The Digital Media Manifesto
Comments to "Interim draft of Digital Media Manifesto"
Italics is text in the Interim draft of Digital Media Manifesto
Comment on section 3.1.1 Mapping rights traditionally enjoyed by users to the DM space
Specify DRM platforms and end user devices in such a way that both copyright holder can be supported
- do you mean "both copyright holders" (i.e. plural)? If so "both" of what - the copyright of the design of the DRM system & devices, as well as those of the rightsholders? Needs tightening up or clarifying because I don't quite understand this...
"Bills of Right"
- possibly "Bills of Rights" is better? Sounds a bit odd in English otherwise (not that it really matters, we can all speak *International* English now :)
end user rights not infringing the rights holders' right to exploit their content economically into technical requirements
- and presumably their "Moral" rights (if we are thinking beyond the Anglo-Saxon model of copyright)?
It may turn out that a combination of both approaches will be required.
- indeed so
Comment on section 3.1.2. Phasing out analogue legacies
it was also decided that it would not be fair to deprive holders of rights of income from acts of private copying.
- it was also decided that it would be unfair to deprive rightsholders of income lost through acts of private copying.
- I had to read that sentence twice... maybe this other one is a bit better?
The levy is unjust in that it penalises those who use storage for their own private data, while people committing massive abuse pay ridiculous amount of money
- The levy is unjust in that it penalises those who use storage for their own private data, while people committing massive abuse pay a ridiculously low amount of money
- in English English "ridiculous" can mean "lots"! I think you mean the reverse so I suggest:
There is practically no means to make sure that the level of imposition will not keep on growing over time
- can you clarify "level of imposition"? I guess this means that the rate of the levy could be increased...
Comment on section 3.1.3. Deployment of broadband access
- maybe it is here under a different name but I am missing DAB in the list (getting big in the UK)
Comment on section 3.1.4. Improving development of and access to standards
In this review it may be useful redesign the workflow
- In this review it may be useful to redesign the workflow
- missing the word "TO"
so that specific products/services the standard will support
- so specific products/services that the standard will support
- I think this is clearer (minor point in use of the word "that")
While keeping the validity of the concept of “buying in bulk”, that is setting up a patent pool for the standard IPR, the legal and financial aspects of setting up such a pool can become now very focused and the overall time-to-market can be considerably reduced.
- While keeping the validity of the concept of “buying in bulk” - in other words, setting up a patent pool for the standard IPR - the legal and financial aspects of setting up such a pool can now become very focused and the overall time-to-market can be considerably reduced.
- small word order changes (again, minor issues)
Comment on section 3.2.1. Interoperable DRM platforms
The obvious consequence of this "freedom of choice" of DRM solutions is that DRM cannot become the tool enabling meaningful businesses solutions for an unpredictable length of time
- wicked thought of the day: yes, until governments legislate to force all DRM solutions to interoperate and adopt the basics via MPEG4/7/21 or the IPMP (as you later describe)...
11. End-user device manufacturers (HW)
12. End-user device manufacturers (HW)
- why 2 of the same? A typo?
A number of standard initiatives
- A number of standards initiatives
- I think the "s" is missing ?
Comment on section 3.2.2. Interoperable end-user devices
- another one for the acronym glossary?
Any DVD player can play any content, with the restriction that it may have to obey certain rules (region code) that have been set by the rights holder.
- not 100% true: the region is often set by the producer (i.e. a record label) and not the creator (the lyricist), both of these are rights holders but only one gets to decide whether or not to impose this restriction and this is based on the traditional pre-DM relationship where the producer had the upper hand and could control all sorts of aspects of exploitation through contractual control which was based on - for example, the ownership of the recording studio etc.
devices for the mass market and devices for nascent fragmented markets
- devices for the mass market and devices for nascent fragmented DM markets
- this is the first time "nascent fragmented markets" is mentioned, perhaps it would be better to include "DM"?
- or have I missed the point?
One of the additional problems with digital end user devices, is the much faster device obsolescence rate.
- indeed, and I wonder if the inclusion of easily updateable DSP technology inside devices will catch on (i.e. like SHARC et al. that are coming up in pro Audio devices and interfaces)
We are probably unable to imagine the different types of device that will be invented and become conventional even in a non distant future
- We are probably unable to imagine the different types of device that will be invented and become conventional even in the not too distant future
- again, a small English change (minor point)
- I also missed reference to "Open Source" OS regarding embedded systems (OK - "Linux", there I have said it)