[Minutes Overview] [Workshop Home] [Previous:Multimedia and Mobile]
Rigo Wenning (W3C): What are our conclusions? We had lots of discussions. DRM is everything and nothing. We've heard a lot of aspects. What is the role for W3C? What are the next steps? I heard us talk about:
Chris Barlas (Rightscom): Maybe it would be good to have a
do no harm
logo, as it is a sensitive landscape.
Danny Weitzner (W3C): You mean respect the work that has already been done?
Renato Iannella (IPR-Systems): I have a comment on process, made a list of potential deliverables. What could W3C produce? Example: Something that the W3C is used to doing. There is an ad hoc structure in producing requirements. We have done this for the last two days. That's important work but it must lead to something that W3C can produce.
Danny Weitzner (W3C): Hopefully we can come up with a list of things W3C should and should not do.
Rob Koenen (MPEG): A requirement study may be the next step.
Phillipa Morrell (IFPI): Important is to have a seamless end user experience. Content providers want to sell their content.
Rob Koenen (MPEG): A definition of interoperability would be good.
Renato Iannella (IPR-Systems): We could set up a working group to consider a rights language. There could also be a WG on rights messaging protocol. Finally we can imagine an Interest Group on DRM/technical protection measures. That would mean, we would have 2 Working Groups and 1 IG.
Danny Weitzner (W3C)explained the difference between WG and IG.
Comment:Collaboration and the Call for Review and Call for participation of MPEG are there. We have 2 calls out right now. They cover Id and descriptions and also Rights Language and a Rights Language Dictionary. There is a Draft for Digital Item Declaration
Comment:We need Architecture/understructure, a few key things to enable development of what we are looking for.
Danny Weitzner (W3C): Is that expansion of HTTP?
Comment:Yes.
Julian Durand (Nokia):Along the lines of do no harm requirements it would be good to see what other standards organizations are doing. Rights Language seems the best fit for W3C but if MPEG are already doing this then what should we decide for?
Comment:Intellectual Property is a fundamental part of the internet. It should be part of HTTP.
Ray Whitmer (Netscape/AOL):I think we should stear clear of copy protection. Managing the digital rights is hard enough.
Norman Paskin (DOI):I have two points. First is Collaboration: <indecs> needs to look at what is already in W3C for collaboration. Secondly, we need an architectural overview, RDF is discussing the fact they need a glossary, we should look at that.
Comment: We would suggest a WG for package manifest and digital items and identify a dependency to XML packages
Comment:If you do anything involving signatures, you should establish contacts with IETF
Rigo Wenning (W3C): We already have coordination with the IETF on signatures. There are also other liasons. The workshop should identify if there is anything missing.
Comment:How much in rights is similar to P3P?
Rigo Wenning (W3C):For P3P, there are similarities and differences. Privacy is about objective rights not subjective rights.
Comment:There might be a common message and the rights effort could benefit from eg. access rights.
Gerard Lokhoff (Philips):I think there is need for a survey of legal aspects in the grey area.
Danny Weitzner (W3C):In this workshop we have touched on the legal environment, we need to look at this and library and user issues.
Comment:We should couple privacy rights with access rights technically and legally.
Melissa Smith-Levine (LOC): Could a survey of legal aspects be done in an IG?
Comment: The most important thing that W3C can do is to leverage the members interests. It doesn't show up in those particular groups. We need to identify the general technical needs.
Rigo Wenning (W3C):Do you mean IG with more social input?
Comment:Yes
Danny Weitzner (W3C):This could also be done in another workshop.
John Erickson (HP):We should focus on Rights metadata and ontology in RDF
Brian Fleisher (RealNetworks):For a number of these things has to be represented here or in an IG, because if they are done simply with technical people or lawyers won't work.
David Parrot (Reuters):We need to be careful that whatever is done is not narrow in terms of data sets and delivery. It should be extensible. We should avoid narrow scope. Our approach should be content neutral. We should avoid the eyes and ears focus, or exclusive focus.
Chris Barlas (Rightscom): We should also consider the other digital delivery. There are other areas where digital content will be delivered.
Dan Connolly (W3C): Do you mean other than HTTP? Our architectural principal is the web is everything. If you mean other than HTTP that's ok, but other than the web I don't understand.
Chris Barlas (Rightscom):What about a CD? We need to consider it.
Rob Koenen (MPEG):Content will travel from somewhere.
Rigo Wenning (W3C):All content deliverable over a network it is digital. That's how we defined the scope of this workshop. It doesn't matter how, but whether it is possible.
Comment:How patents will interact with DRM?
Danny Weitzner (W3C):Chris said we should consider what is beyond the web which makes sense, and Rob said we must be able to account for rights with objects that contact the web (not necessarily on the web). Are we in agreement?
Comment:It's more complicated. There could be CD, web and broadcast content delivered together. We also should allow for offline.
Alan Kotok (W3C):The XML sig effort talks about how to apply signatures to XML documents, not that they must be transported by the web. If it can be expressed in a language, the delivery mechanism doesn't matter.
Rigo Wenning (W3C): For P3P this is not the case, but P3P began much earlier than XML Signature.
Comment:What about archiving, preservation for culture and future?
Comment:We should consider the difference between management of DR and the digital management of rights. There should be a handle on the inventory, managed digitally. DRM - take that digital object and manage the rights on it.
Comment:Every rights transaction today may involve patent and copyright loyalties (and probably privacy). Every transaction should take that into account.
Danny Weitzner (W3C):I think this is out of scope.
Janina Sajka (AAB):Whatever W3C chooses it should clearly state the goal for universal access.
Comment:Every amateur and every individual creator should have the same access, as everyone is a publisher.
Rob Koenen (MPEG):It is entirely possible to deal with copyright patent and trademarks together. MPEG has looked at mechanisms to deal with both, copyright and patents.
Comment:We should identify the integrity of the content. This should be seperate from the Digital Rights: e.g. we should consider an audit trail. It's a difficult area, not only in copy protection. Integrity, Audit Trail, Authenication are tobe considered.
Larry Lannom (CNRI):I wouldn't know what the main aspects of a Digital Rights Language would be from this workshop.
Danny Weitzner (W3C):Do you have a scope?
Larry Lannom (CNRI):People worry about that.
Comment:A DRM-System should well integrate into international juridiction. We should also make sure, that we don't violate human rights.
Unrecorded summary from Danny Weitzner (W3C) summary
Alan Kotok (W3C):Should W3C do this? We have few resources and we are heavily committed. I don't want to rush to tackle new issues unless the people in this room think that the W3C is a valuable place for it to happen. Are you going to join? Will it be valuable for our members?
Danny Weitzner (W3C):If the assembled group says it should be a W3C thing. then we would consider it.
Godfrey Rust <indecs>:In the area of a rights language W3C should not take initiative. There are issues which heavily rely on semantic and legal issues. The scope is the digital management of rights. This has to work in all environments and constituencies. I don't think all the right people are in W3C, e.g. content owners. I'm not sure W3C would do things different than MPEG. W3C should be involved, but as a liason.
Danny Weitzner (W3C):For us to devote resources to MPEG liason, we need a positive vote from the membership.
Comment:MPEGs call for requirements is for collaboration, not staking out territory. What percentage of people here are members? (About two third showed hands)
Chris Barlas (Rightscom):You've said what the W3C process is, what is the W3C liason process?
Dan Connolly (W3C):It hasn't been boiled down to one process, sometimes it is one person that is blessed. Sometimes the liason is high bandwidth we actually ask the membership. There isn't an exact process.
Chris Barlas (Rightscom):How is it reported to the membership?
Dan Connolly (W3C):E.g. IETF, we talk a few times a year and give the highlights to the membership. With the WAP forum we might meet every month or so. This is than reported to the membership
Danny Weitzner (W3C):The working end of liasons is through WGs the people that it matters to are WG members
Comment:How much of W3C membership is content providers? The W3C can't get involved if the content providers are not interested.
Danny Weitzner (W3C):We accept this, but we concentrate on the web.
Comment:Is there something other than liason?
Danny Weitzner (W3C):Yes. XML sig is a joint WG. Our process evolves pretty quickly, as we need it to. A joint WG with MPEG would be something new.
Caroline Townley (Active Rights Management): We are involved in the distribution of sports content. We have to secure this high value content. If W3C does something, then I can get the content on the web. Our customers see the web as a very important medium.
Renato Iannella (IPR-Systems):On the joint WG proposal with MPEG: If there is a will then we should do it.
Alan Kotok (W3C):Expanding on what Dan Connolly said: The W3C involvment towards an existing external WG, we don't have to start a whole new thing.
Comment:The W3C has a unique advantage concerning this world wide social political and economical issue. If W3C doesn't do it, then noone else will. I hope W3C will take the lead, including MPEG and IETF to do new work. Make it accessible to everyone.
Charles Myers (Adobe):We are involved in a number of WGs, ICE, PRISM, and ebook. All three see a rights language as a major issue. They all think it's a bigger issue than them. They are looking at the W3C for leadership. Not just technology groups, content providers as well.
Danny Weitzner (W3C):We will circulate the minutes, and make a summary report available. Hopefully these will be made public soon. We can use the workshop mailing list for a little while without needing a formal IG. At least until there are formal minutes. It will ultimately be the W3C members that decide.
[Minutes Overview] [Workshop Home] [Previous:Multimedia and Mobile]
Created by Rigo Wenning February 2001
Last update $Date: 2001/03/13 13:03:22 $ by $Author: rigo $