Digital Media Manifesto
Use case development document
The following summarizes efforts thus far to develop Digital Media Project Use Cases for interoperable digital rights management and supporting interoperable devices (ID). Although the Requirements also stand alone, they are repeated here in pair with example Use Cases. The outline followed here reflects work that has been agreed on and the Use Cases reflect helpful contributions by e-mail reflector participants (these have been generally edited).
The form of this document is a rough and early stage along the longer road of developing DMP DRM & IDs. It is hoped that a refined set of Use Cases will be crafted to better represent the thinking embodied in the following.
Table of content
Author User (Author UC)
Vincent finishes his version of the great American novel and puts it online or rather in this case on the Digital Media Project interoperable global network with a price of $100. Some regions require a human being to check it for subversive or criminal content before it may be made available within that region.
Protected Gobi (DCBM UC)
Two individuals Henry and Helen sit in the Gobi desert each with a single interoperable device (ID) able to connect to the other's wirelessly. They only have one copy of the recent bestseller "600 Silly Things To Annotate" and they pass it back and forth over their IDs while adding their own annotations. Henry pulls a two sentence quote out of the book, along with some of his and Helen's annotations and e-mails it to Louise. Depending on whether Henry has Internet access at the moment, the e-mail will either be sent immediately or queued for later delivery. As Henry and Helen pass the annotated bestseller back-and-forth, the single-copy-only file self-deletes off each other's IDs.
File Transfer (DCBM UC)
Unlike average computer files, the DMP traveling bitstream has many more special qualities, especially a multitechnological ability to be sent from person to person over a variety of transmission platforms including standard computer memory, programmable chips, Flash, optical media, TCP/IP, MPEG-2 TS, and many more underlying physical data embodiments. For example if Vincent the author e-mailed a single-copy-only of an urgent chain-letter to a friend, including himself as a recipient of digital "carbon copy" cc's. Vincent could author a DMP file and send it to friend #1 via e-mail. Friend #1 impulsively puts it on a P2P network in order to reach a semi-mysterious friend he frequently file-shares with, including the instruction to return it when done, which Friend #1's online buddy accordingly does after reading Vincent's plan for a sequel to his great American novel. Friend #1 burns the traveling DMP file onto a DVD and puts it in the postal mail to Friend #2. Friend #2 receives the DVD a week later while running to the airport and takes it with him. At the airport terminal, Friend #2 puts the DVD in a DMP kiosk's DVD drive (which can eat the disc), likes it, rips it and transfers it by FTP to DMP-enabled "media-less" online storage hosting he maintains. The kiosk eats his disc. Once Friend #2 lands at his destination and checks into his hotel, he downloads a copy of the file and so the hosted version self-deletes off his DMP-enabled server. After annotating the file with the words "Go Vincent!" he sends it back to the trusted loading queue for Vincent's primary ID.
Political Outcry (End-User UC)
Dora is very upset that a local politician repeatedly denies having made statements a day or two after he has made them and so she publicly identifies the discrepancy, thereby causing persistent copies to be kept of the politician's statements. Until Dora initiated this procedure, the politician had been abusing DMP's DRM features by causing his copyright-protected statements to self-delete with a time-out command so all copies kept vanishing, but now no more. Regional authorities were thereby able to consider whether the discrepancies claimed by Dora warranted investigation.
Regional Granularity (Regulation UC)
Vincent and Dora coincidentally live next to each other on either side of a national border and so cannot receive the same DMP DRM-managed material because of national distribution restrictions.
Trusted Campus Network (DCBM UC)
A dozen college friends like to share files, videoconference and arrange get-togethers. Their combined data includes a wide variety of Digital Content Business Models (DCBM) and user permission sets. When they are together in a restaurant, some of their combined data can be played in the table's DMP player and some can't, depending on whether the content's authors allow that or not. The friends also have various means to share files all day, for example over sophisticated data phones they carry around including to class. Some files can travel everywhere the friends do single-copy-only, some files allow multiple copies, some annoying files have bad restrictions on them but are kept by the college students anyway. Much of their data can be stored in a DMP DRM-managed area on the campus computer network.
It was noted that cases of TRUs applying to something other than end-users include distribution channels, aggregators, data warehousing, and network bandwidth providers.
submitted by Albhy Galuten Aug. 3, 2003
(see "Regional Granularity" example in 1 above)
Regarding copying; again the problem is the bluntness of the tool. We need better granularity of control. Imagine I put out a movie and I say that anyone can use up to a total of 10 minutes made of clips not to exceed 4 minutes each in length for the purpose of reviews or commentary. The person using it must assert that this is their purpose. This assertion must be anonymous unless abuse is discovered and then a court order can be used to pierce the cloak of anonymity (e.g. they are collecting the clips and making posters that to sell, I right they do not have). Now, say someone wants to use a longer clip for some reasonable purpose. There are two possible outcomes: (1) The restriction is enforced by DRM and the user has to sue the content owner so that the courts resolve the issue; or (2) There is a mechanism whereby someone who wants a "fair use" exception registers their use with a centrally managed (government?) service and is presumed to have permission, these registrations are forwarded electronically and anonymously to the content owner, if they believe it is an inappropriate use, they can ask for a restraining order. Ultimately DRM will be capable of managing tremendous granularity but it will require multiple levels of control.
submitted by Craig Schultz Oct. 15 & 16
This describes the Transferability TRU (note that this bolded designation and those listed at the end of this UC describe requirements and are provided in section 5 below) concerned with the legitimate transfer, sale, loan or destruction of legitimately acquired content. Although the concept is not universally supported/mandated by law in all regions or locales, a United States of American legal code, covers related concepts under the commonly used term "The First Sale Doctrine". The exact wording of this can be found in Legal Code Title 17 - "COPYRIGHT"; Chapter 1 - "SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT", Section 109 - "Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord".
It should be noted that upon reading the referenced legal code, the scenario described below would likely be deemed an illegal transfer unless the transfer, or method of transfer was authorised by the copyright owner. In other words, the First Sale Doctrine does not apply to digital content either associated or bound to a given physical media or separate therefrom, as it does to books and other copyrighted works.
Scenario: I buy a book, "The rise and rise of DMP" by Dr. Leonardo Chiariglione and also pay for and download a video made based on the book from Ganges.com. A friend of mine, Phil, who is still not finished reading Dr. Chiariglione's epic saga of the wandering stop start path of Digital Media, Riding the Media Bits, wants to take a break from all the reading and catch a bit of the new video. So, I give him my copy on loan, he watches it, and returns it. But, just like the book, Phil and I can't watch the same video at the same time, unless one of us goes to the others house which is not likely because he lives on the Left Coast and I live in Japan. Now, to make a copy for Phil, I go to my flashy new DMP DRM compliant home entertainment center, certified both compliant and secure by "Don's Security Auditing", and call up the media library menu and then call up the Check in/out menu. On the Check in/out menu, I choose the title to check out, choose to check it out to DMP DRM compliant Secure media, certified compliant and secure by "Harry's Security Specialists", because Phil is on the end of a thin straw connection speed wise. I then select Temporary because I am going to get the video back and hit the Do-it button. I see a counter bar creeping up to 100%, out pops the Secure media card and I send it to Phil.
But, although I pushed a couple of menu buttons and it did its thing, what I didn't know or see was what its thing was that it was doing. Besides writing the video to the Secure media, it waited to verify the data to ensure it was complete and accurate and then before ejecting the media, it revokes my right to access the video until I get the Secure media back. Also, since there were no restrictions when I bought it, there was only the need to copy the Rights expression stating that anyone could use it on the Condition that it be checked in to a DMP DRM compliant device certified compliant and secure using either Don's or Harry's services.
Now, the carrier pigeon arrives at Phil's and he gingerly cleans the bird droppings off and inserts it into his portable DMP DM player and watches the video. But, what Phil doesn't see happening in the background is that his DMP DM player authenticated the Secure media and since the authentication passed, the DMP DM player knows it is a valid and ligitimate copy of the video and also the Secure media knows that the DMP DM player was certified by Harry's service.
A listing of the specific requirements needed to support the First Sale TRU:
Provider independence - Although the example given for this requirement does not directly relate to the process I outlined, this requirement would still be necessary so that the governing DRM changes from how the content was imported, to the governing DRM of how the content is used and accessed on a device once imported. Having to try to support every possible distribution method specific DRM on every possible device is what we have now and doesn't work. Import it and then it is Device DRM. (At least that is my vision)
Transmission-agnostic - If I instead wanted to send Phil the video using the Internet instead of a carrier pigeon.
Trust relationship functionality - The most important aspect of any business and/or its distribution system is trust. Auditing is the most important aspect of trust in a widely distributed system.
Inter-implementation transfer functionality - This is how the video is transferred from my system to the Secure media and then from the Secure media to Phil's device.
Pass-around TRU - Can't think of why this one is needed. ;-) Seriously though, it could seem that with this one, the rest are not needed but it is the rest that makes this one possible in the first place. In an earlier version, pass-around TRU read: "DMP DRM shall technically support the implementation of the loan, transfer by intent (including by inheritance or last will and testament), or deletion of DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files." This is included here because it specifies additional details that apply equally while being somewhat different.
Device-choice TRU - This is clearly involved.
Anonymity TRU - In case the pigeon wants to watch the video on its way over the Pacific.
submitted by Jerome Barthelemy Oct. 19
The right to reputation traditionnally prohibits one person from claiming another's work. Suppose a student having to produce a study on the state-of-the-art in DRM systems. Having some delay producing the study, he decides to make a compilation of different extracts of articles he can find in the Digital Library on the campus. Unfortunately, the new DMP-compliant DRM system just installed in the Library doesn't allow him to do that. The student can easily copy and paste extracts of the given articles, since the new DMP-compliant DRM system respects the right to quote. But unfortunately for the student, each of these extracts are perfectly identified, original articles can be retrieved from there, and original authors can be identified.
submitted by Jerome Barthelemy Oct. 19
The right to integrity ensures that the original document produced by its author cannot be changed in any manner without the consent of the author. Maurice Clavel, a French philosopher, is required to participate to a public debate on the TV. He has produced a video report related to the topic being debated, this report must be presented during the public debate. In this report, he makes some critical assumptions related to relationships between the French President and the French Resistance during the Second World War. The TV producers having strong relationships with the President, they are strongly tempted to delete this unpleasant part. In the old story, during the public debate, which is broadcasted live, Maurice Clavel is surprised to discover that the critical part of his report disappeared. He makes a scandal, leaving the debate with these - now historical - words: "Messieurs les censeurs, bonsoir!" With a system compliant with right to integrity, the producers cannot cut the critical part of the report, and there is no scandal.
Applying to both 2.2 and 2.3, as a first consequence of these rights on the design of a DRM system, the implementation of the TRU to quote must respect author's rights to integrity and reputation: Quoting an extract from existing material doesn't allow the actor making the quote to make changes in that extract. The extract should be an "identified item" with its own metadata (author, title...) and identification.
submitted by Craig Schultz Oct. 20
Although this is not necessarily a "Rights" issue, it does impact User interfaces and considering users getting "nailed" by the fine print, this should be fair game. Here is a preliminary Use case that could use some refinement. I would have posted this as a Contribution instead but there is less discussion on Contributions than things posted to the reflector :-( so I post it here so no one is caught unaware. Jane Doe goes to her local Voigin Records store to buy the latest Secure media release of "Louise in chains"'s newest hit single, "Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks." While at the store, she goes to a Sample Media Station (SMS) and calls up the single on the menu. While she is listening to the track the SMS also displays what she can do with the track if she purchases. In the list of things that she can do, she sees that there is no restriction on the number of times she can listen to it or when she can listen to it. She also sees that she can play it on any DMP DRM compliant and certified secure device.
submitted by Don Marti, esp. Oct. 14
An extensive number of scenarios apply to dissenters or dissidents and some rights are considered by many to be morally essential, often considered to fall under "fair use." Don is committed to being a vigilant guardian of "fair use" in its broader sense and offered, inter alia, the following:
Time shifting has an impact for future fair use. How do you take an excerpt from a time-shifting-proof broadcast and incorporate it in a future documentary? For example if a politician said: "We've always been at war with Eastasia, and you can't time-shift yesterday's speech to show I ever said otherwise." The US presidential campaign season is coming up. Let's see how many news broadcasts and campaign ads use the incumbents' earlier statements, time-shifted.
A related example was offered by Phil in which copyrighted material needed to be preserved as criminal evidence or in order to serve as the basis of a civil judiciary complaint.
Identification of the need for Digital Content Business Models (DCBMs) included agreement that these could equally be considered benefits to users.
A passing DCBM was offered by Spencer Cheng Oct. 30, that is, "Tracking and maintaining of what rights an user has acquired on digital content in perpetuity is of course a commercial opportunity."
The initial ad hoc list of DCBMs was as follows: promotional access; fee-based single use access with no copying privileges; lifetime non-transferable personal use access; general personal and home-network use with transfer and loan privileges; licensed rental for distribution in a corporate setting; and favorable terms available for non-profit, educational and archival institutions
submitted offlist by Melanie Dulong de Rosnay Oct. 27
I understood "promotion" as the advertising between creation and edition, and not as promotional rate "western video are free tonight". A producer wants to promote a new work. He will send it to relevant journals and programs press agents together with promotion and biographical information. Journalists will value the work and announce its release. They have to be able to:
These functionalities are related to the broader right to quote TRU.
Readers of the review also have to be able to:
Maybe readers have to be also able to
But the producer would like to avoid journalists to reuse the work for another purpose than news reporting, critical comment and excerpt. In particular, the producer fears to find the work on P2P networks earlier than through authorized distributor. Therefore, he identifies each promotional copy by marking it in order to dishearten and identify leaks. The mark could be the name of the journal or the mention 'promotion copy - other uses restricted'. A mark insertion on the Digital Media may ensure visible traceability. If it is not possible to add a visible mark because it would harm the integrity of the work in relation to its author moral rights, it should be possible to add the same information in a watermark or within a Rights Expression. Nevertheless, a Rights Expression shall not restrict the access to a work for promotion use to journalists regarding their identity or affiliation. Indeed, if a critic once issued a negative review, the producer may be tempted *not* to send him a promotional copy and press freedom would be threatened.
submitted by Sandy Ressler Oct. 16
This Use Case takes into account types of things that CreativeCommons.org deals with and should be addressed. Mary, a budding filmmaker is producing her first independent film. She's just a student but has put together a small number of financial backers and is spending the better part of a year working on the project. There is no way she wants to simply give the film away. Mary is also quite savvy about the Internet and the possibilities of using the Web to promote her work. She want to create a bunch of trailers and spread them to a variety of sites on the net, and explicitly allow people to take them for whatever they want to do, as long as they credit her, and don't make any changes. A bunch of the segments should prove useful to people making sales pitches and she figures what a great way to help spread good word-of-mouth. Her backers, however, want assurance that she's not giving away the whole store. In addition the ISPs and webmasters of the sites she's interested in want to know that they don't have to put the content behind any type of secure content management system. Mary is also wise beyond her years and knows that the type of film she's produced will only make money for one or two years, tops. She want the entire movie to be usable by other creatives in five years with the same restrictions as the trailers and to be put into the public domain after the traditional "founders copyright" [editors note: this phrase did not pass without objection] of 14 years. Fortunately the new DMP DRM system let's her license segments of the movie explicitly with the right to clip including the restriction of not-for-profit and to attribute the source and to not tamper with the content. In addition the copyright expiration time frame can also be explicitly specified, show Mary is happy that her work can be used in perpetuity by lots of creatives.
submitted by David Jephcott esp. Oct. 19
I think the path from the "intended experience of the creator" to the "actual experience of the listener or viewer" is complex and at all stages will involve different rights of use (manipulation). We could take any stage or stadium event and take it step by step through all the principle stages of original creation, recording, editing, promotion,local dubbing, distribution and presentation to the end user using MPEG 4 and see how each one plays out. Lets start with some definition of terminology we can use.
A) An "event" is the termination or start of an "activity"
B) An "event" may or may not involve the passage of ownership, rights, etc.
C) An "activity" is a process and/or period of ownership or permission to hold or alter (manipulate), etc.
1) Order from Publisher or Film Company, etc. (event)
2) Writing or authoring content (activity)
3) Passing of content to Publisher or Film Company (event)
4) Printing or Film Production (shooting)(activity)
4a) Contracts with actors or audience to permit image to be used and displayed in public (activity)
5) Printing or Film Product finished and handed over to distribution (event)
6) Excerpt and trailer production and distribution (activity)
7) Promotional and Sales (activity)
8) Purchase of distribution rights (event)
9) Localisation (activity)
10)Localisation finished (event)
11)Channel distribution (activity)
11b)Outlet Upfeeds (streaming video to cinemas and broadcasters)
12)Channel Distribution finished (event)
13)Public/Targetted Audience Distribution Started (event)
14)Public/Targetted Audience Distribution (activity)
14a) On mechanical support available in shops (event)
14b) On Internet for download (event)
14c) Available for VOD or Channel viewing (event)
15)Public/Targetted Audience Viewing started (event)
16)Public/Targetted Audience Viewing Process (activity)
16a) Recording Modifying etc
17)Resale and Hiring of copy etc
If we can live with these milestone for this exercise we should analyse the following at each event and activity.
A) Is the content owned or hired ? (holder?)
B) What are the rights of that present holder and when does this right start and cease ?
C) What is the compensation flow in exchange of ownership or use ?
D) How much modification or localisation is allowed and in exchange for what?
E) How much duplication is allowed and under what criteria ?
F) How do the time and space issues play out with that activity ?
In case of a film shot in digital streaming event 5 is the start of controlled duplication, editing and distribution of the content. From 13 onwards we are in the realms of the unknown and 16 and 17 are obviously to be expanded substantially.
Suggestions for expansion or modification of these milestones are welcome, especially there will be a need to "drill down" for each one.
excerpt from Craig Schultz contribution http://www.chiariglione.org/contrib/031023Schultz01.htm
As improvements in Home theatre technology increase and the costs of owning such systems continue to drop, more and more homes are being outfitted with systems capable of rivaling the quality of Theatrical presentations. Although the quality is there, the experience of a true theatrical presentation will never be experienced in the home for many reason which have nothing to do with quality or technology. And so, the home theatre is not expected to ever be a threat to theatrical presentations. However, considering that less than half of the feature productions each year actually make it to the theatres, with the rest going to ancillary markets and that currently consumers have basically two choices for new releases, theatres or home video, there exist basically the high end market and the low end market with nothing in between. The home theatre market could provide a middle level outlet for marginal titles that may fail in theatres but consumed too much in production costs to be relegated to the video market as well as titles destined for the video market which may benefit from an improved quality viewing as made possible by home theatre systems. But, in neither case would the respective markets be disadvantaged as they could become the distributors for new home theatre content much as they are now with the theatres enjoying first presentation rights to theatrical presentations and video having first distribution rights for titles selected for the video market and secondary distribution rights for titles selected for theatres. Assuming an average ramping up of the installed base for home theatres over the next 7 to 10 years and a moderate 25% of the titles originally being selected from each of the two markets, the home theatre business, assuming current sales figures, can be projected to reach $5 billion/year.
excerpt from Craig Schultz contribution http://www.chiariglione.org/contrib/031023Schultz01.htm
Since the VoD service is virtually identical to a video outlet that delivers, there are two main advantages. One advantage would be in cost savings due to reduced demands on floor space as well as costs for the physical media. The second advantage being increased sales due to consumers not only being able to acquire titles without leaving their home but also being able to give in to spur of the moment purchasing more easily. Although the cost savings due to reduced floor space [missing word here] the maintenance and handling of physical media would be considered significant, that of course would be offset by a certain degree by the need for media and rights servers although even then, as the market expands, those costs will reduce over time as well. Based on conservative estimates from the above, within a 4 to 7 year period of time the VoD market could bring an additional 30% to 40% to the current video market which is currently almost a $20 billion/year business.
The classic case of two everywhere IDs (interoperable devices) in the middle of nowhere trying to exchange information (for example on lightweight PDs and/or notebooks), in this case information managed by DMP DRM (see "Protected Gobi" example in 1 above). This could be accomplished with either full connectivity to negotiate licenses or else something LANish between the two DMP IDs. As Craig put it Oct. 26, "As long as the full rights set travels along with the DM or can be accessed separately, one should be able to do what one wants or needs to do just by performing the access on a capable device."
Public domain is an important area for both commercial and public policy reasons. We invite the digital library and archival community to submit Use Cases for this. For example there are current practices with regards to metadata that should interoperate.
Use Case analyses prepared in development for the Digital Media Manifesto are
Use study no. 01: Digital library
Use study no. 02: Home User
Use case No. 03: E Learning
Use case no. 04: Satellite Pay TV
Use case no. 05: Music distribution
Use case no. 06: Terrestrial broadcasting
Use case no. 07: Radio
Use case no. 08: Movies
DMP DRM shall technically enable end users to access DMP DRM content independently of the provider of content.
Example - An end-user receives a governed terrestrial broadcast and a subscription service from a cable provider using the same receiver.
A DMP compliant bitstream/file shall be transmission-agnostic, able to exist as a file or be transmitted by wire or wireless, and it shall by packetisable over TCP/IP and other packet-based transport protocols, e.g. MPEG-2 TS.
Example - Users of fully DMP DRM-governed home networks are able to e-mail each other DMP DRM-governed files as attachments to their e-mail, although FTP is an effective alternative for larger files.
DMP DRM shall support the persistent association of Rights Expressions and Conditions to DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files.
Example - REL data remain the same as multiple users exchange ownership of an item of digital media.
DMP DRM shall support the persistent and unique identification of DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files and their derivatives.
Example - Twenty years after the death of a famous composer, his analogue and digital belongings are given to a library. It is possible to readily identify which digital items are DMP DRM encoded. It should also be possible to readily use these files, and details for such use remains part of each file's digital structure.
DMP DRM shall provide specifications for DMP DRM compliant implementations supporting the following functionalities as determined by rights expressions and conditions associated with a given DMP DRM compliant bitstream/file.
DMP DRM shall support trust relationships to be determined as existing between DMP DRM compliant devices, applications, services, and DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files.
Example - An already purchased good may be downloaded from a website because a trust relationship permits the data access and transfer.
DMP DRM shall support the transfer over unsecure channels of governed DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files while in a cleartext state.
Example - Governed content is stored on a secure home server in the clear and then transmitted over wireless using DTCP to the family entertainment system. It is stored and transmitted as cleartext but the unsecure channel that it is transmitted across is made secure.
MP DRM shall support a DMP bitstream/file to exist in a DRM governed state unless stored in or accessed from a DMP DRM compliant device or virtual environment.
Example - A DMP DRM-governed video file has been burned onto a DVD-R. It can be accessed and used in a home network with full connectivity.
DMP DRM shall support the persistent binding or association of an individual person, user or other entity with DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files
Example - Functional support for an artist who creates a commissioned work and immediately gives it to his patron on completion with the stipulation that all successive enjoyers of rights shall be informed of this previous chain of ownership. Also see death of a famous composer example above (at 4. unique ID).
DMP DRM shall support the transfer and use of DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files between one given DMP DRM compliant DRM implementation and another DMP DRM compliant DRM implementation.
Example - Two musicians in the Gobi desert have audio-equipped tablet devices and are taking turns composing tracks for a song file. Whether through cords or wirelessly, they are able to exchange updated versions of the song file.
DMP DRM shall support the storage, transfer and use of DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files on non-DMP DRM compliant devices.
Example A CD-ROM drive manufactured before the DMP DRM specifications were available could still be used within a DMP DRM application through the use of DMP DRM compliant coding on the optical disc or a DMP DRM compliant "burning" application.
DMP DRM shall technically support the implementation of the following traditional rights and usages in a manner that is extendable for additional rights and is configurable to legal mandates imposed by regional jurisdictions.
DMP DRM shall technically support the implementation of the use of DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files for review, editorial or other critical works including the "right to quote".
Example - In a wide variety of DMP DRM governed media that includes text, when accessed on common consumer computing devices, it is always possible to copy at least two sentences of text to the Clipboard application, in the clear.
DMP DRM shall support the transfer of DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files from one DMP DRM compliant device to another with the secure removal from the first device.
Example - The musicians in the Gobi example (at 5.e. inter-implementation transfer functionality) however the data is completely transfered without a remnant each time the song file is exchanged.
DMP DRM shall technically support the implementation of the loan, transfer by intent (including by inheritance or last will and testament), or deletion of DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files.
Example - College dorm "yard sale" of used digital goods in order to raise money for a dorm event.
DMP DRM shall support the guarantee of continued access to ones DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files.
Example - After a catastrophic loss, such as fire or flood, a digital library can be reassembled because persistent rights and usage information exists outside the scope of data eliminated by the catastrophe.
DMP DRM shall support the ability to choose playback device.
Example - A guest brings a CD-R with a DMP DRM-governed file on it to a host's house, hoping the host will listen to it. The host puts the CD-R in a drive connected to the home network and is able to offer his guest a choice of hearing it through the stereo, the PC or the television.
DMP DRM shall support the acquisition and use of DMP DRM compliant bitstreams/files anonymously.
Example - A rebel dissident is able to gather useful information about freedoms and different forms of government without his own government immediately finding out and arresting him.
DMP DRM shall support the ability to access works whose copyright has expired.
Example - Time sensitivity and regional law configurations will allow cleartext access eventually, because DMP DRM can be capable of expiring according to a copyright protection schedule (ref. Henry Ryan research on regulatory ontology) and note regional law configuration granularity.