoan_1




Resource

Time

Party


{U1}Provide

{R1}DigitalResource


PartyParty

{R2}PartCopyOf{R1}{P1}AcademicLibrary

InterLibraryLoan_1




Resource

TimePlace

Party


{P1}Provide

{R1}DigitalResource

{U2}Access,Possess


PartyParty

{R2}PartCopyOf{R1}

{P2}

{P1}AcademicLibrary

InterLibraryLoan_1




Resource

TimePlace

Party


{P1}Provide

{R1}DigitalResource

{U2}Access,Possess


PartyParty

{R2}PartCopyOf{R1}

{P2}

Purpose>NonCommercialUse

{P1}AcademicLibrary

InterLibraryLoan_1




Resource

TimePlace

Party


{P1}Provide

{R1}DigitalResource

{U2}Access,Possess


Party{P2}AuthUseOfLibrary{P3}Party

{R2}PartCopyOf{R1}

{P3}AcademicLibrary

{P2}


{P1}AcademicLibrary

InterLibraryLoan_1




Resource

TimePlace

Party


{P1}Provide

{R1}DigitalResource

{U2}Access,Possess


Party{P2}AuthUseOfLibrary{P3}Party

{L1}Country

{P1}HasPlaceOfPremises{L1}

{P3}HasPlaceOfPremises{L1}

{R2}PartCopyOf{R1}

{P3}AcademicLibrary

{P2}


{P1}AcademicLibrary

[The Licensee may supply to an Authorised User of another library {within the same country as the Licensee}a copy of an individual document being part of the Licensed Materials by post, fax or electronic transmission via the Internet or otherwise, for the purposes of research or private study and not for Commercial Use.]

InterLibraryLoan_1



Resource

Time Place

Party

Use

<UsageParty> (1-n) <UsedResource> (1-n)

<Tool> (0-n)<Medium> (0-n)<OtherResource> (0-n)

<UsageTime> (0-n) <UsagePlace> (0-n)

<Exception> (0-n)<Condition> (0-n)<ChainedUsage> (0-n)

Act

<PartyRole> (1-n)

Usage: other examples



Conditions, Exceptions and Requirements

►Conditions, Exceptions and Requirements (including Licensor obligations) are just other kinds of events which can be modelled in just the same way as Usages

►Elements and structures are implemented in the Message to support all combinations of “And, Or and Not” operations



Place

Party

NonCommercialUse └─EducationalUse └─Teaching └─AcademicResearch └─AcademicStudy └─PersonalUse └─PersonalStudy └─etcResearch └─AcademicResearch └─ScientificResearch └─CommercialResearch └─etcCommercialUse └─CommercialResearch └─etc

An ontology can support the substitution of parent/child values (and other relationships) to ensure that complex conditions are complied with.

Benefits of an ontology of allowed values



Advantages of taking this approach to EDItEUR

►The structure of the Message is wholly generic: all that needs to change to enable it to encompass other media types and domains is the allowed values

►Life is not going to get simpler in the licensing of content to libraries. A rich and flexible model and message is essential to solve today’s problems and tomorrow’s


Generic lessons that can be learned from the EDItEUR project – and what might this mean for the DOI community?



Generic lessons

►You cannot enforce policies unless you can first communicate them►Rights metadata is more important than “DRM” in many

contexts

►Standardisation of rights metadata, anticipated for over a decade, is now becoming a reality► It isn’t only EDItEUR – MI3P and MPEG-21 have also been

developing related standards

►Advantages of a generic, ontology-based structure, specialised for particular communities►Flexibility, extensibility►Meeting specific community needs requires active

community engagement



A potential role for the DOI?

►The management of licences requires a comprehensive identity model…►…of licensed Resources…►…of Parties to Licences…►…and of the Licences themselves

►An “actionable” persistent identifier could be particularly useful in managing the very complex and challenging many-to-many relationships which are inherent in licence management


Rights and Licence Metadata –making DRM happen

Thank you

[email protected]

© 2005 Rightscom – All rights reserved Rights and Licence Metadata – making DRM happen A presentation for the IDF Members Meeting Bologna, 14 June 2005.

Documents

rights reserved rights

communication rights

rightscom slide

digital rights management

rights reserved case

rights expression language

licence terms

rights intellectual