RE: Re: [cni] Protected Scope for Internet(c) Works (was:Kelly v. Arriba Soft )

From: I.R.Maturana <irm[_at_]in3activa.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:00:06 -0400

>(Edward Barrow:)

> > This thread made me thinking it would be plausible to
> > write a RFC designed for licensing conventions.
> It is envisaged that the Resource Description Framework would
> carry this
> type of metadata. Various rights metadata schemas have been
> proposed and
> may or may not achieve widespread industry acceptance.
> You may be interested in the MPEG-21 Rights Expression
> Language; it is
> based on XrML which is an XML-based rights description
> language developed
> by ContentGuard.

This is a proposal for "copyright-vendors", or industry editors. I doubt than authors and users interested in the Internet(C) proposal would accept to learn a specific language to simply release and share their works, as they actually do.

Moreover, this kind of specifications are designed to design specific client softwares, which will determine "by default" the business publishing model of copyrighted works on Internet !

IMHO, an "Internet(c)" declaration has the advantage to be neutral for everybody. It sounds like a good slogan: Internet as a Protected domain for Exposure of your Works, with no prejudice of your rights in all your countries.

Hum. I agree that Industry Editors and Rights Manufacturers would be afraid from this kind of proposal.

Hum. It appears their business model need a patch, too. (Maybe we can work on second RFC Draft designed for Internet  Rights Vendors, after the Internet(C) for Protected Works Draft ? :D)

I.R.Maturana -- http://www.in3activa.org (LPT-ESv1r3 - http://www.in3activa.org/doc/es/LPT-ES.html) Received on Mon Aug 04 2003 - 19:00:06 GMT