The Digital Media Project  

Source

L. Chiariglione

Date:

2004/04/20

Title

Kist of TRU studies

No.

0046/Los Angeles

List of TRUs

In the span of 2 months the study of Traditional Rights and Usages of media users carried out on the public DMP reflector (dmp@chiariglione.org) has made considerable progress. There are now 88 TRUs identified of which 56 have been described in a template.

As TRUs have been generated and described in a spontaneous an unorderly fashion, the need has been felt to group the 88 TRUs in 6 categories:

A

:

Already-established legislative TRUs of content creators

B

:

Already-established legislative TRUs belonging to end-users

C

:

Commercial and remuneration TRUs of direct economic significance

D

:

TRUs related to general social liberties

E

:

Fundamental TRUs from historical practice and interaction with analogue media

F

:

Consumer-choice TRUs relevant to the high-tech environment

The list of TRUs organised by categories and, within a given category, in order of increasing TRU number, is given in the table below. As before

RH

:

Right Holder

MM

 

Middleman

EU

 

End-User

Cat.

#

TRU

RH

MM

EU

A

11

TRU of attribution

X

   

A

22

TRU to be recognized as the author (paternity)

X

   

A

23

TRU not to be miscredited as the author (misattribution)

X

   

A

24

TRU for the author's work not to be tampered with (integrity)

X

   

A

32

TRU of withdrawal/objection

X

   

A

34

TRU of reproduction

X

   

A

36

TRU of distribution

X

   

A

43

TRU of reputation

X

   

A

45

TRU of first publication/disclosure

X

   

A

46

TRU of parody

X

   

A

47

TRU of factual reporting

X

   

A

48

TRU to restrict access to unpublished material

X

   

A

49

TRU of lending

X

   

A

50

TRU of translation

X

   

A

59

TRU moral rights

X

   

A

61

TRU communication to the public

X

   

A

62

TRU of applying technological access restrictions

X

   

A

76

TRU to restrict adaptation

X

X

 

A

77

TRU to restrict performance

X

X

 

A

84

TRU not to apply DRM to a piece of content

X

   

A

87

TRU to determine context of use

X

X

 

B

01

TRU to quote

   

X

B

07

TRU to use content whose copyright has expired

X

X

X

B

33

TRU of fair use

   

X

B

52

TRU of unpublished recording

   

X

B

53

TRU of developing nations exception

   

X

B

54

TRU of copying for classroom instruction

   

X

B

55

TRU to access content in libraries

   

X

C

15

TRU not to be counterfeited

 

X

 

C

16

TRU that sales displays will follow acceptable practice

 

X

 

C

17

TRU to be ignorant of usage

 

X

 

C

25

TRU of "First sale"/Personal loan

   

X

C

35

TRU of economic exploitation

X

   

C

37

TRU of contractual commerce

X

X

X

C

38

TRU of reciprocal protection

X

   

C

39

TRU of respect for sale royalties terms and conditions

X

   

C

40

TRU of respect for performance royalties terms and conditions

X

   

C

41

TRU of respect for resale royalties terms and conditions

X

   

C

42

TRU of equitable remuneration

X

   

C

44

TRU of reasonable modification

 

X

 

C

51

TRU of regional pricing

 

X

 

C

60

TRU of rental

X

   

C

78

TRU contracting for middle-men to broadcast

X

X

 

C

79

TRU contracting for middle-men to publish

X

X

 

C

80

TRU contracting for middle-men to release

X

X

 

C

81

TRU contracting for middle-men to promote

X

X

 

C

83

TRU of performance

   

X

C

85

TRU to syndication

X

X

 

C

86

TRU to choose mode of economic compensation

X

X

 

D

03

TRU to space shift content

   

X

D

04

TRU to time shift content

   

X

D

08

TRU to communicate privately

   

X

D

09

TRU to publish content anonymously

X

   

D

10

TRU to use content anonymously

   

X

D

12

TRU of anonymity

X

   

D

19

TRU of continued access

   

X

D

20

TRU of political freedom

X

X

X

D

21

TRU of freedom of art

   

X

D

26

TRU to transcode

   

X

D

29

TRU to digital media rental

     

D

30

TRU to freedom from monitoring

   

X

D

74

TRU to improve end-user experience

X

X

 

E

02

TRU to make personal copy

   

X

E

13

TRU to annotate for personal use

   

X

E

14

TRU to edit for personal use

   

X

E

18

TRU to apply a rating to a piece of content

 

X

 

E

27

TRU to make prohibited content inaccessible

     

E

28

TRU to time based advertising

     

E

56

TRU of authenticity of content guaranteed

X

X

X

E

63

TRU to distribute lower-resolution copies only

X

   

E

64

TRU to compel real-time only consumption

X

   

E

65

TRU to restrict place of use

X

   

E

66

TRU to restrict time of use

X

   

E

73

TRU to share content with members of a group

   

X

E

82

TRU of adaptation

   

X

E

88

TRU to make a print of a video scene (repurposing)

   

X

F

05

TRU to make playback device

 

X

X

F

06

TRU to choose playback device

   

X

F

31

TRU of reverse engineering

 

X

X

F

57

TRU to choose the service

X

 

X

F

58

TRU to choose the delivery system

X

 

X

F

67

TRU to make content creation device

X

X

 

F

68

TRU to assign content description

X

X

 

F

69

TRU to access content of one’s choice

   

X

F

70

TRU to run applications of one’s choice

   

X

F

71

TRU to attach playback devices of one’s choice to a network

   

X

F

72

TRU to access information about content

   

X

F

75

TRU to choose security

X

X

X

The TRU list in strict sequential order is given in a table at the end of this document. 

Below the available TRU descriptions are given in the order of the table above. 

11

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right to attribution
2. Summary description of TRU Defined narrowly for DMP process as the right to assert authorship of media for which a source is not given (or an incorrect source is given), in other words the right to demonstrate that one’s name should be attached to an uncredited (or miscredited) work as that work’s creator. The term is used elsewhere as largely synonymous with TRU to be recognized as the author (paternity).
3. Use records of TRU The case described here for specification-development purposes falls within the larger right of paternity (also known as attribution) and so is founded on the condition that an author or other creator deserves credit for a work or quote that is either unattributed or misattributed. It is not believed that this is a common occurrence for entire works, but this does occur all too often for quotes. While there might be cases in which plagiarism is involved, the key circumstance this is intended to refer to is that the credit-entitled creator begins in a credit-denied state while his work is in some published presentation but the creator is able to assert this TRU attribution and regain the credit to which they are entitled.
4. Nature of TRU Legally supported. See also 59. TRU moral rights, with respect to the nature of moral rights generally. More specifically, see 22. TRU to be recognized as the author (paternity), of which this TRU is considered a specific, somewhat-narrow instance. Note that the distinction between attribution (11) and misattribution (23) is a feature of U.S. copyright law for visual artists at 17 U.S.C. 106A(a)(1) (A) & (B).
5. Benefits of TRU Benefits Right-holders and End-users. Constrains other Right-holders.
6. Possible digital support The absolutist nature of moral rights lends itself to an information technology approach being as it embodies easily distinguished factual information that can be stored and provided readily through both a server system and databases protected by some sort of trusted digital repository (TDR, ref. RLG/OCLC report).
7. Requirements DMP shall support the right of attribution (in this case used narrowly)

8.

References

 

22

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right to be recognized as the author (paternity)
2. Summary description of TRU Right of the creator of a literary or artistic work to claim authorship or otherwise assert personal credit for the work’s creation.
3. Use records of TRU Historically, before the institution of royalties became common, it was normal for authors and artists to receive a one-time fee when turning a manuscript or other work over to a publisher or other “buyer”. In practice, some could point out that advances frequently work the same way in the present day although the promise of royalties exists. But without royalties, an author’s branding of their creation with their name was essential to the value of future sales of their work to middlemen. In many ways, the “paternity” association of one’s name with one’s work is the essential bond between creator and creation from which the creator receives an expectation that they will benefit in the future.

Because publishing under a pseudonym (or anonymously) is an option, paternity also extends to the right to claim authorship to one’s own work which was previously published under a pseudonym (or anonymously).

Although authors might contract to allow someone else to take credit for their own work, the paternity TRU can allow the true author to take credit even when this might be economically unfair.

On collective works such as motion pictures, the right to have one’s name associated with one’s creation – and the separation of this from the economic contracts involved – becomes essential to the lengthy “roll credits” that often occurs at the end of the movie.

It is worth noting anecdotal evidence that writers guilds commonly resolve disputes over who is entitled to have their name appear and how, and that these conflicts are frequent, lengthy and contentious.

The use of names also can involve two people with the same name and problematic cross-cultural issues such as foreign alphabet support, the use of diacrital marks with Roman text, and pronunciation difficulties. For example, the composer Dvorjak’s name is missing a hacek diacritical mark, the Russian author Solzhenitsyn is distributed under a romanization (versus Cyrillic) that is commonly mispronounced, and sounds such as the German “e” at the end of Hesse and Nietzsche can lead to heated debate as to whether it should be not-pronounced or pronounced with a strong “uh” sound, both of which are wrong.

4. Nature of TRU Legally supported. See also 59. TRU moral rights, with respect to the nature of moral rights generally.

Treaty landmarks include addition of paternity and integrity to Berne in 1928 Rome Act with Article 6bis according to Goldstein’s International Copyright Sec. 2.I.2.I, and note mention of droit moral in 1928 Article 11bis. Also of note is Article 5 of the 1996 Geneva WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. At Sec. 2.2.3, Goldstein says, “This is the first time moral rights have been prescribed for performers in an international agreement.” A notable law case was decided 1991 by the Court of Cassation in France regarding movie colorization (Goldstein Sec. 3.3.2.2.C), interpreting moral rights being “inalienable” as providing authors from foreign countries with full access to the French court system to assert these rights (at a minimum, inside France).

At Sec. 5.4.2.I, Goldstein quotes the WIPO Guide to the Berne Convention as calling Paternity the “first and foremost” moral right and the Guide says it “may be exercised by the author as he wishes; it can even be used in a negative way i.e., by publishing his work under a pseudonym or by keeping it anonymous, and he can, at any time, change his mind and reject his pseudonym or abandon his anonymity.”

Also at that section, Goldstein points to the U.S. as primarily rtefacts similar interests (to Paternity) through Trademark law at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a) (link to statute) titled “False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden” or when a licensee’s obligation to give attribution is imposed on them by contractual agreement.

5. Benefits of TRU Benefits Right-holders and End-users. Constrains the permissible behavior of Middle-men and others who might want to claim credit.
6. Possible digital support The absolutist nature of moral rights lends itself to an information technology approach being as it embodies easily distinguished factual information that can be stored and provided readily through both a server system and databases protected by some sort of trusted digital repository (TDR, ref. RLG/OCLC report).

Parternity should first be addressed by separating what is trivial from what is non-trivial about its support. Names are all over the place attached to most important consumer-priced digital media for sale. The company that produces the piece of media for sale is likely to be featured, as well as the “title” of the piece, perhaps a brief authorised “description” and whatever other personal information, quite likely to include a number of common human names such as Jose or Michael.

Indeed one of the most problematic factors is local alphabet support either by or similar to Unicode. A treat for many audiences would be to hear the author pronounce his or her own name, and to have a way to choose to hear this alongside whatever alphabetic appearance the person’s name has, in the spelling conventions of the author’s native language.

Additional material could be provided; it wouldn’t be hard to price audio recordings of authors’ mothers, wives or kids telling humorous stories about them or video clips of interviews with fans saying what was most rtefacts about the creator’s work. If all of this was author-approved, it could be trivial to provide all of this and much more, as well as many different approaches. For example, an XML RSS-feed type server could provide international mirror-hosting and be easily available online globally, although there would likely be local censorship concerns in many countries, especially respecting titles that are forbidden or are permitted for research purposes only.

As a personal fan of “It’s a small world after all” who grew up near the U.N., I can vouch for being an interested consumer in global atlases for which authors and artists can describe where they grew up and countries they travel to in cross-referenced databases.

Especially obvious to DMP by now are the issues of quoting. TRU Paternity support in TRU Quote is essential.

Note that moral rights vest more immediately in flesh-and-blood authors and so behave differently from data from sources more controlled by Middle-men or created as a collective work such that there is some consequential dilution of name recognition except for well-known stars. In some ways, in this system, any name that is a “star” name or a “hero” name should actually be cross-referenceable within the Paternity-support system.

Along the lines of the WIPO digital agenda there is excellent potential for ecommerce support.

A primary challenge is to specify curatorial supervision of the database, challenging authors’ contributions when they veer away from reasonable and sensible data worth storing on their behalf within the trusted digital repository. Note that the database itself is specifically required to be trusted; there is a likelihood of economic harm if the database is not well-maintained as content per se.

7. Requirements DMP shall support the right to be recognized as the author (paternity)

DMP shall support the ability of creators to record the pronunciation of their name in their native language as well as the ability to display the native-language written form of their name.

DMP shall support straightforward global atlas referencing as well as the ability to associate 3D locations with time and short comments or descriptions.

DMP shall support paternity by providing a means to cross-reference prominent names, distinguishing people or parties that are identical from other entries with similar details.

DMP shall support ecommerce transactions consistent with the WIPO Digital Agenda.

DMP shall support the specification of conditions for maintenance of a trusted database, such that both its technological delivery as well as the integrity of its content are both well-maintained.

8.

References

 

23

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right to be recognized as the author (paternity)
2. Summary description of TRU Right of the creator of a literary or artistic work to claim authorship or otherwise assert personal credit for the work’s creation.
3. Use records of TRU Historically, before the institution of royalties became common, it was normal for authors and artists to receive a one-time fee when turning a manuscript or other work over to a publisher or other “buyer”. In practice, some could point out that advances frequently work the same way in the present day although the promise of royalties exists. But without royalties, an author’s branding of their creation with their name was essential to the value of future sales of their work to middlemen. In many ways, the “paternity” association of one’s name with one’s work is the essential bond between creator and creation from which the creator receives an expectation that they will benefit in the future.

Because publishing under a pseudonym (or anonymously) is an option, paternity also extends to the right to claim authorship to one’s own work which was previously published under a pseudonym (or anonymously).

Although authors might contract to allow someone else to take credit for their own work, the paternity TRU can allow the true author to take credit even when this might be economically unfair.

On collective works such as motion pictures, the right to have one’s name associated with one’s creation – and the separation of this from the economic contracts involved – becomes essential to the lengthy “roll credits” that often occurs at the end of the movie.

It is worth noting anecdotal evidence that writers guilds commonly resolve disputes over who is entitled to have their name appear and how, and that these conflicts are frequent, lengthy and contentious.

The use of names also can involve two people with the same name and problematic cross-cultural issues such as foreign alphabet support, the use of diacrital marks with Roman text, and pronunciation difficulties. For example, the composer Dvorjak’s name is missing a hacek diacritical mark, the Russian author Solzhenitsyn is distributed under a romanization (versus Cyrillic) that is commonly mispronounced, and sounds such as the German “e” at the end of Hesse and Nietzsche can lead to heated debate as to whether it should be not-pronounced or pronounced with a strong “uh” sound, both of which are wrong.

4. Nature of TRU Legally supported. See also 59. TRU moral rights, with respect to the nature of moral rights generally.

Treaty landmarks include addition of paternity and integrity to Berne in 1928 Rome Act with Article 6bis according to Goldstein’s International Copyright Sec. 2.I.2.I, and note mention of droit moral in 1928 Article 11bis. Also of note is Article 5 of the 1996 Geneva WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. At Sec. 2.2.3, Goldstein says, “This is the first time moral rights have been prescribed for performers in an international agreement.” A notable law case was decided 1991 by the Court of Cassation in France regarding movie colorization (Goldstein Sec. 3.3.2.2.C), interpreting moral rights being “inalienable” as providing authors from foreign countries with full access to the French court system to assert these rights (at a minimum, inside France).

At Sec. 5.4.2.I, Goldstein quotes the WIPO Guide to the Berne Convention as calling Paternity the “first and foremost” moral right and the Guide says it “may be exercised by the author as he wishes; it can even be used in a negative way i.e., by publishing his work under a pseudonym or by keeping it anonymous, and he can, at any time, change his mind and reject his pseudonym or abandon his anonymity.”

Also at that section, Goldstein points to the U.S. as primarily rtefacts similar interests (to Paternity) through Trademark law at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a) (link to statute) titled “False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden” or when a licensee’s obligation to give attribution is imposed on them by contractual agreement.

5. Benefits of TRU Benefits Right-holders and End-users. Constrains the permissible behavior of Middle-men and others who might want to claim credit.
6. Possible digital support The absolutist nature of moral rights lends itself to an information technology approach being as it embodies easily distinguished factual information that can be stored and provided readily through both a server system and databases protected by some sort of trusted digital repository (TDR, ref. RLG/OCLC report).

Parternity should first be addressed by separating what is trivial from what is non-trivial about its support. Names are all over the place attached to most important consumer-priced digital media for sale. The company that produces the piece of media for sale is likely to be featured, as well as the “title” of the piece, perhaps a brief authorised “description” and whatever other personal information, quite likely to include a number of common human names such as Jose or Michael.

Indeed one of the most problematic factors is local alphabet support either by or similar to Unicode. A treat for many audiences would be to hear the author pronounce his or her own name, and to have a way to choose to hear this alongside whatever alphabetic appearance the person’s name has, in the spelling conventions of the author’s native language.

Additional material could be provided; it wouldn’t be hard to price audio recordings of authors’ mothers, wives or kids telling humorous stories about them or video clips of interviews with fans saying what was most rtefacts about the creator’s work. If all of this was author-approved, it could be trivial to provide all of this and much more, as well as many different approaches. For example, an XML RSS-feed type server could provide international mirror-hosting and be easily available online globally, although there would likely be local censorship concerns in many countries, especially respecting titles that are forbidden or are permitted for research purposes only.

As a personal fan of “It’s a small world after all” who grew up near the U.N., I can vouch for being an interested consumer in global atlases for which authors and artists can describe where they grew up and countries they travel to in cross-referenced databases.

Especially obvious to DMP by now are the issues of quoting. TRU Paternity support in TRU Quote is essential.

Note that moral rights vest more immediately in flesh-and-blood authors and so behave differently from data from sources more controlled by Middle-men or created as a collective work such that there is some consequential dilution of name recognition except for well-known stars. In some ways, in this system, any name that is a “star” name or a “hero” name should actually be cross-referenceable within the Paternity-support system.

Along the lines of the WIPO digital agenda there is excellent potential for ecommerce support.

A primary challenge is to specify curatorial supervision of the database, challenging authors’ contributions when they veer away from reasonable and sensible data worth storing on their behalf within the trusted digital repository. Note that the database itself is specifically required to be trusted; there is a likelihood of economic harm if the database is not well-maintained as content per se.

7. Requirements DMP shall support the right to be recognized as the author (paternity)

DMP shall support the ability of creators to record the pronunciation of their name in their native language as well as the ability to display the native-language written form of their name.

DMP shall support straightforward global atlas referencing as well as the ability to associate 3D locations with time and short comments or descriptions.

DMP shall support paternity by providing a means to cross-reference prominent names, distinguishing people or parties that are identical from other entries with similar details.

DMP shall support ecommerce transactions consistent with the WIPO Digital Agenda.

DMP shall support the specification of conditions for maintenance of a trusted database, such that both its technological delivery as well as the integrity of its content are both well-maintained.

8.

References

 

24

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right for the author’s work not to be tampered with (integrity)
2. Summary description of TRU Right for the creator of a literary or artistic work to object to unreasonable modifications that distort or mutilate the work or otherwise present their work in a manner harmful to their reputation.
3. Use records of TRU The prevailing, guiding principle that the creator of a work should be able to control having their work presented as originally intended falls victim to a host of complicating details. Creators are understandably sensitive about not having their work tampered with or modified without their approval, however middlemen and even end-users have compelling instances for which revision might be justified. There is also an important distinction to be made between works in the original as published and the various types of end-user modifications that can alter the original but are not intended for publication or distribution. For example, Mr. Schultz has pointed out “the difference between tampering with a file and claiming it is original and ‘tampering’ with a file for personal use or derivation purposes.”

For middlemen, a countervailing TRU is reasonable modification, which certainly applies to minor issues such as punctuation or correcting misspelled words. On the other hand, middlemen could seek to take liberties such as changing characters’ names and deleting or adding scenes or prose passages. Examples could include sexiness, political controvery or the use of vulgar language, and these might be either added or deleted for marketing pusposes, particularly when cross-cultural sensibilities are involved.

Although the U.S. resistance to moral rights can seem puzzling, it seems a likely speculation that the combination of paternity and integrity offer opportunities for creators to act like demanding prima donnas, regardless of what economic contracts say. This can include advocating integrity rights in combination with paternity by threatening, “If you do that, then you have to take my name off it” when the author’s name is what gives a specific work its anticipated market value. For example, many a book author has objected to movie adaptations made from their books (e.g., Tom Clancy) by protesting that the filmmakers should have stuck to their book’s plot and events more closely, and many a film director has objected to shortened versions demanded by film studios (e.g., Sergio Leone). Writers are also notorious for wanting deadlines extended, time for additional revision, or having unusual ideas of how to write such as fussing over commas. It has been said by many a businessman that without deadlines, creative types might simply never get things finished. Then if a work is a success, there is often a market for revisions and these in turn can entail a variety of complications.

Visual artists may also have unique quality-of-reproduction issues, for example concerns about accurate reproduction of colors.

In spite of the many excuses that can be made on behalf of those who habitually modify work as value players in the content-chain connecting creator with end-user, there are also compelling arguments to be made on the creator’s behalf, since they are the source of the material to be presented. For example, American humorist James Thurber has related many stories in which his well-meaning and competent editors at The New Yorker magazine tried to mangle his prose in order to make it more acceptable. There is certainly a line that should not be crossed without the creator’s consent, regardless of how difficult it might be to draw such a line for each individual work and proposed change. A well-known U.S. court case that was resolved on the economic issue of reputation – since moral rights do not apply in the U.S. except for certain visual arts – involved the work of Monty Python’s Terry Gilliam, who successfully objected to commercially oriented edits made by ABC to condense his material for television broadcast (ref. Goldstein International Copyright Sec. 5.4.2.2).

4. Nature of TRU Legally supported. See also 59. TRU moral rights, with respect to the nature of moral rights generally.

Treaty landmarks include addition of paternity and integrity to Berne in 1928 Rome Act with Article 6bis according to Goldstein’s International Copyright Sec. 2.I.2.I, and note mention of droit moral in 1928 Article 11bis. Also of note is Article 5 of the 1996 Geneva WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. At Sec. 2.2.3, Goldstein says, “This is the first time moral rights have been prescribed for performers in an international agreement.” A notable law case was decided 1991 by the Court of Cassation in France regarding movie colorization (Goldstein Sec. 3.3.2.2.C), interpreting moral rights being “inalienable” as providing authors from foreign countries with full access to the French court system to assert these rights (at a minimum, inside France).

Before discussing the Oscar Wilde case (described more fully at TRU reputation), Sec. 5.4.I.I.ii of Goldstein says, “The economic right of adaptation will sometimes overlap the moral right of integrity which similarly empowers authors to control changes in their work.” Note that many kinds of derivative work or “spin-offs” are possible but these largely don’t impinge on TRU integrity unless they have author consent, that is to say the Right-holder exercising their TRU adaptation.

5. Benefits of TRU Benefits Right-holders. Constrains the permissible behavior of Middle-men.
6. Possible digital support The absolutist nature of moral rights lends itself to an information technology approach being as it embodies easily distinguished factual information that can be stored and provided readily through both a server system and databases protected by some sort of trusted digital repository (TDR, ref. RLG/OCLC report).

Integrity presents a number of unique challenges. Especially obvious is bit-accuracy either after transmission or confirmed as “going well” at the consumer-receiver device (or at least not going badly enough for a user to “sound the alarm” and complain). Arguably, provisioning is impossible without some easy way for the customer to report whether service is satisfactory or poor.

Several integrity concerns are connected to both TRU reputation and TRU that sales displays will follow acceptable practice. This would not be too difficult to arrange within some support-alternatives for “Integrity” provisioning.

7. Requirements DMP shall support the right for the author’s work not to be tampered with (integrity)

DMP shall support specifications for End-users to signal content-providers as to whether the final rendering, of whatever data transmission is agreed to, is well-received and functioning as intended, conversely End-users shall be enabled to interactively communicate – to a service provider including a content service provider – in order to indicate when reception is garbled or unusable.

DMP shall support the ability for End-users to signal or communicate dissatisfaction with content, preserving a measurement of the exact moment of the objection as well as content source material being objected to, including the ability to downgrade the rating of a creator’s reputation (a virtual “shame on you”).

DMP shall support the specification for delivery of display criteria such as would be suitable to ensure that a promotional campaign remained branded within certain acceptable limits, for example minimum size of display, acceptable range of prescribed colors, authorised descriptions and other strings of prose.

8.

References

 

32

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right of withdrawal/objection
2. Summary description of TRU Moral right under several legal systems to either withdraw a published work from publication, requiring remuneration for Middlemen economically hurt by this, as well as the right to assert that a published work no longer reflects the creator’s current views.
3. Use records of TRU Although relatively few countries treat this as a formal moral right, it comes up more frequently under economic rights when a creator no longer feels that a work reflects their views and wishes to withdraw it from publication or at least disavow its content.

The sort of verbal dialogue that could illustrate this would be if someone asked “Did you really mean that?” or “What were you thinking when you said that?” Possible answers to which could be “I meant it at the time but I don’t feel that way now” or “I must have been out of my mind and I’m ashamed that I said that.”

Considering how mutable an artist’s creative thoughts may be, it is easy to imagine that giving them the power to repeatedly assert this right could allow them to cause quite a nuisance. On the other hand, the principle involved deserves a certain respect and protection, particularly since competitors or enemies might seek to damage a person’s reputation by publicizing the poor qualities of their previous creations.

Examples could include politicians’ statements made during an earlier period in their career, artistic works edited and hyped by Middlemen that then fall flat causing the artist to claim “that didn’t reflect who I really am” during subsequent efforts to promote new works, periods of religious zeal causing output created during this period to have a dogmatic or tedious character, and the same result as the preceeding however caused by a proclivity for so-called “adult” content such as sex, violence or foul language.

When competitors or enemies refer to works that a creator might wish to disavow, there is a tendency to misrepresent the time or context in which the works were made public. For example, an enemy could say “Do you know that he said ___?” to which the speaker might reply “That was 30 years ago and I had just been insulted. That doesn’t represent who I am or what I really think.”

4. Nature of TRU A right rarely asserted and primarily supported by France, Germany, Italy and Spain (ref. Goldstein, International Copyright, Sec. 5.4.2.4). See also 59. TRU moral rights, with respect to the nature of moral rights generally. It is considered related to economic rights of reversion of ownership to the author or “termination of transfer”.
5. Benefits of TRU Benefits Right-holders and End-users. Can be adverse to Middle-men.
6. Possible digital support The absolutist nature of moral rights lends itself to an information technology approach being as it embodies easily distinguished factual information that can be stored and provided readily through both a server system and databases protected by some sort of trusted digital repository (TDR, ref. RLG/OCLC report).

It should not be too challenging to provide fields in a reputational database allowing creators to express negative comments about their own previous work.

7. Requirements DMP shall support the right of withdrawal/objection

Note the proposed Integrity RQs support most of what’s needed for this.

8. References  

34

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right of reproduction
2. Summary description of TRU broad right to exclude others from copying protected material (unless authorised to do so), implemented with many national variations, generally including listed exceptions
3. Use records of TRU This treatment relies on Paul Goldstein’s books Copyright’s Highway (GCH) and International Copyright (GIC) as well as Sam Ricketson’s WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (R). Like TRU to quote, reproduction is primarily covered by Berne and WCT/WPPT internationally and it is enforced nationally.

In earlier times, the exercise of this right included analogue restrictions that do not directly translate to digital:

Note that reproduction can be so broad as to encompass all Right-holder TRUs especially TRU distribution, including lending and rental, yet also including TRU broadcast and TRU performance. The right to reproduce is often embodied in law with regards to “subject matter” analogue media type, for example “phonograms” and “cinematic works”. Since the 1996 WCT/WPPT, two new TRUs connected to reproduction have been broadly adopted, adapted to the phenomenon of digital media:

The history of TRU reproduction is long and varied. It cannot be emphasised enough that TRU reproduction is restrictive, giving the creator the right to restrict expression when others seek to reproduce a significant number of copies. It is so restrictive as to be “exclusive” giving the Right-holder the right to exclude potential infringing competitors by calling on the law for national enforcement. Simultaneous with this, some fair use copying has always been accepted, notably quoting, news, classrooms, and official announcements.

In some ways reproduction is like a belt – it only holds things together because of the fair use holes in it. Ironically, reproduction was not explicitly mentioned in early Berne. “The reproduction right, though regularly protected under national law, did not appear in the 1886 text” GIC 2.I.2.I.A, see also footnote 69. “In practice, reproduction rights were universally recognized under national legislation, but the exceptions to these rights varied considerably from country to country” R 20 and see footnote 47. Its introduction came with what is commonly referred to as the Article 9(2) exception allowing anybody to do anything provided the “three-step test” criteria are all met, see breakdown R 20-27. As far as the ability to make new exceptions, 9(2) is like an awl or drill that can make a hole in anything.

A long history of large and small industrial Middle-men have shaped the past of reproduction, notably the Stationers Guild. Goldstein gives a nice account of the Stationers’ first claim in 1706 that they represented the rights of authors (GCH Chapter 1, 33-35) and he ends Copyright’s Highway with a reference to this historical landmark. It is worth noting that Middle-men have a tendency to assert that most titles lose money. It has followed from this that organisations of Middle-men have often been in the best position to call for law enforcement through costly lawsuits. The advocacy work of many creators should be noted including Victor Hugo, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain (see to U.S. Congressional committee) and the opera composer Giacomo Puccini. Also notable is Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. whose father was an author.

Because history has taken reproduction into the digital era there is now also a treatment for it there. On the other hand, the digital approach of WCT/WPPT is somewhat antithetical to the traditional history of copyright. Goldstein says, “Other than its inclusion in the text of a copyright and a neighboring rights treaty, the anticircumvention requirement has no connection—indeed is antithetical—to the philosophy of copyright generally, that privately enforced rights mediate more efficiently and equitably between authors and their audiences than do physical or technological fences.” (GIC 5.4) See treatment at TRU communication to the public and TRU technological access restrictions.

It should be noted these two digital, post-Internet TRUs do not require mapping to the digital domain and should probably be excluded from any such mapping. They primarily govern DMP in the form of applicable treaty language. As far as our mapping project into the digital domain, their main use might be the assignation of TRU to technological access restrictions after the fact to those RQs that seem required by the use of digital security technologies such as encryption key management.

4. Nature of TRU Treaty reference to TRU reproduction includes WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (for audio, not applicable to literary and artistic works) Articles 7 and 11 (GIC 2.2.3). U.S. copyright law grants TRU reproduction at 17 U.S.C. section 106(1) “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords” (link to code)

Worthy of immediate note is GIC 5.4.I that ideas are not protectable by copyright, only expressions of ideas can be protected. The building blocks of thought and ideas are not covered by RH TRU reproduction. The sharing of ideas can cause many liberalities to be required, and has also consistently led to cases of creative “stealing” as well as commercial misconduct (e.g., misstatement of source).

This TRU also has general coverage of TRU adaptation which requires many issues to be addressed regarding derivative works, inclusion, linking, TRU quote, ecommerce opportunities, and limited rights of circulation within the private home network, ref. GIC 5.4.I.I.A(ii).

At GIC 5.4.I.I.A(i), Goldstein introduces his treatment of the “Reproduction Right” by saying, “Historically, the right to make copies of a copyrighted work is the seminal author’s right, the law’s response to the invention of moveable type.” He later points out the tension between technological access restriction and copyright, saying, “Contemporary technologies for the transmission of copyrighted works have presented a challenge to effective definition of the reproduction right.”

There is a spectrum from printers to the Internet using different reproduction technologies with differing analogue properties — generally referred to as different “subject matter” (although that phrase is also sometimes used, less properly, for the purpose of usages). Goldstein cites France’s Intellectual Property Code Art. L 122-3 (footnote 564), “Reproduction shall consist in the physical fixation of a work by any process permitting it to be communicated to the public in an indirect way.” This shows the spectrum from physical fixation — a basically analogue concept — and the right of communication which was adopted and adapted to cover digital Internet transmissions in the 1996 WCT and WPPT treaties. It is noteworthy that the chaos of trying to cope with the steady development of new reproduction technologies caused most new technologies to be first and/or primarily covered by “neighboring” rights of TRU reciprocal protection.

Although the creator’s exclusive right to restrict reproduction is legally supported and well-established, it conventionally occurs along with an extensive list of exceptions. For example, on pp. 42-3 of Ricketson (link above) appears an “Illustrative Table of limitations and Exceptions Under Berne” listing the following 17 subject matter exceptions (note: seven are justified by informatory purposes).

Official texts (literary works or LW) — Article 2(4)

Justification: informatory; Limitations/Exceptions/Compulsory License: limitations; Mandatory/Permissive: permissive; Rights: all; Conditions: none

news of the day and press information (LW) — Article 2(8)

Justification: informatory; L/E/CL: limitations; M/P: mandatory; Rights: all; Conditions: none

political and legal speeches (LW) — Article 2bis(1)

Justification: informatory; L/E/CL: limitations; M/P: permissive; Rights: all; Conditions: none

public lectures, etc. (LW) — Article 2bis(2)

Justification: informatory; L/E/CL: exceptions; M/P: permissive; Rights: reproduction, all rights under Article 11bis(1); Conditions: informatory purpose

general (all works) — Article 9(2)

Justification: general; L/E/CL: exceptions, compulsory license; M/P: permissive; Rights: reproduction; Conditions: three-step test

quotation (all works) — Article 10(1)

Justification: informatory; L/E/CL: exceptions, compulsory license; M/P: mandatory; Rights: all; Conditions: 1 fair practice, 2 justified by purpose

illustration in teaching (all works) — Article 10(2)

Justification: educational; L/E/CL: exceptions, compulsory license; M/P: permissive; Rights: reproduction, all rights under Article 11bis(1);
Conditions: 1 illustration, 2 fair practice

newspapers, etc., articles, broadcast works (LW) — Article 10bis(1)

Justification: informatory; L/E/CL: exceptions; M/P: permissive; Rights: reproduction, all rights under Article 11bis(1); Conditions: 1 no reservation, 2 indication of source

reporting current events (all works) — Article 10bis(2)

Justification: informatory; L/E/CL: exceptions; M/P: permissive; Rights: photos, cine, all rights under Article 11bis(1); Conditions: informatory purpose

broadcasting (all works) — Article 11bis(2)

Justification: public access; L/E/CL: compulsory license; M/P: permissive; Rights: all rights under Article 11bis(1); Conditions: 1 equitable remuneration, 2 moral rights respected

ephemeral recording (music and words) — Article 11bis(3)

Justification: convenience, archival preservation; L/E/CL: exceptions, compulsory license; M/P: permissive; Rights: reproduction; Conditions: 1 must be “ephemeral”, 2 “exceptional documentary character” (archival)

recording of music and words — Article 13(1)

Justification: new industry; L/E/CL: compulsory license; M/P: permissive; Rights: reproduction; Conditions: 1 already recorded, 2 equitable remuneration

cine works — co-authors (limited) — Article 14bis(2)(b)

Justification: convenience; L/E/CL: exceptions; M/P: permissive; Rights: reproduction, all rights under Article 11bis(1), public performance; Conditions: no contrary stipulation

censorship (all works) — Article 17

Justification: state power; L/E/CL: limitations; M/P: permissive; Rights: all rights; Conditions: must be for censorship reasons, none other

three implied/ancillary agreements between member states

  • minor reservationsJustification: de minimis; L/E/CL: exceptions; M/P: permissive; Rights: public performance, all rights under Article 11bis(1), public recitation;
    Conditions: de minimis
  • translationsJustification: necessity; L/E/CL: exceptions; M/P: permissive; Rights: reproduction, public performance, public recitation, all rights under Article 11bis(1) however not Articles 11bis or 13; Conditions: those applicable under Articles 2bis, 9(2), 10 and 10bis
  • anti-monopoly controlsJustification: state power; L/E/CL: limitations; M/P: permissive; Rights: all rights; Conditions: must be for anti-trust reasons, none other

It should be noted that these are only the limitations and exceptions in Berne and that a great many more exist, particularly regionally limited ones (fewer are recognized by international treaty but homegrown exceptions flourish like U.S. “homestyle” business establishments being exempt from royalty payments to collecting societies, which is currently being challenged in international court).

5. Benefits of TRU Although TRU reproduction is generally considered to benefit Right-holders exclusively, the traditional exceptions that normally come with it benefit End-Users, so this TRU can be considered from either a narrow RH-only or a broader RH/EU point-of-view.
6. Possible digital support TRU reproduction is likely to be supported by the basis of DMP and its workplan. Strong DRM supplies an unlimited ability to shut-down reproduction, so support of this TRU becomes a matter of the interactivity allowing authors to control their works as items of digital media, as well as support for the three “watchwords” covered in this section of TRU technological access restrictions: granularity, flexibility and extensibility.

As this is an economic right, it is worth noting that the primary measure of whether it is supported is whether it is economically successful.

Note issue of support for artists working through Middle-men.

At 5.5, Goldstein makes a most important argument that I will reproduce at length in order to discuss possible digital support: “Article 9(2)’s second requirement, that the reproduction ‘not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work,’ aims to fortify authors’ interests in their accustomed markets against local legislative inroads. An obvious circularity underlies the requirement. At least historically, an author will normally exploit a work only in those markets where he is assured of legal rights; by definition, markets for exempted uses fall outside the range of normal exploitation. Consequently, it might be thought that to expand an exemption is to shrink the ‘normal market,’ while to expand the definition of ‘normal market’ is to shrink the permitted exemption. Common sense offers the surest guide out of this logical paradox.” I suggest we can do a great deal better with DMBM development, so that common sense might have a field day. For example, the case of an author crafting a once-and-for-all DMBM that never changes should be supported, however more amorphous and statistical DMBM’s can also be allowed to form in very liquid and transitional states, only firming up into stricter more rigid DMBMs when certain rtefacts are passed. For example, supporting an artist’s full-time livelihood can be used as one of several common sense measures of such a rtefacts — that at a certain point, things get serious and then stricter DMBMs apply. However the very DMBM that applies could grow ‘genetically’ from the digital marketplace such that sharing usages were all caught up in the process of the DMBM’s formation. This is especially likely to be applicable to TRU regional pricing.

Note the question as to whether or not we are crafting actual, real-world DEUs that form a set of creator’s rights (or, more properly, options). Since the creator is the End-user, the distinction between sharing-ideas TRUs and these more intellectual property ownership type rights is inherently interesting. Properly defined (by RQs) they should illustrate two different sides of human nature, analogous to speech versus hearing.

The ‘90s White Paper suggested the use of “rules for managing copyright information so that users could know the identity of a work’s author and owner and whether they were willing to allow use of the work” (GCH Chapter 6, 185).

7. Requirements DMP shall support the right of reproduction
8. References  

36

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right of distribution
2. Summary description of TRU generally used to describe the circulation of “fixated” copies, including many contractual arrangements; like TRU reproduction, distribution is often identified by exceptions to the Right-holders ability to exclude, however distribution also often applies to new technologies or usage patterns, also including TRU lending and TRU rental.
3. Use records of TRU This treatment relies on Paul Goldstein’s books Copyright’s Highway (GCH) and International Copyright (GIC) as well as Sam Ricketson’s WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (R).

Distribution comprises many things, especially the analogue movements and uses of physical media. It is not so ethereal as “reproduction” or “communication” but rather imagines real people negotiating in real rooms over shipments, territory, or where used goods may be resold. It should be pointed out regarding “Possible Digital Support” that this could easily apply to uses of Digital media such as print-outs or books assembled through just-in-time printing.

4. Nature of TRU Examples of treaty references to TRU distribution include WIPO Copyright Treaty Article 6 (GIC 2.I.2.3) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (for audio, not applicable to literary and artistic works) Articles 8 and 12 (GIC 2.2.3). “In France, Belgium and elsewhere, the distribution right is partially approximated by the so-called ‘right of destination’…The only reference to a distribution right in the Berne Paris Text is in Article 14(I)” regarding movies (GIC 5.4.I.I.A.iii footnote 591). U.S. copyright law grants TRU distribution at 17 U.S.C. section 106(3) “to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending” (link to code)

As cited at R 47, TRIPS Objectives Article 7 points to the “higher calling” to which TRU distribution can be called: “The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.” Although distribution can be imagined in terms of very worthy social policies, it is often regulated by contracts that bring it down to earth with a thud. For example, music industry attorney Don Passman gives the example of artists being asked to sign away their distribution rights for the territory of “the universe” (All You Need To Know About The Music Business, p. 158).

It is important that digital media distribution provides Right-holders with clear access to the legal system of some territory in which to sue in cases of infringement (GIC 3.I.2.2).

The opportunity for electronic transactions to provide cheaper, easier and better pricing or negotiations is recognized, for example, “When a copyright owner deposits its works into some future electronic retrieval system, it will be able to attach a price tag to each work, listing its rates for different uses of the work” (GCH Chapter 7). It is also possible that the ease of “electronic contracting” could eliminate the need for some compulsory licensing schemes (GIC 5.5.I.6).

5. Benefits of TRU Right-holder
6. Possible digital support The best way to support TRU distribution is by supporting broad circulation abilities for unpublished material and with regards to publication and post-publication distribution efforts, to provide robust and flexible support to (electronic) contracts and licensing. Note that standardisation of electronic contract language can benefit analogue by providing terms and conditions able to be included in analogue-executed printed documents. The use and support of unpublished material is referred to TRU to restrict access to unpublished material.

Merchandise manufactured by DM fabrication devices (inc. standard printers) should be branded (at least by watermark) and become subject to the laws and conventions of the analogue world.

Note serialisation and other rtefacts options.

Note the different challenges for digital support posed by distribution of physical goods defined as transfer of ownership (of the “good” but not its underlying copyright), accomplished by sale or gift, or else a rental or loan for which the original ownership of the “good” does not change hands but an End-user obtains the ability to freely use the distributed item. For digital support it must be considered whether the concept of owning a physical good is not somewhat antiquated and dysfunctional when the vital matter is access to content, for example the ability to obtain fresh digital originals if the previously used copy becomes lost or damaged.

7. Requirements DMP shall support the right of distribution.
8. References  

43

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right of reputation
2. Summary description of TRU Rights of reputation include an author’s economic rights not to have their work presented in a manner harmful to their future sales, a celebrity’s right not to have their physical image misused to create a false appearance of endorsement, and a moral right not to have works subjected to derogatory treatment.
3. Use records of TRU As one might expect from the nature of a person’s “reputation” in itself, this is a multifaceted TRU – seemingly innocuous and yet deceptively important. It bears on moral rights primarily through integrity but also through the three-step test of special cases that do no harm to a work’s normal exploitation or to the author’s reputation, that third step being essentially a moral right and therefore inalienable according to some legal systems notably that of France. As an economic right, reputation is also multifaceted because economic rights tend to be covered by a host of diverse possible claims perhaps the most notable of which are unfair competition, trademark and defamation but the essence of all of them coming down to compensation for economic harm when it occurs. Although economic harm to a creator’s reputation might be very hard to quantify because it is gambling to guess a creator’s future income, the consequences can be death to sales since a bad reputation can make a person’s work anathema to buyers. Finally, reputation has a more narrow use that seems primarily economic in the arena of public figures whose celebrity status subjects them to having to permit certain types of reproductions of their physical appearance – such as magazine snapshots or artistic portraits – but protects them from reproduction of their physical appearance in areas that would be considered product endorsements or merchandising of their image.

Although this TRU might seem a trickster and a Proteus, and therefore quite hard to pin down, one should expect it to pop up unexpectedly as being very important. Creators want to be regarded well and any use of their work or image that seems to injure this will likely result in cries for protection. As a rtefacts instance, an important court case decided on a celebrity’s “right of publicity” (treated here as essentially synonymous with reputation) involved the talk show host and comedian Johnny Carson who was introduced by the phrase “Here’s Johnny.” A manufacturer of portable toilets used the slogan “Here’s Johnny, the World’s Foremost Commodian” [from Paul Goldstein’s “Copyright’s Highway”, Chapter 1], a use that while funny also gives rise to an unpleasant mental association between the comedian and bowel movements.

4. Nature of TRU Legally supported in a variety of forms, both moral and economic. See also 59. TRU moral rights, with respect to the nature of moral rights generally.

Under some national legislations, penalties for harm to moral right of integrity are calculated based on quantifiable damage to reputation (ref. Goldstein, International Copyright, Sec. 5.4.2.2). Reputation can also be protected under defamation laws.

An interesting British case pertaining to Oscar Wilde’s “reputational interests” is described at Id. Sec. 5.4.I.I.ii regarding a ballet based very loosely on the author’s short story “The Nightingale and the Rose”. Had the defendant not referred to the story and its author in their advertising, the works were sufficiently dissimilar, and founded on folk tale in the public domain, that it would have been difficult to find any infringement. In this sense, an author’s right of adaptation can be considered an extension of TRU reputation. The market value placed on reputation seems to attract both “bottom-feeders” and spin-offs of a more acceptable (and hopefully authorised) kind.

5. Benefits of TRU Benefits Right-holders.
6. Possible digital support The absolutist nature of moral rights lends itself to an information technology approach being as it embodies easily distinguished factual information that can be stored and provided readily through both a server system and databases protected by some sort of trusted digital repository (TDR, ref. RLG/OCLC report).

Such an approach could provide a number of alternative support systems for data pertinent to a creator’s reputation – providing a reputation-cloud so to speak of pertinent authorised data.

7. Requirements DMP shall support the right of reputation

Note RQs proposed for TRU integrity

8.

References

 

45

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right of first publication/disclosure
2. Summary description of TRU Right for the creator to control the manner in which their work is initially released or divulged to the public, including economic rights as well as a moral right recognised under several legal systems.
3. Use records of TRU As a moral right, this includes divulgation (as in, to divulge or disclose) or publication of that which has not been previously offered to the public. For creators with a very good reputation, working drafts of many kinds have value which third parties could seek to publish whether because of their economic value or just to satisfy popular curiosity. While cases dealing with this often relate to economic factors, it is good to consider this in the abstract respecting privacy or the need of creators to show drafts or sketches to a select group in order to solicit their reactions. As a rtefacts issue in moral rights, this line between ‘backstage’ and ‘on-stage’ is very important to the creative process.

Because national systems of copyright protection habitually deal with works that are published at a certain place (or places) and time (or times) and then might qualify for the exclusive legal right in certain countries for certain amounts of time (which can vary for different places), the time and place of first publication/disclosure can be a critical “point of attachment” in order to calculate where and for how long a work will be protected. Within the Berne Union there has been some effort not to let such requirements be unduly difficult or technical, however the ‘where’ and ‘when’ still matter. For example, before the United States joined the Berne Union, simultaneous publication in both the U.S. as well as a Berne member nation was required in order to qualify for convention-level protection within Berne nations; publication within 30 days satisfied this requirement of being “simultaneous” and was commonly referred to as the “back door to Berne”. Also, under neighboring rights treaties and various other legal fact situations, there can be a multitude of issues regarding which law (or revision of a statute) to apply including which country’s legal protection rules to apply, and such questions can be decided based on the time(s) and place(s) of first publication. There are circumstances under which applying a (somewhat timeless and universal) moral right can be refreshingly simple in contrast with determining what laws apply based on first publication.

4. Nature of TRU Legally supported in a variety of forms, both moral and economic. See also 59. TRU moral rights, with respect to the nature of moral rights generally.

The moral right of disclosure is explicitly extended to all authors in France’s IP Code Art. I, I2I-2 (link to statute) which states “The author alone shall have the right to divulge his work” and by Germany’s Copyright Act Article 12 (link to statute).

In International Copyright, Goldstein observes that while Berne does not explicitly grant disclosure as a moral right in 6bis, it “partially secures the right” by confining exemptions such as 10 and 10bis to published works (ref. Sec. 5.4.2.3). He also observes that it is “[i]mplicit in the economic rights of reproduction, public performance, and distribution” (same cite) for example 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106(3) (link to statute). He also suggests that the U.S. Sec. 202 provision that transfer of a material object does not convey “rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object” supports this TRU (link to statute).

Article 3 of Berne contains several interesting references to TRU first publication (link to treaty language), particularly insofar as first publication in a Union country activates the treaty’s protection. Goldstein observes (ref. Sec. 4.I.I.I.B.ii) that Article 3(3) is supportive of this TRU by virtue of what does not qualify as publication, particularly ephemeral and unauthorised copies of a work. It must be noted about 3(3), however, that it requires “the availability of such copies … as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work.” (The nature of movies was considered an exception back before multiple, individually owned copies were technologically feasible.)

5. Benefits of TRU Benefits Right-holders. Constrains other Right-holders and End-users, particularly restricting informatory news and TRU to quote.
6. Possible digital support The absolutist nature of moral rights lends itself to an information technology approach being as it embodies easily distinguished factual information that can be stored and provided readily through both a server system and databases protected by some sort of trusted digital repository (TDR, ref. RLG/OCLC report).
7. Requirements DMP shall support the right of first publication/disclosure

Note the Heidelberg RQs support most of what’s needed for this, except for whatever interface is required to communicate with a moral rights database server.

8.

References

 

49

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right of lending
2. Summary description of TRU the (restrictive) lending right is retained by the author as a form of TRU distribution requiring permission, applying obviously to libraries but also potentially to digital transfer rights; this TRU only applies to some nations
3. Use records of TRU This treatment relies on Paul Goldstein’s books Copyright’s Highway (GCH) and International Copyright (GIC) as well as Sam Ricketson’s WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (R).

It appears TRU lending and TRU rental are both commonly used in order for creators to collect “equitable remuneration” under national compulsory licensing. However it also seems that these are not only used that way. Goldstein says, “Most countries that have adopted a public lending right have structured it as essentially a social welfare system…indeed, in these countries, to call the entitlement a “right” would be a misnomer” (GIC 3.2.3.I).

While libraries have often been at odds with Right-holders, they are also almost universally admired as treasuries or storehouses of knowledge and ideas. Private media use has been relatively non-governed, which applies to library patron End-users. Libraries inherently give rise to considerations of fair use, and extensive private uses – such as by borrowers – are part of the essential appeal of valuable intellectual property. This tension and its potential to abuse the interests of Right-holders is unlikely to be diminished by the use of digital forms of media, although the essence of what digital libraries can become is not yet known.

4. Nature of TRU TRU lending is treated by the 1992 E.C. Directive 92/100/EEC “on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property”. Note that “lending within the meaning of this Directive does not include making available between establishments which are accessible to the public”, which we presume to mean that inter-library loans can hurt sales. Note particularly the recommendation that these rights “not be exercised…in a way which is contrary to the rule of media exploitation chronology as recognized in the Judgment handed down in Societe Cinetheque v. FNCF” (decision online) — first movie rtefact then videotapes then broadcast television (comparable but more flexible digital media distribution chronologies could be important for DMBM design).

Denmark legislated the first public lending right in 1946 (GCH 156). Goldstein says, “Most countries provide no right against library lending of literary works. Of the countries that do prescribe a public lending right, all but one treat it as a neighboring right; Germany, the exception, treats it as an author’s right” (GIC 5.4.I). Goldstein questions whether public lending fees should only be distributed to nationals, as the U.K. handles it, rather than authors of many nations. He also points out that TRU lending lacks “the quality of an intellectual property right in the sense that it is a right to control, or at least benefit from, the work’s exploitation on some basis that approximates the work’s success in the marketplace (GIC 3.2.4.2).

5. Benefits of TRU Right-holder
6. Possible digital support Since TRU lending is the law in several European countries, DMP should support whether or not libraries will be allowed to lend each individual piece of DM and possibly should support adherence to already established compulsory licensing schemes (perhaps no more is required for this than a list of titles checked out and how often they are checked out). It has been recognized that the related issue of End-User to End-User lending should also be supported by the DMP mapping. From a technical viewpoint, this might amount to little more than “check-in/check-out” privileges in both cases, libraries and EU-to-EU.
7. Requirements DMP shall support the creator’s ability to restrict their DM creations from being circulated by libraries or from End-User to End-User, except that privacy rules establish a boundary beyond which the ability to restrict should be blocked.
8. References  

59

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU moral rights
2. Summary description of TRU A collection of rights distinguished from authors’ economic rights under several legal systems, pertaining to the fundamental relationship between a creator and the literary and artistic works they have created, primarily including the rights of paternity and integrity.
3. Use records of TRU For this discussion, moral rights will be somewhat broadly considered to include the following TRUs:

TRU to be recognized as the author (paternity)
TRU of attribution
TRU not to be miscredited as the author (misattribution)
TRU for the author’s work not to be tampered with (integrity)
TRU of reputation
TRU of first publication/disclosure
TRU of withdrawal/objection

Moral rights are generally considered to be strictly stated statutes legislated in civil law countries, and so this is contrasted with the common law traditions of the United Kingdom and the United States. Even in common law traditions, however, moral rights assert themselves as part of what is called “natural law” or a sense of what justice demands. Also, Paul Goldstein in particular as well as a number of copyright scholars assert that local economic rights often produce the same effects as those which seem to be intended by moral rights statutes, and that in turn the civil law judiciaries may resort to using moral rights in order to resolve conlicts that only arise because of economic considerations or conflicts. Discussions of moral rights often include reference to Immanuel Kant’s proposition that writings embody the personality of the author, and it is also important to note the French tradition’s strong insistence on moral rights, which predates the Berne convention efforts of the late 19th century.

To illustrate how the above list of TRUs interoperate, this discussion will resort to the well-worn metaphor of the fruit tree – in this case, an anthropomorphised tree that insists its fruit be freshly plucked from the branch. So to metaphorically treat the TRUs in the order above:

  • TRU to be recognized as the author (paternity) – Although the fruit tree wants its fruit to be eaten, it expects credit and good regard for having been the tree that produces this fruit.
  • TRU for the author’s work not to be tampered with (integrity) – The tree has certain standards for its fruit and will not tolerate unpleasant interference with its taste – for example the insertion of chives – especially when someone consuming the fruit might blame the tree for a bad taste.
  • TRU of attribution – If the fruit is eaten, the tree gets credit.
  • TRU not to be miscredited as the author (misattribution) – The tree rejects having other trees’ fruits attached to its branches.
  • TRU of reputation – The tree cares that fruit-eaters maintain a good or at least an accurate opinion about it as being a certain kind of tree, so that its fruit will be valued and potential future consumers develop a confident sense of what to expect.
  • TRU of first publication/disclosure – Fruit is not to be eaten until it is ripe, and the color green is a warning to keep your hands to yourself.
  • TRU of withdrawal/objection – The tree can reject a fruit as unworthy by letting it drop to the ground where it will rot away.

Although the preceding is unduly rtefacts, it is provided here for the sake of comprehension. Less juvenile descriptions of these TRUs are available at their respective templates.

4. Nature of TRU [Disclaimer: The following as well as the treatment of the TRUs above is written by an American relying on an American book, Paul Goldstein’s International Copyright — Principles, Law and Practice. The result is a lack of real-world detail and a detached perspective as to how these TRUs matter and function.]

Inalienable TRUs exist. France (and, less so, Germany) imposes this abstract system on the world, called droits moral (note 1928 Berne 11bis usage). French history has many examples showing the importance of ideals of creative expression, for example TRU to print was a feature of revolutionary thought and France vigorously supports its regional creative culture. As with other French systems of categories that have flourished from the Enlightenment to Post-Modernism, the moral right(s) of creators insists certain universal categories be defined.

There is also a French court case making moral right(s) available to any creator in the world, no matter what their country and regardless of treaty. Goldstein describes a notable law case (Sec. 3.3.2.2.C) decided in 1991 by France’s Court of Cassation interpreting the French code’s wording – “inalienable” – as providing authors from foreign countries with unrestricted access to France’s courts to assert these rights, at least inside France. [For DMP it should be pointed out that this makes droit moral mandatory for technical support, because there will always be liability to legal claims brought in France.]

Goldstein says the U.S. “has steadfastly resisted the literal incorporation into national law of the rights secured by Article 6bis” of Berne (link to treaty language) and the U.S. excluded moral rights from TRIPS (Id. Sec. 5.4.2, also ref. Sec. 2.3.2.I). However, Trademark and other requirements – such as 15 U.S.C. 1125 prohibiting “False designations of origin, false description…” – are “potentially perpetual” (Id. Sec. 5.3.I.I.A). A perpetual economic right is at least as sound as an inalienable moral right, provided judicial enforcement is available for both. The one place where the U.S. has embraced Paternity & Integrity applies to visual artists releasing no more than 200 copies of an artwork. It should also be noted that WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty Article 5(I) extends Paternity and Integrity to performers for their “live aural performances or performances fixed in phonograms.”

In oversimplified popular thinking:

  • by French statute, moral rights are part of a ‘dualist’ separation of universal rights from alienable economic rights
  • moral rights in Germany are embodied in a ‘monist’ unity of inalienable rights both moral and economic (as opposed to whatever other rights of an author or creator are alienable)
  • moral rights don’t exist in U.S. or British common law (with narrow exceptions)

Goldstein suggests the apparently different structures of ideas in these traditions don’t add up as very different in the end. He describes a wide variety of state and federal remedies available in the U.S. (Id. Sec. 4.2.3) as well as circumstances under which moral rights may be limited or considered waived (Id. Sec. 5.4.2.5). He says, “Although it is commonly thought that the civil law countries are sternly paternalistic in these matters while the common law countries widely endorse the opposing principle of freedom of contract, the substantive differences between the two traditions are, as a practical matter, small and sometimes nonexistent.” (Id. Sec. 5.2.2.I)

Enormous conundrums are potentially posed by collective works, especially since the U.S. often vests copyright ownership in an economic entity whereas French civil law favors flesh-and-blood authors (Id. Sec. 3.3.2.I.A, esp. discussion of Kerever, and Sec. 4.2). Goldstein’s discussion of whose job on a movie should count as “co-author” shows the amusing variety of copyright ownership schemes internationally (Id. Sec. 5.2.I.5.A and Sec. 5.2.2).

At Sec. 2.I.2.I.A, Goldstein reviews a bit of early Berne history, showing the difference between French universalist thinking and a distinct approach favored by the German Publishers’ Association, the Boersenverein der deutschen Buchändler. This resulted in Berne as we now know it and even the well-known phrase “literary and artistic works” was a Swiss compromise, as the early convention sought to avoid “theoretical controversies related to the nature of author’s rights.”

5. Benefits of TRU Benefit Right-holders. Constrain the permissible behavior of Middle-men and others who might want to claim credit.
6. Possible digital support The absolutist nature of moral rights lends itself to an information technology approach being as it embodies easily distinguished factual information that can be stored and provided readily through both a server system and databases protected by some sort of trusted digital repository (TDR, ref. RLG/OCLC report). In contrast to the simplistic mathematics of serving this information is the unbearably variable nature of art, artists and what could somewhat facetiously be described as “their world”.

Perhaps the information in authors and artists’ heads will always seem unstable compared to the pristine simplicity of maintaining moral rights databases. On a purely human B2B level, some sort of artistic representation by third-party manager/promoter types is likely to be inevitable and recommended, as in many reported cases of artists being unusually inclined to unpredictable behavior.

Pertaining to the issue of databases, two rules documents produced by the U.S. Copyright Office on March 11 provide interesting insights. http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2004/69fr11515.html was produced to address the recordkeeping struggles of webcasters, who would benefit greatly if queueing up audio playlists automatically generated needed databases with the legally required fields already filled out. http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2004/69fr11566.html comments on the absence of a copyright ownership database at the Office and says, “the creation of an all-inclusive database is a laudable goal”. In related testimony that day before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee (http://www.house.gov/judiciary/courts.htm), the Register of Copyrights referred repeatedly to the advantages (in this case referring to blanket licensing) of developing internationally compatible practices.

Pertaining to the separate issue of trademark, considered in combination with TRU quote, it is urgently suggested that some sort of digital trademark be specified such that interactivity by an End-user with it can result in trusted content between the true owner of that mark and the End-user, note connection with TRU authenticity of content guarantee.

7. Requirements DMP shall support moral rights

DMP shall support a system adjusting declarations of who owns a work’s copyright to national schemes that differ.

DMP shall support the distinction between a creator’s alienable TRUs and their inalienable TRUs.

DMP shall support the specification of data for digital trademarks such as can be connected to trusted ecommerce controlled by the owner of that mark, including an interface with the moral rights database.

8. References  

61

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right communication to the public
2. Summary description of TRU appears in the WCT/WPPT (WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty) as an Internet-friendly way to give authors protection for Internet-based “performances” or data transfers by wire or wirelessly to individuals consuming the data at a time of their own choosing, related to TRU to technological access restrictions and TRU reproduction
3. Use records of TRU This treatment relies on Paul Goldstein’s books Copyright’s Highway (GCH) and International Copyright (GIC) as well as Sam Ricketson’s WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (R).

The roots of this right are very old and coexisted in a way melded with TRU reproduction. Other words for this were often “making available” and various associations with the words “public” or “publish”. This vagueness left the word more or less un-taken until 1996 when the WIPO applied it to users of electronic copyright-protected material enjoying the content privately at a time of their own choosing. It had been a problem determining how to give the power to restrict such a private use, because private uses had been traditionally non-governed.

4. Nature of TRU Examples of treaty references to TRU communication to the public include WIPO Copyright Treaty Article 8 (GIC 2.I.2.3), and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (for audio, not applicable to literary and artistic works) Articles 10 and 14 regarding “making available” (GIC 2.2.3). Goldstein points out, “Article 15 of the German Copyright Act divides economic rights between those involving exploitation in material form (reproduction, distribution, exhibition) and those involving the right to communicate a work to the public in nonmaterial form.” (GIC 5.4.I.I.B.i) (link to German code)

TRU communicate can be considered a broad extension of TRU reproduction to cover the digital environment. Therefore it particularly covers and applies to DMP content, but is much less relevant in terms of deriving RQs from this TRU.

“Communicate” is good advice extolled in the King James in four places: Gal 6:6, Phil 4:14, 1Ti 6:18, and Heb 13:16, for example, “to do good and to communicate forget not”. Interestingly this word also translates as “to share”, coming from the Greek word koinohn- (eito/(sug-)isantes/ikous/ias). In fact the one with the “sug-“ in front of it can be translated as “having become partners with”. It is almost as if the Bible anticipates the connection between communication, file-sharing and P2P since what is a peer but a partner?

Until 1996 the word communicate rarely took on the more restrictive sense it now has under the WIPO WTC and WPPT treaties as a restrictive author’s right applicable to private, anytime consumption of digital media distributed over the Internet. Before that it could be restrictive pertaining to performances, but was used somewhat alternatively with “making available” connecting to the publication requirement that sufficient copies be made available. In other words, sharing really mean getting it out there, so publishing is a means of sharing. Not everybody gets a free copy and the economics and means of media delivery often create compensatory remuneration to the creator — so there needs to be a copy available for sale somewhere, some way, somehow for this to work as a restrictive author’s right. Fair use for something that is not “made available” is much broader than fair use for something where someone can just go out and buy a copy.

Noteworthy background on the WCT/WPPT’s digital approach is given in Paul Goldstein’s Copyright’s Highway, Chapter 6 “The Answer to the Machine Is in the Machine”. This includes a review of John Barlow’s historic statement that “information wants to be free” 1995 in Amsterdam, followed shortly by a White Paper prepared for President Clinton called “Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure” which coined the historic term “celestial jukebox”. This led towards the 1996 proposals of Bruce Lehman at WIPO Geneva and the DMCA. While the DMCA was under review at a U.S. House of Representatives Commerce Committee Hearing, Chairman Thomas Bliley is quoted by Goldstein as having said, “the ‘anti-circumvention’ provisions of the Administration’s bill create entirely new rights for content providers that are wholly divorced from copyright law.” It is important to DMP to keep in mind that the “access” model in WCT/WPPT is a result of 1995-1996 thinking.

As definitive as the use of the phrase “communication to the public” has become since the WCT and WPPT, its meaning remains hazy insofar as it is not inherently relevant to the key digital treaty consideration of “access”, DRM and rules against DRM-hacking. One thing, however, that is a consequence of this haze is the DMCA’s potential (using DMCA as the prime example of this international set of obligations) to become a completely restrictive cloud that covers everything including private copying. That is part of why it is necessary for DMP RQs derived from TRUs to become the awl that can punch holes in this restrictive haze of TRU communicate, just as Berne Article 9(2) is now the way to make holes (aka exceptions/limitations/exemptions) in TRU reproduction. Even the DMCA was enacted with exceptions, namely any generated by a procedure to be followed by the Librarian of Congress in broad consultation. Despite being in favor of the DMCA personally, I would enjoy proposing, “Hey Dr. Billington, how about TRU quote?”

In a 2003 e-mail exchange with Leonardo, I expressed excitement over “accessright” as potentially a more helpful concept than “copyright”. Leonardo answered copyright was such a hazy concept—used to mean so many things—that accessright was unlikely to fare much better. Since this also covers TRU reproduction (with its many exceptions) we can conclude defining the nature of TRU communicate with the public by considering it a haze through which we can view “access” which is at least more digitally helpful than copyright, TRU communicate with the public or TRU reproduction.

This topic is treated more fully at TRU to technological access restrictions.

5. Benefits of TRU Right-holder
6. Possible digital support Already comprehended by the DMP mission and workplan, since “mapping” of this right is inherently accomplished by DMP going forward.

Among the issues to be considered for support and RQs are the circulation of unpublished material, the regional confinement of material, and the development of enforcement tools both financial (as in fines) and disabling (of access). There must be sufficiently granular support for TRU first publication so that communicated content can have economic remuneration or contractual sales while being communicated to mid-sized groups (under 500 people) on a semi-regular basis. There is a rtefacts of publication after which a great deal of fair use can and should be tolerated, but there are also early stages and premium uses for which good restrictions can make a win-win, money (or other compensation) going to the Right-holder, and exceptional experiences going to the End-user. In a sense, TRU communication can be supported in ways that are much more restrictive than analogue publication because they will presuppose the existence of strong DRM.

7. Requirements DMP shall support the ability of a creator or author to not publish or communicate their creations, choosing not to make their work broadly available to the global community of End-users.
8. References  

62

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right to technological access restrictions
2. Summary description of TRU granted under WCT/WPPT (WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty) giving authors regional protection against tampering devices or software that are designed to defeat content security technology, also prohibits tampering with rights management information, related to TRU communication to the public and TRU reproduction
3. Use records of TRU This treatment relies on Paul Goldstein’s books Copyright’s Highway (GCH) and International Copyright (GIC) as well as Sam Ricketson’s WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (R).

Technological access restrictions and encryption characterized the distribution of proprietary software in the 1990’s. By the end of the decade, related considerations of “circumvention” and rights management metadata had worked their way into two WIPO treaties treating the digital realm (see next section below for detail). Because people will adopt security when they think they need it, widespread efforts to implement technological measures existed and the WIPO approach did not need to legalize them but rather criminalized efforts to systematically defeat them, for example for commercial gain. So formally, this is not so much a right as a usage, although it does come with the distinct right to have law enforcement agencies enforce the ban against circumvention businesses.

Note that implicit in this is the chance or risk that fair use could be obliterated. It has long been recognised that electronic commerce could allow contracts to be individually negotiated for everything, thus removing the niches fair use has traditionally occupied.

The DMP workplan expects to help make the “access” model more granular, flexible, extensible and adaptive to the real world of End-Users. This will digitally enable a greatly expanded set of meanings for the word “access”.

4. Nature of TRU Examples of treaty references to TRU technological access restrictions include WIPO Copyright Treaty Articles 11 and 12 (GIC 2.I.2.3), and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (for audio, not applicable to literary and artistic works) Articles 18 and 19 (GIC 2.2.3). Goldstein describes it, “The two treaties also aim to buttress copyright owners efforts at self-help through technical measures, such as encryption, to protect their works from infringement.” (GIC 5.6 and see 5.4.I.3)

Noteworthy background on the WCT/WPPT’s digital approach is given in Paul Goldstein’s Copyright’s Highway, Chapter 6 “The Answer to the Machine Is in the Machine”. This includes a review of John Barlow’s historic statement that “information wants to be free” 1995 in Amsterdam, followed shortly by a White Paper prepared for President Clinton called “Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure” which coined the historic term “celestial jukebox”. This led towards the 1996 proposals of Bruce Lehman at WIPO Geneva and the DMCA. While the DMCA was under review at a U.S. House of Representatives Commerce Committee Hearing, Chairman Thomas Bliley is quoted by Goldstein as having said, “the ‘anti-circumvention’ provisions of the Administration’s bill create entirely new rights for content providers that are wholly divorced from copyright law.” It is important to DMP to keep in mind that the “access” model in WCT/WPPT is a result of 1995-1996 thinking.

Goldstein also sums up the historical long view, “Well into the twentieth century, private copying rarely entailed more than hand copying by a researcher of a passage from a text or copying by a teacher of materials into a lesson book—activities that easily came within the exceptions to the reproduction right permitted by Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention. But by the latter part of the century, with the massive proliferation of photocopies, audiotapes, and videotapes, nominally private activities began seriously to undermine the economic interests of copyright owners.” (GIC 5.5.I.6.B)

Those unfamiliar with the rich U.S. protest literature against the DMCA might start with the opinions of the Home Recording Rights Coalition (HRRC’s DMCA legislative history). Also Lawrence Lessig and EFF.org have been conspicuous.

Goldstein provides an interesting account of how reproduction industries made inroads against TRU reproduction, gaining broad scope of copying because the content industry waited too long to become active, summing this up as a case of “rights delayed are usually rights denied” (GCH Chapter 7, 189). He provides an especially ‘touching’ quote from Arthur Greenbaum who was part of a major photocopying case decided against the publisher of a medical journal: “here you had cases that were brought too late, and the industries had been created based on doing things in a certain way. And for the Supreme Court to say, ‘Well, that’s copyright infringement,’ would have wiped out the industry.” (GCH Chapter 3, 101)

5. Benefits of TRU Right-holder
6. Possible digital support Granularity, flexibility and extensibility should be the watchwords of strong DRM systems restricting access, in order to take advantage of human, social and economic opportunities as soon as possible after they open up. Although the workplan encompasses what is required for the next several years, an ongoing effort is no doubt required to support the watchwords through the generations. This should be done keeping in mind that because of the restrictive nature of strong DRM, the technological support for sophisticated access rules is compellingly vital in order to enable social electronic transactions and interactions to take place. The potential wealth engine for this could be shaped to benefit the cultural, non-profit component, and of course real people will be raising kids in this DM culture, providing the artists, authors and creators of tomorrow. A continued effort at standardisation is likely to be essential.

It is worth noting Martin Springer’s helpful reference to the definition of “Access Control” as “Ensuring that users access only those resources and services that they are entitled to access and that qualified users are not denied access to services that they legitimately expect to receive”. In my opinion, this use of the word “access” clearly has value for Computer Security definitions, but I believe the word is used much more broadly within the international norms supporting TRU technological access restrictions.

It is worth asking whether work presently being done with fingerprinting content and the use of filtering on file-sharing networks might have some relevance, at least insofar as a “card catalogue” of DM options available might readily provide a degree of support for this approach.

A nice summary of the task of digital support is provided by the following conference statement from the lead-up to the WCT, “these provisions should be understood to permit Contracting Parties to devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital network environment” (R 62).

7. Requirements Ref. “Access” section in Review of GA01 RQs
8. References  
87

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU

TRU To determine context of use

2. Summary description of TRU

Due to the moral rights attributed to authors over their content in a considerable number of legal jurisdictions (i.e. European continental Author Rights legislation), authors may invoke limitations of use or access to their content on the basis of context. 

3. Use records of TRU

An author may prohibit use of his work in association with a given political event, commercialisation of a product or in a particular location or territory.  The right holders of Master Rodrigo’s works has prohibited the dissemination of his works on the internet.

4. Nature of TRU

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works as amended in 1979 Article 6bis states:

« Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. »

In current Spanish law, the question of use of the work is clearly supported in terms of control over contextual circumstances of use where such contexts may affect the intellectual or moral convictions of the author.  Furthermore, such convictions may change in time allowing for the author to remove the work from circulation, albeit having to indemnify the owners of any economic rights. Pertinent, parts are highlighted in yellow.

CHAPTER III CONTENT

Section 1 Moral Rights

Article 14. Content and characteristics of Moral Rights

The following inalienable and irrepudiable rights belong to the author:

1. Decide whether or not the work is to be published as well as the way it is published.

2. Determine if such dissemination is to be done with his/her name, a pseudonym or insignia or anonymously.

3. Demand recognition of his/her condition of author of the work.

4. Demand that the integrity of the work be respected and prevent any deformity, modification, alteration or attack that results in prejudicing his/her legitimate interests or even reputation.

5. Modify the work respecting the acquired rights of third parties and the exigencies due to the protection of objects of cultural interest.

6. Remover the work from commerce due to change of his or her intellectual or moral convictions prior to providing indemnity to owners of rights of exploitation.

If later the author should decide that the work is to be commercialized anew  he should offer preferably the corresponding rights to the previous owners of said commercial rights in reasonably similar conditions as before.

7. Access unique or rare copies of the work, when it is in under the custody of others, with the end to exercise the right to divulge or any other right that belong to the author.

This right does not permit demanding that the work be moved and access to the work shall take place in the place and form that cause the least inconvenience to the owner, to whom shall be indemnified, should the case require, for any damages or inconvenience that he/she may suffer.

5. Benefits of TRU

Authors and creators may determine the scope and nature of the dissemination of their works, be it for commercial strategy purposes or moral prerogative.

6. Possible digital support

Watermarking, user identification, device identification, automatic generation of audit trail, description of human profiles and more DEUs ….

7. Requirements

DMP shall support the determination of use profiles.

8. References

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works as amended in 1979 Article 6bis.

Spanish Intellectual Property law.

01

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right to quote
2. Summary description of TRU Right to reproduce limited portions of another author’s work, for a variety of reasons, and in a variety of ways usually involving some attribution. Permission from the original author is not required, however exercise of the quote TRU exposes the quoting author to possible legal challenges.
3. Use records of TRU Quoting is a custom going back to the beginning of civilisation. Quotation is a common part of news journalism, political speech and academic critical analysis. Its use is frequent and normal to society. Excerpts of text used in published book reviews are the classic example. The ease of reproducing short strings of text in analogue or spoken media has made reproduction of words the most common use. The application of quote TRU to the sampling of audio and/or visual media is less common, although the use of 30-second clips and computer screenshots is relatively common. Quotation that should be acceptable may be unfairly challenged in court or suppressed by a “chilling effect”, for example some academic journals are unwilling to print papers containing two-sentence quotations unless the submitting author can provide written proof of permission to quote. Relatively common misuses of this TRU (or bad faith uses) include those adverse to the truthful communication of the quoted author’s meaning, for example quotes used “out-of-context”, or adverse to the quoted author’s economic exploitation rights, such as “giving away” crucial elements of a plot.
4. Nature of TRU Legally supported. Nicely summarised by Professor Sam Ricketson at http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/sccr/pdf/sccr_9_7.pdf — for example pp. 11-14 on Berne requirement. In particular (on pp. 83-84), Ricketson concludes by addressing the tension between the requirement under Berne and the potential for technological measures that protect digital media to take away this right. U.S. common law, constitutional first amendment and copyright law provisions regarding fair use provide open-ended scope for new applications of this TRU. In general this right is quite extensive and its limits are difficult to define with precision.
5. Benefits of TRU Inherently a right of author’s quoting other authors’ expressions. Because of its interaction with TRU political freedom, all members of society can benefit or be harmed.
6. Possible digital support Recommended and optional types of support are summarised under requirements below, especially functionality to support sectional reference. In addition to those, important areas for possible support include:

The scope of copy-and-paste functions for a given digital media item could be predefined by the author, so that copying could be restricted but quoting permitted. For example, such restrictions could isolate sections for which some automatic quotation functionality is rtefacts or else could set a maximum size and/or resolution for the amount of material that could be quoted with automated support. Also, authors could encourage the quotation or promotional use of defined sections.

Richness and social scope (for example, socialising with friends using portable devices) of collaborative interaction with quoted material, including the ability for an author to negotiate permissions possibly tied with compliance to a promotional scheme.

Multiple techniques for reference including exact reproduction of material (including through the “analogue hole” although this raises dangers of infringement), sectional reference only, and sectional reference with the option of richer access to the source of the quoted material (possibly e-commerce enabled). For example, all quoted material could be reproduced on fixed media and alternatively all quoted material could exist only on third-party data servers responding to sectionally defined requests (program calls). It is noteworthy that the ability to link to material quoted or used in a bibliography has been cited as the inspiration for Tim Berners-Lee’s creation of HTML.

Declaration by author doing the quoting of the purpose for which the quote is made, the potential for third-party review of the fairness of these statements including by author or author’s representative, third-party impartial entity, or peer review among P2P buddies, etc. Although the overhead of such a process could be viewed as a burden for those exercising their right to quote, there might be circumstances under which this was compensated for by increased security from punitive litigation or a driving urge to publish quotation-rich analysis in some area where rightsholders are expected to be prone to sue over their material having been quoted without prior written permission.

Timeframe support for cease-and-desist communications/negotiations between quoter and quoted, including pre-publication and post-publication timeframes.

In the event that reference was made by means of a search string — e.g., find the phrase “for two days only” within an e-book — it could be important to provide a backup means to located the phrase if the primary means fails.

7. Requirements The ability to quote using a short but meaningful excerpt shall be supported, with attribution provided and without notice to the author quoted. Separately, convenient methods for providing authors being quoted with notice that they are being quoted should be developed and their use encouraged. Quotation without notice is expected to expose the author doing the quoting to legal liability. With no disrespect intended for the political importance of this type of quote, it could be referred to as the “so sue me” method. Because of its importance to political freedom, it shall be possible to publish such quotes anonymously, opening the door to the possibility of wrongful infringement. Within a given circle of digital media consumption, it should be possible to filter or suppress these, especially based on criteria such as assigned ratings or an excessive number emanating from a defined (but anonymous) source. Note that such suppression opens the door to the possibility of wrongful censorship.

Normative issues (not necessarily required) include the preservation of a stable digital media rendering to be quoted; efficient and adequate means of attribution; sectional reference functionality for example chapter-and-verse with text, timecode start-stop with linear audio and audiovisual material, geometrical sections of 2D/3D art, and more challenging references to the state of a multimedia item such as a level and POV in a game (note that these could require preservation of state information such as path or inventory of “weapons collected” etc.); functionality for owners of the same title to enjoy fully rendered references to sections; e-commerce ability to locate and possibly purchase or rent full access to media or else obtain limited access to rendered references.

8. References  

07

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to use content whose copyright has expired
2. Summary description of TRU Under the Berne Convention [1], the minimum duration for copyright protection is the life of the author plus 50 years (Art. 7(1)). Signatory nations may provide longer durations if they so choose [2]. The copyright law causes all copyrighted works which have reached the end of their term of copyright protection to fall into the Public Domain.

Public Domain means that the creator of the work has given up or lost all rights to the work. It means that users may do anything with the work – read it, copy it, publish it, change it.

3. Use records of TRU
  • Electronic Books: Project Gutenberg [3] is the Internet’s oldest producer of free electronic books.
  • Music: Public domain songs may be used for profit-making without paying any royalties. [4]
  • US Government Works: Works by the U. S. Government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection. [5]
4.   Nature of TRU Supported by copyright law.
5. Benefits of TRU The expiration of copyright was initially conceived as a way to balance the rights of the Creator to exclusive ownership with Society’s need to have free use of ideas/works that become commonly used and a part of our intellectual and social vernacular.

However, under existing copyright law, the likelihood of a new work entering the Public Domain during the lifetime of the average user is minimal. (see footnote in [6]).

6. Possible digital support
  • Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication [7]
  • Automatic determination of copyright expiration date in the user’s country via a trusted online date/time clock, a nationally set term limit information and an author-set profile of the first publication details [8]
7. Requirements The expiration of copyright protection or the willingness of the creator to dedicate the entire copyright in the work to the Public Domain.

8.

References

[1] – Berne Convention
[2] – Project Gutenberg Copyright HOWTO
[3] – decision online) — first movie rtefact then videotapes then broadcast television (comparable but more flexible digital media distribution chronologies could be important for DMBM design).

5. Benefits of TRU Right-holder
6. Possible digital support Rental support more or less presumes support for various contracts and licensing, but specifically may demand definition of a spectrum or menu of rental options. For example, an author might consider whether to choose to release his rental rights along several conventional channels, or else independently through personal means, choosing to make these rental-format selections either exclusive or non-exclusive, or for different durations of time, or only for selected regional areas.

Ecommerce rental support has been partially solved by many Web-based DMBMs.

7. Requirements DMP shall support the right of rental.
8. References  
86

Criteria

Description

1.

Name of TRU

TRU to choose mode of economic compensation

2.

Summary of description of TRU

Choice of form of compensation to rights holders (creators, performers and interpreters) for consumption of content by end users. The right for anyone to use their original works or products as a token of exchange as in barter or alternate currency models.

3.

Use records of TRU

Benefit concerts, free recording of concerts (example: grateful dead) in order to develop good will.  Perform in the Hotel in exchange for lodging.

4.

Nature of TRU

Both legally supported and customary TRU

5.

Benefits of TRU

Both content creators and end users may benefit from allowing a broader spectrum of economic compensation methods which are not limited to the availability of conventional money. For example an artist may make use of his work subject to the end user providing services to the elderly or some other cause.

The digital space provides a very fertile basis for creating innumerable protocols for value exchange, the most obvious being immediate barter of content for content.  All creators of content who are also consumers of content may benefit from content bartering. 

Another possibility would be making content available to communities (i.e. in the developing world) allowing the content to be used as a medium of exchange thus providing desperately needed exchange mediums or making access to content contingent on support of development project in the form of services accounted for in man hours.

6.

Possible digital support

License terms (REL), use reporting and copy control, watermarking persistent association.

7.

Requirements

 
8.

References

 

03

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Space shifting
2. Summary description of TRU Digital media can be accessed wherever the User is.
3. Use records of TRU With albums, cassettes and more recently CDs, the User has been able to enjoy the content on the various media wherever the User has access to a device of the proper type.
4. Nature of TRU Historically, once a User bought physical media containing audio or in the more recent case of VCDs, video, the User could access the audio or video anywhere they happened to be at any given time as long as they had a device to play the physical media on.  Distribution agreements may determine when a given title was available in a specific area but once the User bought a title that was available, the User had full access to the title anywhere, including places it might not yet be available through contracted business channels.  Since the User’s access to the title was for personal use, even accessing titles in a region in which they are not yet available would have no impact on the business of the distributors.

But, it also must be understood that some content is acceptable in some regions/localities and not in others.

5. Benefits of TRU Users don’t have to worry about their content becoming invalidated if they move permanently from one region to another or are just rtefacts for a period of time.
6. Possible digital support None needed
7. Requirements None
8. References  

04

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Time shifting
2. Summary description of TRU The ability to access content at a different time then when it was originally made available.
3. Use records of TRU Since the advent of video recorders for use in the home, Users have been able to view content that may originally have been broadcast when the User was unable to view it.
4. Nature of TRU Many times, in a broadcast situation, Users have to choose between sometimes 100’s of offerings and select only the one they can view at any one time.  With the ability to record a given broadcast, a User could possibly record all 100 and view them all.

Also, often is the case where the entire broadcast need not be viewed for the User to gain full benefit from it.

5. Benefits of TRU Users can access they normally would have missed.

Competition for a given time slot has less impact on a given offering’s chance for success as more people would have a chance to access than in head-to-head cases.

6. Possible digital support A large storage device or service.
7. Requirements The ability to store digital media for later consumption.
8. References  

08

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to communicate privately
2. Summary description of TRU The power of an individual to decide who amongst a group of persons will be the recipient of his/her ideas, thoughts and emotions.
3. Use records of TRU Before the invention of communication technology, people could be reasonably certain that conversations in private (e.g. at home) could not be heard by other people. With the advent of electronic communication also eavesdropping technology (e.g. telephone wiretaps, microphones, surveillance cameras,…) emerged. As a consequence people who want to communicate privately more often need to use cryptography.
4.   Nature of TRU Supported by regional laws. (e.g. German Constitution Article 10 [1], U.S. law [2])
5. Benefits of TRU Private communication is considered a prerequisite for the unhindered exchange of ideas and thus for the liberty of an individual. [3]
6. Possible digital support
  • Phones that provide security against anyone listening into calls
  • Easy to use e-mail encryption
7. Requirements Strong cryptography.

8.

References

[1] – Grundgesetz – “Basic Law” (German Constitution)
[2] – The invention of the Right to Privacy, Dorothy J. Glancy, Arizona Law Review, 1979
[3] – On Liberty, John Stewart Mill, 1869

09

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to publish content anonymously
2. Summary description of TRU To publish content without revealing the identity of the publisher
3. Use records of TRU “Anonymous publishers have played an important role throughout the history of publication. Freedom of anonymous speech is an essential component of free speech, and freedom of speech is a critical part of any healthy democracy”. [1]

Example: The Pentagon Papers. [2]
4. Nature of TRU Supported by law in some countries (e.g. USA: First amendment [3])
5. Benefits of TRU “Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority”. [4]
6. Possible digital support
  • Anonymous Remailers
  • Rewebbers [1]
7. Requirements
  • configurable TRU
  • a user-set profile for the anonymous publication of content
8. References [1] – TAZ Servers and the Rewebber Network: Enabling Anonymous Publishing on the World Wide Web, Ian Goldberg, David Wagner, 1998
[2] – The Pentagon Papers Case
[3] – First amendment – an overview
[4] – US Supreme Court, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

10

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to use content anonymously
2. Summary description of TRU To use content without revealing the identity of the user
3. Use records of TRU
  • reading newspapers and books
  • reception of audiovisual works (e.g. using radios and TV sets for broadcasted content or record players, CD players, MP3 players, DVD players for content distributed on physical media)
  • paper reprography and photocopying of a book, an article [1]
  • analog or digital recording of an audiovisual work on a VCR, a tape recorder, a CD burner, a removable memory, a HD…[1]
  • creating artistic works (e.g. texts, pictures, music, movies, sculpture) using parts (e.g. quotes, samples, scenes, segments) of content
4. Nature of TRU Both customary and legally supported.
The foundation of this TRU is the respect of privacy and the former impossibility to control acts and uses made at home. The private destination of the usage was supposed not to damage the work exploitation. [1]
5. Benefits of TRU Anonymous usage benefit for users is obvious: the ability to control their personal information. However, “It is clear that privacy is about trade offs. The most basic one is between the incentive the subject has to share information, and the incentives she has to hide information” […] “In fact, individuals are actually less concerned about privacy than what they claim to be. Many are willing to provide very personal information in exchange for small rewards”.[2]
6. Possible digital support
  • Trusted systems
  • Anonymous identities for end user identification
7. Requirements
  • Informational self-determination
  • Off-line authorisation, authentication and/or identification
  • The maintence of anonymity in the face of the collection and analysis of data which when combined may violate anonymity
  • The user using their choice of trusted authorities
8. References [1] – TRU to make personal copy
[2] – Protecting Privacy with Economics: Economic Incentives for Preventive Technologies in Ubiquitous Computing Environments, Alessandro Acquisti UC Berkeley Workshop on Socially-informed Design of Privacy-enhancing Solutions in Ubiquitous Computing Ubicomp 2002

12

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU of privacy
2. Summary description of TRU Privacy involves three basic aspects:
  • Autonomy: the capacity of members of society to function as individuals, uncoerced and with privacy.
  • Intrusion: one should be free from government surveillance with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
  • Informational privacy: individuals have the right to limit their personal domain by denying access of their personal information to others, or to limit how much personal information they are obligated to give to others. [1]
3. Use records of TRU In the “analogue world”, individuals were more or less able to control the access to their personal information:
  • Appeareances in the public were separated by space and time
  • The collection of information about individuals required physical interaction
  • Only visible and audible information was collected by surveillance tools
  • Only out-of-ordinary events were collected
  • Collections of personal information were separated

With the rtefactsres of the world, individuals are losing their ability to control personal information:

  • The public appeareance of individuals on the Internet reveals more details about preferences, interests and location
  • The manner to collect information about individuals becomes invisible
  • New electrical and digital surveillance tools collect more detailed and precise data
  • Routine events are collected
  • Collections of personal information are centralised in databases and can be accessed on-line [2]
4. Nature of TRU Supported by law (e.g. 4th Amendment, US Privacy Act of 1974 [3], EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC [4]). After 9-11-2001, worldwide privacy and civil liberty policies have changed ([5], [6]).
5. Benefits of TRU “A free and democratic society requires respect for the autonomy of individuals, and limits on the power of both state and private organisations to intrude on that autonomy”. [7]
6. Possible digital support
  • Machine readable privacy policies
7. Requirements
  • Anonymity and Pseudonymity: the user shall be able to hide or only selectively disclose personal information
  • Secure Communications and Storage: the user shall be ensured that no unauthorized third party gets access to her information, either in transit or in storage
  • Transparency: the user shall be informed about the amount of her personal information under surveillance at any point in time; and why and how this is done
  • Trust: the user shall be able to find out whom she can trust to keep their promises, and who can help her in case of conflicts [8]
8. References [1] – Personal Privacy Protection Versus Your Right To Know… – ESRI/ National Research Council
[2] – Personal Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing, Marc Langheinrich ETH Zürich, Switzerland
[3] – The Privacy Act of 1974
[4] – Directive 95/46/EC
[5] – Privacy and Human Rights 2003 – Beyond September 11, 2001
[6] – PapersPlease.org
[7] – Australian Privacy Charter, 1994
[8] – Privacy-aware Ubiquitous Systems, Marc Langheinrich ETH Zürich, Switzerland

19

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU of continued access
2. Summary description of TRU “As human beings, we benefit greatly from the works of others. Artists, thinkers, scholars, and performers create works that we all enjoy, learn from, and are inspired by.”[…]

“With ever changing technology, in order to preserve many works we will need to constantly move them ahead, copying them to each new media form before the previous one becomes obsolete. Also, as we create new media, we need to preserve the knowledge of the methods of converting from one media to another, so we can still access the old works that have not yet been moved ahead. This is crucial. Without this information, even preserved works could be unreadable.” [1]

3. Use records of TRU “In medieval times, knowledge was guarded for the power it gave. The Bible was controlled by the church: as well as being encoded in Latin, bibles were often kept chained up. Secular knowledge was also guarded jealously, with medieval craft guilds using oaths of secrecy to restrict competition. Even when information leaked, it usually did not spread far enough to have a significant effect. For example, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English in 1380-1, but the Lollard movement he started was suppressed along with the Peasants’ Revolt.”

“But the development of moveable type printing by Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg during the latter half of the fifteenth century changed the game completely. When Tyndale translated the New Testament in 1524-5, the means were now available to spread the word so quickly that the princes and bishops could not suppress it. They had him executed, but too late; by then some 50,000 copies had been printed. These books were one of the sparks that led to the Reformation.”

“Just as publication of the Bible challenged the abuses that had accreted over centuries of religious monopoly, so the spread of technical know-how destroyed the guilds. Reformation and a growing competitive artisan class led to the scientific and industrial revolutions, which have given us a better standard of living than even princes and bishops enjoyed in earlier centuries. Conversely, the societies that managed to control information to some extent became uncompetitive; and with the collapse of the Soviet empire, democratic liberal capitalism seems finally to have won the argument.” […]

“The parallel with earlier religious history is instructive. The Bible came into the public domain because once it had been printed and distributed, the sheer number of dispersed copies made it impossible for the bishops and judges and princes to gather them up for burning.” [2]

4. Nature of TRU Customary TRU, insufficiently supported by copyright [3] and patent law. The protection of traditional knowledge as an intellectual property right of the Public Domain is being discussed within WIPO [4]
5. Benefits of TRU Mankind benefits by this TRU, since continued access to information and cultural heritage is essential for the freedom of science, the spread of knowledge, the enlightenment of society and the balance of public power.

“Unlike a printed work, a work protected by a copy protection system can only be read using a device implementing that system. It is important that some way to preserve access to such works for future reference, to implement the copyright bargain of protection for a limited time after which the work enters the public domain and is free for all to use”. [5]

6. Possible digital support

·         Eternity Service [2]

·         Reasonable Copyright

·         Semantic data structures which would enable enhanced machine based searches. [6]

7. Requirements

·         Organization: searchable, reliable, public accessible content archives (digital libraries), possibility to create personal collections of references to content, open access to metadata

·         Efficient search mechanisms: On the assumption that human archiving of content is continuously growing, the need for efficient search mechanisms will also grow.

·         Format and physical media: open standards for content formats, codecs and physical media, licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discrimnatory terms

·         Device (hardware, software, user interface): user’s confidence that she can access content with the device of her choice (TRU to make playback device). Availability of open source software for accessing, viewing, encoding, decoding and transcoding media. Availability of hardware documentation under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms

·         Future developments: user’s confidence that content will be available in the future (independently of political system, data loss, change of user’s social status, technology provider, patent owner, ownership of DRM system).

8. References [1] – Copy Protection Robs The Future, Dan Bricklin
[2] – The Eternity Service, Ross J. Anderson
[3] – Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.)
[4] – WIPO National Seminar On Intellectual Property
[5] – Copy Control Systems, Position Paper of IEEE-USA, 2002
[6] – Suggested by Nicholas Bentley (commonrights.com) on the public DMP reflector, April 2004

20

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to political freedom
2. Summary description of TRU Some free speech rights mingle with fair use thinking to form a context for open communication, often greatly to the benefit of society as a whole as well as most, if not all of the individual players in a given digital media chain, from creators all the way to consumers. This generally includes the right to pursue some sort of business or commerce, to pass or influence legislation, to form licenses or agreements, and to generally strive to improve society for altruistic reasons.
3. Use records of TRU historically anytime and always now –

  Declaration of independence signed by U.S. founding fathers and its accompanying bill of rights.

  Minorities seeking to have opinions heard about possible local mistreatment, especially reporting and documenting the existence of extreme cases such as “ethnic cleansing” while these are in progress.

  A sexually harassed woman needs to complain to the authorities but the local authorities will not help, so she needs to be protected and communicate that to other authorities.

  Library users and/or university-affiliated researchers seeking to assure privacy.

4. Nature of TRU American common law traditions exceed what can easily be summed up without resorting to the First Amendment language or Fair Use Title 17 Sec. 107. The issues involved were summed up nicely by President George W. Bush in remarks given November 6, 2003 at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/iraq/20031106-2.html ), for example: “…the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity – and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations.”
5. Benefits of TRU Everyone benefits.
6. Possible digital support This is a touchstone that should be applied to everything we do, since hurting this TRU will diminish the quality of any DMP specification. As evidenced by popular antipathy to clunky DRM schemes, protection of copyrighted material can inadvertently overstep and hurt political freedom and what are perceived by many to be basic liberties.
7. Requirements Among others, it is important to be able to preserve copyrighted material so that statements can be criticised (ref. http://www.chiariglione.org/contrib/031112merrill01.htm#E10E6).
8. References  

21

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to freedom of art
2. Summary description of TRU “Along with science, research, and teaching, art is free. The freedom guaranteed covers the artistic creation as regards both the work produced and the effect produced by it.”
[…]
”One cannot without inhibiting the free development of the creative artistic endeavour prescribe how the artist should react to reality or reproduce his reactions to it. The artist is the sole judge of the “rightness” of his response. To this extent the guarantee of artistic freedom means that one must not seek to affect the manner in which the artist goes about his business, the material he selects, or the way in which he treats it, and certainly not seek to narrow the area in which he may operate or lay down general rules for the creative process.”
[1]
3. Use records of TRU Throughout history of mankind, artists, in their chosen communicative medium, gave immediate perceptible form to what they have felt, learnt, or experienced. Artistic activity involves both the conscious and the unconscious, in a manner not rationally separable. Here are some examples for artistic freedom in action:
  • Literature: In his book entitled Mephisto, a Novel, or How to Get on in the World, Klaus Mann portrays the rise of Hendrik Höfgen, a talented actor who in order to make a career for himself as an artist in collusion with Nazi powers, is false to his true political leanings and rides roughshod over all human and ethical considerations. The model for Hendrik Höfgen was the actor Gustaf Gründgens, one of the Hamburger Kammerspieler in the 1920s, when he was a friend of Klaus Mann and briefly married to his sister Erika. In August 1963 Klaus Mann announced the publication of Mephisto, and suit was brought by the adoptive son and sole heir of Gustaf Gründgens, who died in October 1963. [1]
  • Music: In her manifesto “you can’t say “fuck” in radio free rtefac” [2] Patti Smith states: “We believe in the total freedom of communication and we will not be compromised. The censorship of words is as meaningless as the censorship of musical notes; we cannot tolerate either. Freedom means exactly that: no limits, no boundaries…rock and roll is not a colonial power to be exploited, told what to say and how to say it.”
  • Sculpture: In their project “Nikeground – rethinking space”[3] , Austrian artists [4] use the name and the logo of a shoe manufacturer for a monument on a square in Vienna. After several weeks, the shoe manufacturer withdraws the case against the art project [5]
4.   Nature of TRU Legally supported, but in different regions, is and has been effected by political and/or business influences.
5. Benefits of TRU Mankind benefits by this TRU, since art is essential for the development of society and for the balance of public power.

Systems wishing to suppress the freedom of expression are negatively affected by this TRU.

6. Possible digital support
  • Creative Commons Sampling License [6]
7. Requirements
  • Reasonable Copyright
  • Hardware and software tools (e.g. text editors, image editing software,…) that enable artists to manipulate (e.g. edit, quote, copy, combine,…) material (e.g. text, picture, audio, video,… DM content) without any restrictions

8.

References

[1] – BverfGE 30, 173 Federal Constitutional Court (First Division), 24 February 1971, translated by Professor Basil Markesinis
[2] – “you can’t say “fuck” in radio free america”, Patti Smith 1977
[3] – Nikeground
[4] – 0100101110101101.org
[5] – Public Netbase, Pressrelease 2004 [6] – Creative Commons Sampling License

26

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to transcode
2. Summary description of TRU The ability of an individual to convert (readable, audible, visible,…) content from one media format to another media format.
3. Use records of TRU Throughout the history, people used their abilities to fixate literary and artistic works on media that appeared most appropriate to them. With the invention of the printing press it became easy to replicate works. Nevertheless, people needed to transcode works if the media formats offered by the “content replicators” did not fit their needs. Some examples:
  • Handwritten pocket bibles in the 19th century
  • Compact Disk recordings of vinyl records playable on “Walkman” devices in the 1980ies
  • MP3 files converted from Audio CDs playable on laptops in the 1990ies
  • DivX files converted from DVDs playable on laptops in the 2000s
  • ASCII files distilled from Word Documents
  • Media playable contemporary media player devices transcoded from media designed for an outdated and obsolete technology
4.   Nature of TRU Customary TRU, supported by copyright laws (fair use).
5. Benefits of TRU The ability to transcode content to appropriate media formats makes media users independent from the distribution chains of the (mass) media industry. Media users trancode content if they feel the need to play it back on a device appropriate for a certain usage situation or if they wish to preserve it for future use (continued access). By their ability to transcode media (and by their ability to make playback devices), users can define, evolve and control their media usage.

Industry players who couple content to media formats and playback devices might be negatively effected, since the users need not license content several times if they wish to play it back on different playback devices.

6. Possible digital support
  • Document format converters
  • Audio- and video codecs (decoders and encoders)
7. Requirements
  • Open standards for content encoding
  • Well documented content formats available to the public under fair and reasonable conditions

8.

References

 

29

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU of digital media rental.
2. Summary description of TRU Selling access to digital media on a time limited basis.
3. Use records of TRU Originally it was thought that video rental stores would put movie theatres out of business but instead they provided an outlet for movies which would likely never see a theatrical release as well as created an market for the viewing of movies that had finished their theatre schedule.
4. Nature of TRU Today, the video rental business brings in about 18 to 20 billion dollars.  Without it the only outlets for post-theatrical releases or titles that never made it to the theatres in the first place would be television and the airlines’ in-flight movie offerings. 

And, considering that slightly less than 50% of movies produced ever make it to the theatre and the airline and television market mainly interested in acquiring what had been successful in the theatres, there would be little chance for the 50% not lucky enough to go the main distribution route.

5. Benefits of TRU Users access costs are reduced as they often don’t view a given title more often than a couple of times and they don’t have to store every single title they have ever watched.

Users have access to content from different regions that they wouldn’t have had access to before.

Releases that don’t make it to the theatres have a market.

Retailers and distributors can provide a wider selection of content to a wider base of potential users because there is no need to be concerned about seeking advertisers for a given title or satisfying a limited population segment.

6. Possible digital support Being able to enable and disable access based on the time of access.
7. Requirements The ability to base the granting of access on time restrictions or the ability to determine the length of “rental” upon which to base payment.

8.

References

 

30

Criteria

Description

1.

Name of TRU

TRU to freedom from monitoring
 

2.

Summary description of TRU

The traditional right to use personal property without any reference to another authority. The freedom not to be observed whilst doing so, or to have one’s usage recorded or tracked.
 

3.

Use records of TRU

After purchasing a book [audio CD, video], no further communication with the publisher takes place on reading [listening, watching]. This is clearly related to privacy, but also underpins other TRUs such as the TRU to annotate for personal use (e.g. write marginal notes in a book) and the TRUs to time- and space-shift. Because the control over a book [audio CD, video] is determined solely by physical access to it, these other TRUs were inherently possible and not practically preventable.
 

4.

 Nature of TRU

Customary, but may now be explicitly supported (to some extent) by human rights and/or data-protection legislation. Also legally supported in the sense that reading books [listening to audio CDs, watching videos] is totally outside the scope of copyright law because no copying is involved.
 

5.

Benefits of TRU

All users may benefit; no-one is obviously negatively affected by this right per se.
 

6.

Possible digital support

Digital support would be easy! The problem is that it might impact other functionalities. Therefore this TRU may not be supportable in all digital contexts to the traditional extent. The underlying legal situation is also different because in many jurisdictions almost any digital use currently constitutes copying (e.g. from disk into memory). Note that this distinction in law may have arisen partly because of the greater ease of monitoring digital transactions.
 

7.

Requirements

Methods using offline verification (e.g. checking an inline digital signature) should be able to support this TRU completely. However, any client-server method would probably violate it to some extent; the properties of the client-server connection alone would reveal some information about the end-user. “Anonymity” could dissociate the personal identity of the user from the client-server interaction. “Tracking” would be monitoring that could be linked from session to session, and this could be inhibited by lower-level anonymity. But no form of anonymity is likely to be perfect, and in any case the TRU is partly an issue of principle.
 

8.

References

 

02

Criteria

Description

1.

Name of the TRU

TRU to make personal copy
Civil law countries legal term is « private copy », while common law countries do not handle it specifically and consider it as part of fair use prerogatives (USA), or fair dealing and other exceptions for private study or research (UK). 

2.

Summary description of TRU

 This mechanism allows certain acts that pertain to exclusive right of reproduction without requesting prior authorization.
Two factors are taken into account : the user (individual, some institutions) and/or the purpose of the use (education, non commercial…) to fall under the exception scope and avoid copyright infringement. 

3.

Use records of TRU

  • paper reprography and photocopying of a book, an article
  • analog or digital recording of an audiovisual work on a VCR, a tape recorder, a CD burner, a removable memory, a HD…
  • a coming use can be a virtual private copy accessible online

4.

 Nature of TRU

Both customary and legally supported.
The foundation of this TRU is the respect of privacy and the former impossibility to control acts and uses made at home.
The private destination of the copy was supposed not to damage the work exploitation. 

5.

Benefits of TRU

Private copy benefit for users is obvious : open access, creation emulation, inequalities reduction…
TRU to make personal copy can be associated to a license fee (levy, compensation or equitable remuneration) collectively shared out between right holders. 

6.

Possible digital support

Personal end-user identification and client-server authentication technologies could adapt this TRU to the digital age (risk of  jeopardizing other TRU : TRU to use content anonymously, TRU to be ignorant of the usage…)
It could be possible to propose a virtual private copy that could be accessed only online after user/purpose control. Copy-right would be replaced by access-right.
Qualification of the use purpose might require the mediation of a trusted third party. 

7.

Requirements

Reflect national differences. E.g. :

  • Belgian law distinguishes copy of literary and plastic arts works, and sound/audiovisual copy. Full copy of a book is prohibited but full copy of an article or a sound/audiovisual work is permitted.
  • Canadian law allows it only for sound recordings and partly for software (back-up or compatibility purposes).
  • French law prohibits any collective use (copyist and user must be the same person and communication reserved to the family circle) and gratuitous nature of the act is not a criteria
  • UK copyright legislation authorises personal copy for research purposes including commercial research.
  • German law authorizes works to be digitally displayed only (no copy) within teaching and research institution, while articles or fragments can be copied.
  • some countries differentiate between analogical and digital private copy.

Support changing interpretation

 The three steps test is increasingly adopted (Berne, WTO TRIPs, 1996 WIPO treaties, 2001 European Directive) to evaluate the legitimacy of exceptions and limitations on copyright. It binds their enforcement certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.
States, rightholders or industrials may have to take measures to ensure the compatibility between protection techniques and reproduction for private use. The law never defines the number of reproduction and the amount of the original materials allowed.

8.

Requirements

 

14

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU The ability to edit digital media for one’s personal use.
2. Summary description of TRU The User may edit, reorganize, mix or transform the Digital media as the User chooses as long as the User does not (re)distribute the edited results.
3. Use records of TRU Although with books, the ability to edit has been limited to making annotations in the margins or scribbling doodles on the blank pages, with reel to reel, 8-track and cassette (both audio and video) recorders, one could make compilations of favorite titles as well as mix together different content to create something totally new.
4. Nature of TRU Current copyright law restricts the right to reproduce or create derivatives to the copyright owner.  The copyright owner can of course authorize others to make reproductions and/or derivatives as well.
5. Benefits of TRU Users are able to gain more enjoyment from and be more interactive with Digital media.

Gifted Users may be able to use their home creations to begin new careers and become another source of Digital media

6. Possible digital support Flexible rights management that allows changes and edits to be retained or allows the creation of new Digital media which then can not be (re)distributed.
7. Requirements Support for editing DRM governed Digital media.
8. References .

18

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Content ratings
2. Summary description of TRU An individual, organization, industry or government can apply a rating on some applicable scale to digital media.
3. Use records of TRU Movies, songs, television broadcasts and even entire television channels and even software will many times have a rating applied based on some generally accepted, understood and published scale.
4. Nature of TRU There are many different rating systems/scales, for many different type of digital media.  In some cases they are informative only and in some cases they are mandated.  An example of the former is the rating system used in video game software in which it is advised that a person under a given age not have access.  An example of the former is the ratings applied to movies in which a person under a given age shall not have access.
5. Benefits of TRU Users can more easily determine the suitability of digital media they or their family members access.
6. Possible digital support Metadata carried in the digital media declaring the rating applied as well as the rating scale used, along with metadata useful for the verification of both.
7. Requirements The ability to provide for and contain within digital media, verifiable metadata containing a rating as well as the system on which the rating was made.
8. References  

27

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to make prohibited content inaccessible
2. Summary description of TRU The ability to identify content not meeting standards of acceptance in a given region/local and to disable its distribution and/or access.
3. Use records of TRU Full nudity in videos or graphic images are illegal to own or even access in some countries.  In virtually all regions, some content, audio and video is deemed too offensive or racially and/or socially damaging to be allowed for distribution.
4. Nature of TRU Although it is desirable to provide the freedom to create, distribute and consume any kind of content with no restrictions whatsoever, the reality is that some of what people create is not helpful to improving society but instead, can be detrimental.
5. Benefits of TRU Governments, and the people they represent, have some control over content that may be counter to maintaining peace and prosperity in their given regions.
6. Possible digital support Government participation in rating content and determining acceptability and providing means for access devices to determine acceptable content in the region in which they make digital media accessible.
7. Requirements The ability to determine applicable mandated restrictions in a given region.

8.

References

 

28

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU of time based advertising.
2. Summary description of TRU The ability to include periodic advertisements during digital media access.
3. Use records of TRU Since the advent of the first periodical, the creation and distribution of different types of information has been supported by the use of the inclusion of advertising along with the information delivered.
4. Nature of TRU Television and radio broadcasts include advertisements on a periodic basis, in some cases 5 minutes of advertising for every 15 minutes of programming.

News papers, magazines and even web sites on the Internet use the display of advertisements even in addition to paid subscription.  Generally the greater the level of subscription, the lower level of advertisements.

5. Benefits of TRU Users access costs are reduced as someone else is helping to pay for it.

Distributors are able to provide programming they otherwise could not if they were 100% dependant on subscriptions alone.

6. Possible digital support Delivering advertising content along with the digital media originally requested as well as being able to specify the periodicity of its display.
7. Requirements The ability to carry and deliver different types and combinations of content in a single distribution.

The ability to define access time relationships between different elements of a given digital media.

8.

References

 

63

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Usage to distribute lower-res copies only
2. Summary description of TRU a primitive usage of the audio and audiovisual analogue industries in which master audio recordings, or film or video masters exist in a higher analogue resolution, or even higher digital resolution, with greater quality of ‘signal’ than copies released to the public; significant mainly as having affected the analogue past of TRU reproduction thus conditioning economic aspects within which Middle-men tried to “game” the system
3. Use records of TRU The nature of resolution in the analogue world asks a question that would have been posed differently back during the time analogue differences were more common. In addition to the use of masters for analogue audio & audiovideo/film duplication, other art and entertainment experiences are suggestive of resolution issues, for example how “good” one’s seats are in the audience of a live performance. But back in the days when poor quality was normal for recorded media, and decay-of-quality was always a pressing issue, many scalable realities conditioned how Right-holders and Middle-men conducted their everyday affairs.

Now that scalable media has been long experienced, for example MPEG-4, or at least long imagined, in many ways it is past time to make more use of it. RH and MM certainly did make the most of resolution advantages/disadvantages and abused the equation at times to receive revenue (or to protect established revenue streams). These individuals were doing business according to the rules of the game the way it was played in those earlier times. Our digital perspective is so distant from these earlier conditions as to possibly give rise to a distorted view of the analogue past.

Picture the various positions of a theatrical performance:

  • creator — POV on stage looking out at the audience
  • viewer(s) — comprehensive category for those facing the stage, however they are packed into formation(s)
  • backstage — support roles from the wings produce unusual production-oriented POVs
  • good seats, center front — high resolution, sense of physical intimacy with the people on stage
  • front wings — extremely slanted view of the stage
  • middle-to-back center — a good view as far as centered orientation however a distinctively lower resolution view than in the front row
  • middle-to-back wings — a sense of being away-from-it-all but nonetheless a good albeit slanted view
  • standing room only — the picture may be hard-to-see but the sound is excellent
  • front balcony center — good but vertiginous view
  • other balcony seats — parked in the nose-bleed section
  • rtefac staff walking around — really different experience, the converse of backstage, involving good audio reception but spastically irregular periods in which the stage is visible

These rich differences are just one well-established example of what we now see as resolution, size and rendering issues. But clearly the ancient Greeks were not thinking digitally as we do now when considering their rtefactsres. In olden days people thought of “quality” and associated it with properties of being “original”, “authorised”, a “master”, or at least “professional” — or even that on-point phrase for high-quality, “front-row seats”.

To a degree, the whole structure of copyright law was built on analogue reproduction issues having to do with how difficult it was to make “good” copies as well as many other issues that do not apply to digital. However the quality of scalability has great possibilities for DM and could even be used advantageously by DMP since scalable support of content, with alternative media formats, is good for enabling a variety of DMBMs including licensed quotations.

4. Nature of TRU A strangely trivial and obvious Right-holder TRU, worth stating explicitly, or else it could be overlooked because of its obviousness.
5. Benefits of TRU Right-holder
6. Possible digital support It is somewhat obvious that scales, digital-sizes and resolution of Digital Media may be presented in the alternative, both for aesthetic and delivery-technology criteria. The granularity of this should be made configurable although one can imagine a delay for new formats to receive broad technical support unless they choose to provide it online themselves (for example, as freely downloadable plug-ins for major media players or other software applications).

Also, customised scales and resolutions could be part of the different ways quotes were supported based on users’ different privileges with the underlying copyrighted material. For example in a multimedia Hitchcock or Elvis library, different links could display differently and link differently depending on whether someone visiting was a member of the general public, a subscriber, a paid user, a sometime-customer, etc. To state the obvious, a first-time visitor might not be able to immediately screen “North By Northwest” without registering and paying, but subscribers (including at different levels – cheap/expensive) can see links in higher resolutions.

This would be natural for a multimedia film library. For example, these different resolutions:

  • General Public — minimal support based on TRU quote-support, but content-owners can choose to allow medium-res imags to be broadly distributed
  • Subscriber Cheap — A feast of medium-res images of everything.
  • Subscriber expensive — Some DVD-quality material available for “relatively high-res” viewing.
  • Better than DVD quality — The availability of this will always be able to command a financial premium, and broadband distribution is often effective, including potentially P2P.

Inherent to the digital support, getting creative and visual artists involved in how this is done is essential to presenting an appealing graphical user interface.

7. Requirements DMP shall support media consumption in multiple resolutions including quotation support such that linked sources can be consumed in higher resolution based on DMBMs and personal permissions for the referenced source content.
8. References  

64

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Usage to compel real-time only consumption
2. Summary description of TRU primitive analogue ability to perform written or composed creations in real-time only at a performance venue; significant mainly as having affected the analogue past of TRU reproduction thus conditioning economic aspects within which Middle-men tried to “game” the system
3. Use records of TRU As with TRU to distribute lower-res copies only, this TRU is born out of the analogue past in a way that is important to declare because it is so fundamental (as in, fundamentally obvious). If there is a live performance and you are not in your seat watching it, then to a degree you have missed it. The creators exercise a large amount of control over what a member of the audience can or should do, with the “OK, we did it but you missed it” risk always implied.

Picture for example the owner of a fabulous mansion who is having a party but is stuck doing something in the library. Beyond the window, some wonderful performance is occurring on the lawn outside that can be clearly heard and where friends are having fun. This removed listener is also the one who will be paying for the performance, as part of a lavish party in progress. Meanwhile, the mansion-owner is embroiled in some task requiring presence in the library. On the walls are either books only or, according to taste, DVDs and an audio archive as well. One can only imagine that it would be longer than a lifetime to try to consume everything in the mansion-owner’s fine library. Nonetheless, the party-giver will soon exit this place of tomes for the fun outside.

What is wrong with that example? Could it be that the rich person is able to enjoy a lifestyle that is not glued to a chair because of this wealth, so walking around and being surrounded by beautiful and wonderful things is a part of this figure’s life? Then what about the DMP user? Like it or not, long periods of passive sitting are implied by media consumption in this day and age, for example watching a film at a rtefac or sitting at a computer or in a meeting. So the main thing wrong with the example is that the user is not almost completely sedentary.

Note that in the example, some of the party-thrower’s friends are in fact completely sedentary enjoying the performance outside. Note also that the library in the example by definition has more stuff in it than can be used in a lifetime of real time consumption, so having it means something more along the lines of having the right piece of media available at the right time so that it can be consumed with greatest enjoyment.

This principle of greatest enjoyment has characterised public performance spaces for centuries, characteristically for orchestral performances, opera and ballet. Many of these spaces also have remarkable art and interiors. Arguably the neighborhood rtefact has notable interiors – reflecting the highest commonly used “quality” of media consumption. The walls of most movie rtefact are “plastered” with rtefacts notices of upcoming productions featuring some distinctive art that “brands” the media title. This rich sort of experience goes beyond what can be experienced at home, except by the rich, and so has been part of “public” life for centuries (and millennia).

Based on these preconditions, titles appearing in the normal course of the presentation space’s availability are “published” or “made available to the public” (the predecessor language to TRU communication to the public before it took on its 1996 WCT/WPPT meaning). Also, those who attend such public presentations do so not only because of the art, interiors, and media consumption experience, but also because the collective act of absorbing the performance’s content is enhanced and the attention is focused by the sense of humanity’s surrounding group.

We can safely assume that some sort of public performance in a public performance space will remain a compelling part of people’s lives for generations to come, and to a degree this is naturally characteristic of the word “performance”. There is included in this – this putatively valuable performance – a supposition that the TRU performance’s Right-holder can compel real-time consumption.

4. Nature of TRU A strangely trivial and obvious Right-holder TRU, worth stating explicitly, or else it could be overlooked because of its obviousness.
5. Benefits of TRU Right-holder
6. Possible digital support The financial potential of identifying real-time usage is huge, immediately triggering issues of privacy and TRU of respect for performance royalties terms and conditions.

For example, one can expect that a live webcast is just such an event, and this could be considered to already have an established pricing model through different aggregators like AOL, MSN, Real and B2B syndication packager Middle-Men.

Real-time usge while it occurs can be valuable to advertisers, which triggers privacy implications. But users could select to cede aspects of their privacy in order to participate in valuable promotions, as is now commonly done, and then receive advertisements or promotional messages at some time as they go about other things, like watching or listening to DM.

For TRU quote support, it could be very valuable to be able to objectively distinguish whether or not an End-User has already consumed an item of digital media in real time. Take videogames for example. I played the first three 3 versions of Sonic the Hedgehog extensively on Sega Genesis. This could potentially allow me to participate in a community of players who could illusrate levels of the game in their quotations to each other about the game. There could be financial opportunities to support TRU adaptation in such a model, so derivative creations could be published in this community as a DMBM. But the ability to support this requires being able to

There is related and interesting potential for digital support to block suspicious End-user behavior by allowing Right-holders to configure mathematical limits on how much of certain transactions a person is allowed to do. For example, personal use of digital media occurs in real-time and this means an individual cannot claim to be personally viewing more than ten thousand hours a day of videos. Such boundaries need to be feasibly supported for configuration within DMBMs.

7. Requirements DMP shall support the ability of the End-User to allow information to be made available to others as to what DM they are consuming in real time, and what DM has been consumed in real time in the past.
8. References  

65

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right to restrict place of use
2. Summary description of TRU creator’s right to specify place restrictions on where their creations are to be consumed, for example a restriction could apply authorising only built-to-spec kiosks; significant mainly as having affected the analogue past of TRU reproduction thus conditioning economic aspects within which Middle-men tried to “game” the system
3. Use records of TRU It is suggested that place restrictions of any kind overlap with privacy TRUs, and can be contrasted from alternative anonymity examples and from the public area generally. By saying “use this here” a restrictive creator inherently carves off boundaries between consumers and the rest of the world around them.

A prime example is the control that a production company first releasing a new movie exercises as to show locations. At least, as was the case before the Internet.

Also, some cultures consider certain locations holy and most commonly perform, express and sing certain compositions primarily in those locations, for example church choirs. In fact, many governmental functions are similarly configured, for example militaristic displays with mark-bearing shields.

Somewhat conspicuously, this right runs right up against TRU space-shift. The question for DMP will be what digital support should be given for both.

4. Nature of TRU There is no significant legal support for this right, however all the law presupposes technological delivery limitations that support this. So this TRU is supported in fact and the law has worked around whatever set of facts preexisted disputes (or the need for regulatory policy).
5. Benefits of TRU Right-holder
6. Possible digital support Although there might be many opportunities for which it was possible to support authorial restrictions of place, it should be noted that these could interfere with privacy and TRU political freedom.

Clearly some restriction could be made that DMP DM was to be consumed on DMP-compatible devices, which is a manner of place restriction in itself.

Support for TRU of regional pricing also would include TRU to restrict place of use to some degree.

Note possibility of supporting types of entertainment predicated on place-restriction, such as electronic tour guides or navigational content.

In many ways, support for this TRU is entirely a matter of REL granularity, that is to say that access restrictions should be sufficiently fine-grained to give creators good alternatives to choose from.

Note one possible example of support for this TRU is described in the DMBM template for a Location-Based Entertainment NetKiosk.

7. Requirements DMP shall support configurable restrictions on where content is consumed.
8. References  

66

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Right to restrict time of use
2. Summary description of TRU creator’s right to specify time restrictions on when their creations are to be consumed, for example a restriction could apply authorising only late-night performance of material unsuitable for minors or for example Christmas songs that sell only during that holiday season; significant mainly as having affected the analogue past of TRU reproduction thus conditioning economic aspects within which Middle-men tried to “game” the system
3. Use records of TRU Because time is a part of everything we do, any time restrictions forced on End-users by media create very significant limitations. TRU political freedom could potentially be hurt by many restrictive practices that could be based on time formulas for when certain media could be consumed. Note however that acceptable time formulas are feasible, such as the analogue usage of “media exploitation chronology” covered at TRU lending and TRU rental in which distribution methods of differing media types cascade in sequence.

Basically, because of the way TRU distribution works, first publication remains a meaningful point during which a creator is expected to be allowed the maximum control over how their final release is commercially ‘shared’ with the world. After that, things get a little looser. For example, some VHS or DVD copying could be private, once a movie was “out of the rtefact” or if someone wanted to scan a book and make their own private PDF of it. As more and more time passes after publication/release, greater latitude is given for something much like fair use, for example U.S. first sale doctrine (GIC 5.5.I.4).

With regards to TRU time-shift, this means time-shifting usully enjoys wider latitude as time passes beyond the commercial window of first publication (although news could very well be the opposite of this rule). Since that is the solution, the remaining questions for DMP mostly regard specifics of what is allowed when. Unnecessary restrictions seem worth avoiding, since why make life hard?

4. Nature of TRU Analogue restriction, de facto when it occurs.
5. Benefits of TRU Right-holder
6. Possible digital support Although there might be many opportunities for which it was possible to support authorial restrictions of time, it should be noted that these could interfere with privacy and TRU political freedom.

Clearly some restriction could be made that DMP DM was to be consumed on DMP-compatible devices, which consequently could support several kinds of time restrictions.

Note possibility of supporting types of entertainment predicated on time-restriction, such as daily prayer or study curricula.

In many ways, support for this TRU is entirely a matter of REL granularity, that is to say that access restrictions should be sufficiently fine-grained to give creators good alternatives to choose from.

Note one possible example of support for this TRU is described in the DMBM template for a Location-Based Entertainment NetKiosk.

7. Requirements DMP shall support configurable restrictions on when content is consumed.
8. References  

05

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Making playback devices.
2. Summary description of TRU The ability to manufacture or otherwise create devices for accessing Digital media.
3. Use records of TRU Manufacturers have been able to make playback devices for any type of content that has been available.
4. Nature of TRU Until the advent of the DVD, there was no “active” restriction on who could manufacture and market what.  Previous to that, one may have needed to license technology but with DVD, those wishing to manufacture and market devices must be party to the DVD trust management system which is digitally enforced.
5. Benefits of TRU The more manufacturers there are creating products for Digital media, the wider the market for Digital media will become.
6. Possible digital support Trust management.
7. Requirements Support for trust/risk management systems.
8. References  

06

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU The ability to choose playback device.
2. Summary description of TRU The User may choose among different devices for accessing Digital media and does not need a different device for Digital media of different types or different devices for Digital media of the same type but from different sources.
3. Use records of TRU When valued content can be accessed by hardware devices, Users have a multitude of choices for their use.  Any device from any manufacturer for a given type of content would work and would work right out of the store.

Lately, content has been packaged in DRM only supported on PCs and in many cases a given title is locked to a single given PC.  This at the same time that one can play one’s DVD’s on any DVD player and use Secure Digital and Memory Stick memory cards on any devices supporting those standards.

4. Nature of TRU Hardware manufacturers rely on, create and use standards, either international or industry.  The current crop of PC based distribution schemes are proprietary and only open to the single developer that created the scheme.
5. Benefits of TRU Users become frustrated and confused when Digital media they paid for doesn’t work at all or only works on one device or a very limited set of devices.

Users are more willing to accept new types of Digital media and services when they can use the same familiar devices they have been using for accessing content for years.

There is more competition to provide the User with a device so quality and features will increase and purchasing prices will come down.

6. Possible digital support Standards
7. Requirements Standards
8. References  

31

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU of reverse engineering
2. Summary description of TRU Reverse engineering means “the process of extracting know-how or knowledge from a human-made artifact”. […] “Human-made rtefacts refers to objects that embody knowledge or know-how previously discovered by other people. Hence, the engineering required to uncover the knowledge is reverse engineering”. [1]
3. Use records of TRU Throughout history of mankind, people disassembled nature-made and human-made rtefacts in order to understand their inner workings. Here are some examples of use [2]:
  • Education: to learn Operating System programming by disassembling an OS
  • Investigation of potential infringement: to reverse engineer a competitor’s product in order to determine whether they have used some (copyrighted) code in their product.
  • Interoperability: to reverse engineer a media format in order to read the data and make an application using this data.
    • DeCSS: The Linux community had to use reverse engineered assembler code in order to build a Linux DVD player [3]
    • Universal Remote Control: A Remote Control manufacturer wants to provide a device which is able to control Consumer Electronic devices from different vendors, some of them are not produced anymore.
    • Preservation and Emulation: “Two freelance programmers have been working (independently) on reverse engineering the data file stored on the videodiscs in order to enable the data to be displayed on a ‘modern’ Windows-based system”. [4]
  • Investigation of Cosumer Fraud: to detect violation of consumer rights (e.g. violation of privacy rights of computer users by “spyware”)
  • Security Improvements: to understand insecure computer software in order to develop more trustworthy systems.
4.   Nature of TRU Customary TRU if information about the objects under investigation is not available under fair and reasonable conditions. Partly supported by laws [1].
5. Benefits of TRU Society benefits from the “Freedom to Tinker” [5], since without the possibility of the users to understand, discuss, repair and modify technical devices, only a few industry players would be in the position to advance the progress of technology.

Industry players trying to create monopolies by promoting proprietary standards and technology might be negatively affected.

6. Possible digital support
  • Decompilers/ Disassemblers
7. Requirements Sometimes reverse engineering is the only method to learn and understand about an undocumented technical object. In order to render it unnecessary, it is desirable that software and hardware documentation is available to the public, open standards are developed and published under fair and reasonable terms and the development of open source software is not prevented by software patents.

8.

References

[1] – The law & economics of reverse engineering, Samuelson, Scotchmer, 2002
[2] – Article 2B and Reverse Engineering, Kaner, 1998
[3] – Critique of DVD CCA’s claims about DeCSS, Andreas Bogk, 2000
[4] – The Domesday Project, Andy Finney
[5] – Freedom to Tinker

57

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to choose the service
2. Summary description of TRU To use services independently of the service provider [1]
3. Use records of TRU Throughout history people could (more or less) choose the services they use, for example:
  • News:
    In a free society, users (news consumers) can choose from different news sources:
    • Newspaper (national, international)
    • Radio station
    • Television programme
    • Internet Newgroups

“News programmes should offer viewers and listeners an intelligent and informed account of issues that enables them to form their own views” [2].
This principle implies that users (news creators) shall be impartial and independent of:

    • Political activities
    • Commercial business and financial interest
    • Personal benefits
    • Technological barriers
  • Communication:
    Before the deregulation of the communication industry, telcos had monopolies on the telephony service. They owned the phones and networks and controlled the underlying technology [3].
    Some results of deregulation:
    • to choose mobile phone provider by exchanging SIM card or by “roaming”
    • to keep a phone number when changing to another phone service provider
    • to use other services (e.g. e-mail, internet) on phones
    • to buy end-user devices on the free market
  • Entertainment:
    Cable television providers bundle devices and services (e.g. digital television set-top boxes with pay-tv encryption).
    Some results of these dependencies:
    • Electronic programme guides controlled by the cable television providers (walled garden scenarios)
    • Set-Top boxes controlled by the cable television providers (creation of user profiles, data mining, ad insertion)
    • Television stations have limited access to the “cable networks”
    • Technological barriers for television broadcasters (cable television providers control of subscriber management system and content encryption)
4. Nature of TRU Both customary and legally supported (competition law, media law).
5. Benefits of TRU The benefit for users is obvious: the ability to choose from a range of services is a pre-condition for the free flow of information, freedom of choice for consumers, media pluralism and cultural diversity. The user’s independence of the technology for content distribution accounts for competition and economical growth of the media industry.
The freedom to choose the service would likely also have benefits to Right-holders and Middlemen offering content for financial gain or the accomplishment of worthy projects.
6. Possible digital support
  • open application programming interface in accordance with the minimum requirements of the relevant standards or specifications
7. Requirements
  • The user shall be able to use a single device for services offered by different service providers
  • The user shall be able to transfer security relevant information (e.g. cryptographic keys needed for user identification, the usage of applications and services) from one device to another (also in case of a defective device)
  • The user shall be able to transfer acquired application software from one device to another
  • The user shall be able to transfer data which are not governed by restrictive copyright protections to a system that does not implement DRM functionality
  • specifications shall not create market entry barriers for service providers or industry sectors
  • specifications shall be independent of the requirements of a particular hardware or software and shall not be used to exclude certain platforms or solutions.
  • DRM solutions shall be system-open so that the effort for implementation on different hardware platforms is comparable
  • The patent policy shall not be used to exclude competitors (e.g. by unreasonable license fees).
  • The patent policy should find arrangements for Open Source projects (e.g. exemption from patent license fees for non commercial Open Source projects)
8. References [1] – Definition of terms for DMP specifications
[2] – BBC Producers’ Guidelines – Values, standards and principles
[3] – Riding the Media Bits – Telecom Bits and Computer Bits

58

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to choose the delivery system
2. Summary description of TRU To use services independently of the connectivity provider
3. Use records of TRU Throughout history people could (more or less) choose the delivery systems (e.g. networks) they use for services, for example:
  • Television and radio broadcast:
    • Terrestrial network
    • Satellite network
    • Broadband cable network
  • Voice communication:
    • Meeting room
    • Intercom
    • Ham radio
    • Fixed line phone network
    • Mobile phone network
4. Nature of TRU Both customary and legally supported (regulation, competition).
5. Benefits of TRU The benefit for users is obvious: the ability to choose from a range of delivery systems is a pre-condition for the free flow of information, freedom of choice for consumers, media pluralism and cultural diversity. The user’s independence of the technology for connectivity accounts for competition and economical growth of the media industry.
The freedom to choose the delivery system would likely also have benefits to Right-holders and Middlemen offering content for financial gain or the accomplishment of worthy projects.
6. Possible digital support
  • open standards and specifications for delivery systems
7. Requirements
  • Content agnostic delivery systems [1]
  • Common carrier obligations
8. References [1] – DMM P3 – Deployment of broadband access

67

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU Making content creation devices.
2. Summary description of TRU The ability to manufacture or otherwise create devices for creating content for Digital media.
3. Use records of TRU Manufactures have been able to make content creation devices for any type of content that has been available.
4. Nature of TRU Until the advent of the DVD, there was no restriction on who could manufacture and market what.  With the DVD however, those wishing to manufacture and market devices must be party to the DVD trust management system.
5. Benefits of TRU The more manufactures there are creating products for Digital media, the wider the market for Digital media will become.
6. Possible digital support Trust management.
7. Requirements Support for trust/risk management systems.
8. References TRU to make playback devices

68

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to assign content description
2. Summary description of TRU To relate content to descriptions that support some degree of interpretation of the content’s meaning.
3. Use records of TRU
  • A movie producer assigns information describing the creation and production processes of the movie (director, title, short feature movie)
  • A broadcaster assigns information related to the usage of the programme (copyright pointers, usage history, broadcast schedule)
  • A DVD manufacturer assigns information of the storage features of the DVD (storage format, encoding)
  • A script continuity person assigns structural information on spatial, temporal or spatio-temporal components of the movie (scene cuts, segmentation in regions, region motion tracking)
  • A post production company assigns information about low level features in the film (colors, textures, sound timbres, melody description)
  • An editor of a newscast assigns conceptual information of the reality captured by the newscast (objects and events, interactions among objects)
  • An editor of a programme guide assigns information about how to browse the TV programmes in an efficient way (summaries, variations, spatial and frequency subbands, …)
  • A stock photo agency assigns information about collections of images
  • A game user assigns information about the interaction with the content (user preferences, usage history).
4. Nature of TRU Customary TRU: traditionally users have enjoyed the possibility to assign descriptions to content that was available. The very act of publication gives others rights to refer to it.
5. Benefits of TRU The value of information often depends on how easy it can be found, retrieved, accessed, filtered and managed.
6. Possible digital support
  • Description Tools that allow for creating content descriptions. (e.g. [1])
  • Comprehensive metadata for authorship and titles of releases could be developed and licensed both by for-profit and non-profit groups.
7. Requirements
  • Standards
8. References [1] – MPEG-7 Overview

69

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to access content of one’s choice
2. Summary description of TRU traditionally users have enjoyed the possibility to access any type of content that was available (books, cassettes, broadcast transmissions)
3. Use records of TRU FCC Chairman Powell on Feb 8 said, “consumers should have access to their choice of legal content. Consumers have come to expect to be able to go where they want on high-speed connections, and those who have migrated from dial-up would presumably object to paying a premium for broadband if certain content were blocked. Thus, I challenge all facets of the industry to commit to allowing consumers to reach the content of their choice. I recognize that network operators have a legitimate need to manage their networks and ensure a quality experience, thus reasonable limits sometimes must be placed in service contracts. Such restraints, however, should be clearly spelled out and should be as minimal as necessary.”
4. Nature of TRU Put forward in a speech by Michael K. Powell, Chairman of the FCC at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium February 8, 2004 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.doc
5. Benefits of TRU Recommended for consumers to demand from their choice of broadband service provider
6. Possible digital support This can be enabled in a variety of ways ranging from activist to locked-down. Basically title information can be made freely available over the Internet with creative commons guidelines for reuse, or else all title database data could be served from a server in Switzerland. Or both in some combination. Additionally, proprietary uses of such a database could thrive in particular if the primary database data itself was treated in a Creative Commons manner. This at least suggests a moral rights service that addresses the French inalienable moral rights and provides that information in some universally available format, for example suitable for XML-based data feeds.
7. Requirements Determine to what extent the specifications for this are part of the RQ phase versus the conformance phase.
8. References  

70

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to run applications of one’s choice
2. Summary description of TRU traditionally users have enjoyed the possibility to run any types of application that was available on their PCs
3. Use records of TRU FCC Chairman Powell on Feb 8 said, “consumers should be able to run applications of their choice. As with access to content, consumers have come to expect that they can generally run whatever applications they want. Again, such applications are critical to continuing the digital broadband migration because they can drive the demand that fuels deployment. Applications developers must remain confident that their products will continue to work without interference from other companies. No one can know for sure which “killer” applications will emerge to drive deployment of the next generation high-speed technologies. Thus, I challenge all facets of the industry to let the market work and allow consumers to run applications unless they exceed service plan limitations or harm the provider’s network. “
4. Nature of TRU Put forward in a speech by Michael K. Powell, Chairman of the FCC at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium February 8, 2004 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.doc
5. Benefits of TRU Recommended for consumers to demand from their choice of broadband service provider
6. Possible digital support In the DMP scope, a primary concern for application availability and viability for its processing in whatever runtime environment might be available is specifying the operating environment applications have to comply to. Specifying and documenting this is an important responsibility that should proceed with some participation from representatives of the application development community.
7. Requirements

Determine to what extent the specifications for this are part of the RQ phase versus the conformance phase.

Provide guidance for applications developers to fit seamlessly into DMP platform capabilities

8. References  

70

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to attach playback devices of one’s choice to a network
2. Summary description of TRU traditionally users have enjoyed the possibility to attach any device to the telephone network that did not damage it
3. Use records of TRU FCC Chairman Powell on Feb 8 said, “consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes. Because devices give consumers more choice, value and personalization with respect to how they use their high-speed connections, they are critical to the future of broadband. Thus, I challenge all facets of the industry to permit consumers to attach any devices they choose to their broadband connection, so long as the devices operate within service plan limitations and do not harm the provider’s network or enable theft of service. “
4. Nature of TRU Put forward in a speech by Michael K. Powell, Chairman of the FCC at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium February 8, 2004 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.doc
5. Benefits of TRU Recommended for consumers to demand from their choice of broadband service provider
6. Possible digital support Although this remains somewhat low-level for DMP at this pre-implementation point in the work, correct specification of devices and types of attachment should be made clearcut and take advantage of manufacturing efficiencies where possible. For example, to what degree would DMP encourage or permit USB or Firewire attachment? The connector might be a more stubborn bottleneck than the behavior of the device to be attached.
7. Requirements Determine to what extent the specifications for this are part of the RQ phase versus the conformance phase.
8. References  

71

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to attach playback devices of one’s choice to a network
2. Summary description of TRU traditionally users have enjoyed the possibility to attach any device to the telephone network that did not damage it
3. Use records of TRU FCC Chairman Powell on Feb 8 said, “consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes. Because devices give consumers more choice, value and personalization with respect to how they use their high-speed connections, they are critical to the future of broadband. Thus, I challenge all facets of the industry to permit consumers to attach any devices they choose to their broadband connection, so long as the devices operate within service plan limitations and do not harm the provider’s network or enable theft of service. “
4. Nature of TRU Put forward in a speech by Michael K. Powell, Chairman of the FCC at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium February 8, 2004 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.doc
5. Benefits of TRU Recommended for consumers to demand from their choice of broadband service provider
6. Possible digital support Although this remains somewhat low-level for DMP at this pre-implementation point in the work, correct specification of devices and types of attachment should be made clearcut and take advantage of manufacturing efficiencies where possible. For example, to what degree would DMP encourage or permit USB or Firewire attachment? The connector might be a more stubborn bottleneck than the behavior of the device to be attached.
7. Requirements Determine to what extent the specifications for this are part of the RQ phase versus the conformance phase.
8. References  

72

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to access information about content
2. Summary description of TRU

traditionally users have enjoyed the possibility to find descriptions of available content to guide their purchasing/viewing/listening/educational decisions

3. Use records of TRU FCC Chairman Powell on Feb 8 said, “consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans. Simply put, such information is necessary to ensure that the market is working. Providers have every right to offer a variety of service tiers with varying bandwidth and feature options. Consumers need to know about these choices as well as whether and how their service plans protect them against spam, spyware and other potential invasions of privacy. “
4. Nature of TRU Put forward in a speech by Michael K. Powell, Chairman of the FCC at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium February 8, 2004 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.doc
5. Benefits of TRU Recommended for consumers to demand from their choice of broadband service provider
6. Possible digital support The support for information about content addresses a number of interests almost simultaneously. For one thing, there is what a home user might want to keep track of privately. There is also most obviously the availability on the device of information about what the device and its associated content are actually costing each consumer, so they can budget their use and avoid “sticker shock”.
7. Requirements

Determine to what extent the specifications for this are part of the RQ phase versus the conformance phase.

Provide support for service plan availability of data.

8. References  

75

Criteria

Description

1. Name of TRU TRU to choose security
2. Summary description of TRU To choose a system on which enough trust can be put to use it together with sensitive information [1].
3. Use records of TRU Security is a property assigned to IED and IDP hardware and software.

Throughout history people could (more or less) choose the systems they use together with sensitive information:

  • To be sure that nobody can access their private data (e.g. private photos), users can encrypt the data using a system of their choice
  • If two users want to keep their conversation (e.g. by e-mail or by phone) secret, they can choose a trusted system.
  • If a group of users needs to collaborate (e.g. business people exchanging data), the users are able to agree on a trusted system and choose the necessary security.

In these use records the TRU to choose the security only bears on the users’ trust in the system. The TRU does not depend on the question who owns the rights of the content for which the system is used, nor does it matter whether the content is analog or digital. If the users do not trust the system anymore, they can change it (e.g. use another hardware, another software, another encryption algorithm,…).

Since the advent of digital media (e.g. DVD, Pay-TV) there is a restriction on who can choose the security.

  • The DVD-CCA [2] prescribes their security solution to DVD content producers and device manufacturers
  • Digital Pay-TV service providers prescribe their security (e.g. Conditional Access systems) to broadcasters, device manufacturers and paying subscribers.

These use records show that only certain media users can choose the security. Users who do not trust the system are not able to change it (e.g. use another hardware, another software, another encryption algorithm,…). You might qualify that with the “take it or leave it” aspect that users can reject the system but not alter how it is configured.

4. Nature of TRU Customary TRU, supported by competition law
5. Benefits of TRU The benefit for users is obvious: the ability to choose security is a pre-condition for the free flow of information, freedom of choice for consumers, media pluralism and cultural diversity. The media user’s independence of the security for content usage accounts for competition and economical growth of the media industry.

Security imposed upon media users by certain players (e.g. content providers, service providers) raises interesting questions:

  • Can media users, who have no choice of security trust service providers that their private data are not misused?
  • Can media users who have no choice of security be liable [3] for copyright infringements caused by broken security on their systems?
6. Possible digital support
  • Conditional access systems
  • Content encryption systems
  • DRM solutions
7. Requirements
  • The user shall be able to transfer security relevant information (e.g. cryptographic keys needed for user identification, the usage of applications and services) from one device to another (also in case of a defective device)
  • Specifications shall not create market entry barriers for service providers or industry sectors
  • Specifications shall be independent of the requirements of a particular hardware or software and shall not be used to exclude certain platforms or solutions.
  • DRM solutions shall be system-open so that the effort for implementation on different hardware platforms is comparable
  • The patent policy shall not be used to exclude competitors (e.g. by unreasonable license fees).
  • The patent policy should find arrangements for Open Source projects (e.g. exemption from patent license fees for non commercial Open Source projects)
8. References [1] – Tomas Olovsson quoted in “Computer Security: A Practical Definition”
[2] – DVD Copy Control Association
[3] – Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights

 Table of TRUs in sequential order

#

Cat

TRU

RH

MM

EU

01

B

TRU to quote

   

X

02

E

TRU to make personal copy

   

X

03

D

TRU to space shift content

   

X

04

D

TRU to time shift content

   

X

05

F

TRU to make playback device

 

X

X

06

F

TRU to choose playback device

   

X

07

B

TRU to use content whose copyright has expired

X

X

X

08

D

TRU to communicate privately

   

X

09

D

TRU to publish content anonymously

X

   

10

D

TRU to use content anonymously

   

X

11

A

TRU of attribution

X

   

12

D

TRU of anonymity

X

   

13

E

TRU to annotate for personal use

   

X

14

E

TRU to edit for personal use

   

X

15

C

TRU not to be counterfeited

 

X

 

16

C

TRU that sales displays will follow acceptable practice

 

X

 

17

C

TRU to be ignorant of usage

 

X

 

18

E

TRU to apply a rating to a piece of content

 

X

 

19

D

TRU of continued access

   

X

20

D

TRU of political freedom

X

X

X

21

D

TRU of freedom of art

   

X

22

A

TRU to be recognized as the author (paternity)

X

   

23

A

TRU not to be miscredited as the author (misattribution)

X

   

24

A

TRU for the author’s work not to be tampered with (integrity)

X

   

25

C

TRU of “First sale”/Personal loan

   

X

26

D

TRU to transcode

   

X

27

E

TRU to make prohibited content inaccessible

     

28

E

TRU to time based advertising

     

29

D

TRU to digital media rental

     

30

D

TRU to freedom from monitoring

   

X

31

F

TRU of reverse engineering

 

X

X

32

A

TRU of withdrawal/objection

X

   

33

B

TRU of fair use

   

X

34

A

TRU of reproduction

X

   

35

C

TRU of economic exploitation

X

   

36

A

TRU of distribution

X

   

37

C

TRU of contractual commerce

X

X

X

38

C

TRU of reciprocal protection

X

   

39

C

TRU of respect for sale royalties terms and conditions

X

   

40

C

TRU of respect for performance royalties terms and conditions

X

   

41

C

TRU of respect for resale royalties terms and conditions

X

   

42

C

TRU of equitable remuneration

X

   

43

A

TRU of reputation

X

   

44

C

TRU of reasonable modification

 

X

 

45

A

TRU of first publication/disclosure

X

   

46

A

TRU of parody

X

   

47

A

TRU of factual reporting

X

   

48

A

TRU to restrict access to unpublished material

X

   

49

A

TRU of lending

X

   

50

A

TRU of translation

X

   

51

C

TRU of regional pricing

 

X

 

52

B

TRU of unpublished recording

   

X

53

B

TRU of developing nations exception

   

X

54

B

TRU of copying for classroom instruction

   

X

55

B

TRU to access content in libraries

   

X

56

E

TRU of authenticity of content guaranteed

X

X

X

57

F

TRU to choose the service

X

 

X

58

F

TRU to choose the delivery system

X

 

X

59

A

TRU of moral rights

X

   

60

C

TRU of rental

X

   

61

A

TRU of communication to the public

X

   

62

A

TRU of applying technological access restrictions

X

   

63

E

TRU to distribute lower-resolution copies only

X

   

64

E

TRU to compel real-time only consumption

X

   

65

E

TRU to restrict place of use

X

   

66

E

TRU to restrict time of use

X

   

67

F

TRU to make content creation device

X

X

 

68

F

TRU to assign content description

X

X

 

69

F

TRU to access content of one’s choice

   

X

70

F

TRU to run applications of one’s choice

   

X

71

F

TRU to attach playback devices of one’s choice to a network

   

X

72

F

TRU to access information about content

   

X

73

E

TRU to share content with members of a group

   

X

74

D

TRU to improve end-user experience

X

X

 

75

F

TRU to choose security

X

X

X

76

A

TRU to restrict adaptation

X

X

 

77

A

TRU to restrict performance

X

X

 

78

C

TRU contracting for middle-men to broadcast

X

X

 

79

C

TRU contracting for middle-men to publish

X

X

 

80

C

TRU contracting for middle-men to release

X

X

 

81

C

TRU contracting for middle-men to promote

X

X

 

82

E

TRU of adaptation

   

X

83

C

TRU of performance

   

X

84

A

TRU not to apply DRM to a piece of content

X

   

85

C

TRU to syndication

X

X

 

86

C

TRU to chose mode of economic compensation

X

X

 

87

A

TRU to determine context of use

X

X

 

88

E

TRU to a print of the a video scene (repurposing)

   

X