Future research - Effective Rights Exporting Process - Towards system interoperability of digit

14 years have passed since the author started to accumulate knowledge on DRM.

Many aspects of DRM have changed ever since. The author simply presents his humble opinion on the expectation of future research of the same domain.

Rights may not be persistently stored on the client side anymore due to the development of connectivity and smart hardware. Currently, rights stored on the client side still play an important role in the offline usage of the content on devices that could be offline. However, more and more rights will be provided for online mode only, video on demand with a subscription model is a good example. In such case, no rights need to be stored on the client side. The only action needed from the client side is to authenticate the end user’s identity. Rights can be granted on demand from the server side after the end user has been authenticated. In such a case, rights exporting for DRM system interoperability is needed only on the server side, which significantly reduces the industry effort and complexity of DRM system interoperability.

DRM interoperability will be improved by the emerging of the universal digital identity for an end user. Currently, each DRM system maintains its own identity management, which brings additional barrier for DRM interoperability. With a universal digital identity solution, each DRM system does not need to handle the identity management itself anymore. On the other hand, the end user will benefit from a universal identity account. For example, rights to all the content he or she purchased will be visible under one account management regardless of the content type and its content provider.

Rights exporting will be demanded by rights trading among rights holders. With the development of digitalization era, end users will own more and more rights in digital format. Pawnshop for digital content means trading rights of the digital content. In order to maximize the value of the rights from the end users’

perspectives, rights trading can be a demanding service. On the other hand, content providers may be able to attract more potential users or discover an additional revenue source if a trading platform shares the revenue with the original content providers.

REFERENCES

AAP. US publishing industry annual survey. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://bookstats.org/pdf/BOOKSTATS_2013_GENERAL_PUBLIC_WEBSITE _HIGHLIGHTS.pdf

Adner, R., Chen, J., & Zhu, F. (2014). Platform Competition and Compatibility Decisions:

The Case of Apple’s iPad vs. Amazon’s Kindle.

Amberg, M., & Schröder, M. (2007). E-business models and consumer expectations for digital audio distribution. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(3), 291-303.

Apple iBooks. Frequently asked questions about iBooks. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT5557

Apple iTunes Store. About renting movies from the iTunes Store. Retrieved February 21, 2016, from https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201611

Apple Press Info. Changes. Coming to the iTunes Store. (2009). Retrieved April 5, 2015, from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-the-iTunes-Store.html

Armstrong, T. K. (2006). Digital rights management and the process of fair use. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 20, 49.

Azad, M. M., Ahmed, A. H. S., & Alam, A. (2010). Digital rights management. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 10(11), 24-33.

Beebe, B. (2008). An empirical study of US copyright fair use opinions, 1978-2005.

University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 549-624.

Bläsi, C., & Rothlauf, F. (2013). On the interoperability of eBook formats. Report for European Booksellers Federation and International Booksellers Federation presented to the EU Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, April.

Boccon-Gibod, G., Boeuf, J., & Lacy, J. (2009, January). Octopus: an application independent DRM toolkit. In Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, 2009. CCNC 2009. 6th IEEE (pp. 1-7). IEEE.

Brown, I. (2003). Implementing the European Union Copyright Directive.

Burk, D. L., & Cohen, J. E. (2001). Fair use infrastructure for copyright management systems. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 15, 41-83.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online. The definition of effectiveness. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Cheng, S., & Rambhia, A. (2003). DRM and Standardization–Can DRM Be Standardized?

Digital rights management, 162-177.

Chong, C. N., Corin, R., Etalle, S., Hartel, P., Jonker, W., & Law, A. (2003, September).

LicenseScript: A novel digital rights language and its semantics. In Web Delivering of Music, 2003. 2003 WEDELMUSIC. Proceedings. Third International Conference on (pp. 122-129). IEEE.

Chu, H. (2015). Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis.

Library & Information Science Research, 37(1), 36-41.

Cambridge Business English Dictionary (2015). Digital rights management. Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved March 21, 2015, from http://dictionary.

cambridge.org/ dictionary/business-english/digital-rights-management

Cooper, B., & Montague, P. (2005, January). Translation of rights expressions. In Proceedings of the 2005 Australasian workshop on Grid computing and e-research-Volume 44 (pp. 137-144). Australian Computer Society, Inc.

DEG. DEG Report: U.S. Consumer Spending by format 2014. (2015, January 5). Retrieved April 4, 2015, from http://degonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2014_-DEG-Home-Entertainment-Spending-Final-External_1-5-2015.pdf

DEG. DEG 2014 year-end cover note. (2015, January 6). Retrieved April 4, 2015, from

http://degonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/DEG-2014-YE-cover-note2.pdf

Diehl, E. (2013, January 3). CORAL consortium is dissolved. Retrieved May 30, 2015, from https://eric-diehl.com/coral-consortium-is-dissolved/

Directive 2001/29/EC. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. (2001, May 22). Retrieved April 17, 2015, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32001L0029 Dittmann, J., Stabenau, M., & Steinmetz, R. (1998, September). Robust MPEG video

watermarking technologies. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp. 71-80). ACM.

DMCA. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. (1998). Retrieved April 17, 2015, from http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

DPRL Manual. (1998, November 13). Retrieved May 2, 2015, from http://xml.coverpages.

org/ DPRLmanual-XML2.html

Dufft, N., Stiehler, A., Vogeley, D., & Wichmann, T. (2005). Digital music usage and DRM.

Results from European Consumer Survey, INDICARE project report.

Dusollier, S. (2003). Fair use by design in the European copyright directive of 2001.

Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 51-55.

Elkin-Koren, N. (2007). Making Room for Consumers under the DMCA. Berkeley Tech.

LJ, 22, 1119.

Fair Use, Copyright Law of the United States of America. (1976). Retrieved April 26, 2015, from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Fallenbock, M. (2002). On the Technical Protection of Copyright: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the European Community Copyright Directive and Their Anticircucmvention Provisions. International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 7, 1-60.

Gasser, U., & Palfrey, J. G. (2007). Breaking down digital barriers: when and how ICT interoperability drives innovation. Berkman Center Research Publication, (2007-8).

Geer, D. (2004). Digital rights technology sparks interoperability concerns. Computer, 37(12), 20-2.

Guth, S., Neumann, G., & Strembeck, M. (2003, October). Experiences with the enforcement of access rights extracted from ODRL-based digital contracts. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp. 90-102).

ACM.

Halpern, J. Y., & Weissman, V. (2008). A formal foundation for XrML. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 55(1), 4.

Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination.

Sage.

Hauser, T., & Wenz, C. (2003). DRM under attack: weaknesses in existing systems. In Digital Rights Management (pp. 206-223). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Heileman, G. L., & Jamkhedkar, P. A. (2005, November). DRM interoperability analysis from the perspective of a layered framework. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp. 17-26). ACM.

Hilty, M., Pretschner, A., Basin, D., Schaefer, C., & Walter, T. (2007). A policy language for distributed usage control. In Computer Security–ESORICS 2007 (pp. 531-546).

Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Hugenholtz, P. B., & Senftleben, M. (2011). Fair use in Europe: in search of flexibilities.

Available at SSRN 1959554.

IANA. (2016, February) Media Types. Retrieved Feb 28th, 2016, from http://

www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

Iannella, R. (2004). The Open Digital Rights Language: XML for Digital Rights Management. Information Security Technical Report, 9(3), 47-55.

Intertrust. Marlin DRM. Retrieved Jan 6, 2016, from http://www.intertrust.com/

technology/marlin-drm/

Jamkhedkar, P. A., & Heileman, G. L. (2004, October). DRM as a layered system. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp. 11-21).

ACM.Chicago.

Jamkhedkar, P. A., & Heileman, G. L. (2008, October). A formal conceptual model for rights. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp.

29-38). ACM.

Jamkhedkar, P. A., Heileman, G. L., & Lamb, C. C. (2010, October). An interoperable usage management framework. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp. 73-88). ACM.

Jamkhedkar, P. A., Heileman, G. L., & Martinez-Ortiz, I. (2006, October). The problem with rights expression languages. In Proceedings of the ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp. 59-68). ACM.

Jeong, Y., Yoon, K., & Ryou, J. (2005). A trusted key management scheme for digital rights management. ETRI journal, 27(1), 114-117.

Jobs, S., Thoughts on Music, APPLE, Feb. 6, 2007, retrieved April 4, 2015, from

http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/2007-02-06_apple_jobs_thoughts_on_music.pdf.

Kalker, T., Samtani, R., & Wang, X. (2012). UltraViolet: Redefining the Movie Industry?

IEEE MultiMedia, (1), 7-11.

Keoh, S. L. (2011). Marlin: toward seamless content sharing and rights management.

Communications Magazine, IEEE, 49(11), 174-180.

Koenen, R. H., Lacy, J., MacKay, M., & Mitchell, S. (2004). The long march to interoperable digital rights management. Proceedings of the IEEE, 92(6), 883-897.

Kwok, S. H. (2002). Digital rights management for the online music business. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 3(3), 17-24.

Leeson, P. T., & Coyne, C. J. (2005). Economics of Computer Hacking, The. JL Econ. &

Pol'y, 1, 511.

Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9(1), 181-212.

Liu, Q., Safavi-Naini, R., & Sheppard, N. P. (2003, January). Digital rights management for content distribution. In Proceedings of the Australasian information security workshop conference on ACSW frontiers 2003-Volume 21 (pp. 49-58). Australian Computer Society, Inc.

Liu, J. P. (2003). DMCA and the Regulation of Scientific Research, The. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 18, 501.

Lloyd, J. W. (2012). Foundations of logic programming. Springer Science & Business Media.

Lu, W., Decision Making in DRM System Rights Exporting, Jun 2007, retrieved April 4, 2015, from https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/78081/gradu01932.pdf.

Lu, W., Zhang, Z., & Nummenmaa, J. (2010-1). A generic data model with a decomposition operation for DRM interoperability. In Wireless Communications, Networking and Information Security (WCNIS), 2010 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 630-634). IEEE.

Lu, W., Zhang, Z., & Nummenmaa, J. (2010-2). Rights decomposition for DRM interoperability. International Journal of Wireless Communications and Networking (IJWCN), 2(2) (pp. 139-147).

Lu, W., Zhang, Z., & Nummenmaa, J. (2010-3). U.S. Patent Application No. 12/965,107.

Lu, W., Zhang, Z., & Nummenmaa, J. (2012-1). Deploying adaptation in rights exporting.

In Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), 2012 IEEE (pp. 522-526). IEEE.

Lu, W., Zhang, Z., & Nummenmaa, J. (2012-2). Characterizing trustworthy digital rights exporting. In Perspectives in Business Informatics Research (pp. 85-95). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Lu, W., Zhang, Z., & Nummenmaa, J. (2013, October). Decision-making in rights exporting:

the integrated process. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital Ecosystems (pp. 219-226). ACM.

Lu, W., Nummenmaa, J., & Zhang, Z. (2015). Passive Condition Pre-enforcement for Rights Exporting. In Perspectives in Business Informatics Research (pp. 241-254). Springer International Publishing

Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 159.

Marlin. Marlin specification (Aug 11, 2011). Retrieved March 21, 2015, from http://www.marlin-community.com/develop/downloads/specifications

Meléndez-Juarbe, H. (2009). DRM Interoperability. BUJ Sci. & Tech. L., 15, 181.

Microsoft PlayReady (2008, July). Microsoft PlayReady Content Access Technology, Retrieved Dec 24, 2015, from http://download.microsoft.com/download/

b/8/3/b8316f44-e7a9-48ff-b03a-44fb92a73904/microsoft%20playready%20 content%20access%20technology-whitepaper.docx

Microsoft PlayReady (2015, April). Microsoft PlayReady: Content Protection Technology, Retrieved May 24, 2015, from http://www.microsoft.com/playready/documents/

Microsoft PlayReady Client (2015, April). Microsoft PlayReady: Developing PlayReady Clients, Retrieved May 24, 2015, from http://www.microsoft.com/

playready/documents/

Mulligan, D. K., Erickson, J. S., Samuelson, P., Dusollier, S., Felten, E. W., Fox, B. L., &

LaMacchia, B. A. (2003). Digital rights management and fair use by design.

Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 30-33.

Mulligan, D. K., Han, J., & Burstein, A. J. (2003, October). How DRM-based content delivery systems disrupt expectations of personal use. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp. 77-89). ACM.

Open Mobile Alliance (2011, April 19). OMA DRM V2.2. Retrieved March 21, 2015, from http://technical.openmobilealliance.org/Technical/technical-information/release-program/current-releases/drm-v2-2.

Park, J., & Sandhu, R. (2002, June). Towards usage control models: beyond traditional access control. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies (pp. 57-64). ACM.

Parrott, D. (2001). Requirements for a rights data dictionary and rights expression language.

Technical Re.

Polo, J., Prados, J., & Delgado, J. (2004, April). Interoperability between ODRL and MPEG-21 REL. In ODRL Workshop (pp. 65-76).

Pucella, R., & Weissman, V. (2006). A formal foundation for ODRL. arXiv preprint cs/0601085.

RIAA. News and Notes on 2014 RIAA Music Industry Shipment and Revenue Statistics.

Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://riaa.com/media/D1F4E3E8-D3E0-FCEE-BB55-FD8B35BC8785.pdf

Ritala, S. (2013). Pandora & Spotify: Legal Issues and Licensing Requirements for Interactive and Non-Interactive Internet Radio Broadcasters. IDEA, 54, 23.

Rosenblatt, W., Mooney, S., & Trippe, W. (2001). Digital rights management: business and technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Rump, N. (2004). Can digital rights management be standardized? Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE, 21(2), 63-70.

Safavi-Naini, R., Sheppard, N. P., & Uehara, T. (2004, October). Import/export in digital rights management. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp. 99-110). ACM.

Samuelson, P. (2003). DRM {and, or, vs.} the law. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 41-Schultz, R. (2012). The many facades of DRM. MISC HS, 5, 58-64. 45.

Schmidt, A. U., Tafreschi, O., & Wolf, R. (2004, May). Interoperability challenges for DRM systems. In IFIP/GI workshop on virtual goods, Ilmenau, Germany.

Senftleben, M. (2010). Bridging the Differences between Copyright's Legal Traditions–The Emerging EC Fair Use Doctrine. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 57(3), 521-552.

Simmons, G. J. (1979). Symmetric and asymmetric encryption. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 11(4), 305-330.

Sinha, R. K., Machado, F. S., & Sellman, C. (2010). Don't think twice, it's all right: Music piracy and pricing in a DRM-free environment. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 40-54.

Smid, M. E., & Branstad, D. K. (1988). Data encryption standard: past and future.

Proceedings of the IEEE, 76(5), 550-559.

Sony Picture, Pay per view & video on demand. Retrieved February 21, 2016, from http://www.sonypictures.com/tv/ppv/index.html

Spotify, Spotify premium. Retrieved February 21, 2016, from http://www.spotify.com Thomas, T., Emmanuel, S., Subramanyam, A. V., & Kankanhalli, M. S. (2009). Joint

watermarking scheme for multiparty multilevel DRM architecture. Information Forensics and Security, IEEE Transactions on, 4(4), 758-767.

Torraco, R. J. (1997). Theory-building research methods. Human resource development handbook: Linking research and practice, 114-137.

Torres, V., Serrão, C., Dias, M. S., & Delgado, J. (2008). Open DRM and the Future of Media. MultiMedia, IEEE, 15(2), 28-36.

Trivedi, P. (2009). Writing the Wrong: What the E-Book Industry Can Learn from Digital Music's Mistakes with DRM. JL & Pol'y, 18, 925. Chicago

UltraViolet. UltraViolet public specification v2.3. (Dec 2015). Retrieved Jan 6th, 2016, from http://www.uvcentral.com/page/ultraviolet-online-guide-homepage

Van Schyndel, R. G., Tirkel, A. Z., & Osborne, C. F. (1994, November). A digital watermark.

In Image Processing, 1994. Proceedings. ICIP-94., IEEE International Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 86-90). IEEE.

Wang, R., Shoshitaishvili, Y., Kruegel, C., & Vigna, G. (2013, August). Steal This Movie:

Automatically Bypassing DRM Protection in Streaming Media Services. In USENIX Security (pp. 687-702).

Wang, X., Lao, G., DeMartini, T., Reddy, H., Nguyen, M., & Valenzuela, E. (2002, November). XrML--eXtensible rights Markup Language. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM workshop on XML security (pp. 71-79). ACM.

Wang, X., De Martini, T., Wragg, B., Paramasivam, M., & Barlas, C. (2005). The MPEG-21 rights expression language and rights data dictionary. Multimedia, IEEE Transactions on, 7(3), 408-417.

W3C. W3C XML Schema. (May 2, 2001). Retrieved April 17, 2015, from http://www.w3c.org/XML/Schema

WIPO. WIPO Copyright Treaty. (1996, December 20). Retrieved April 17, 2015, from http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/

Rights Decomposition for DRM Interoperability

 

Rights Decomposition for DRM Interoperability

Wenhui Lu, Zheying Zhang and Jyrki Nummenmaa

Department of Computer Sciences, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampere, Finland

Abstract: The incompatibility of various DRM systems hampers the diffusion of DRM. To increase DRM interoperability, we propose a generic rights model which illustrates the internal constructs of rights. The model supports a decomposition operation, which allows the separation of different logical parts of rights. The decomposition provides a basis to improve interoperability between DRM systems, and to maximize rights exporting.

Keywords: Digital Rights Management (DRM), rights model, rights decomposition

I. INTRODUCTION

The demand for digital content services has been growing faster than expected. Various services have been deployed on the digital content services domain, such as digital TV, e-newspaper subscriptions, real-time driving maps and gaming.

Meanwhile, tremendous enhancements of data communication technologies allow service providers to distribute their content instantaneously to end users. Although these attractive services are technically feasible, there will not be more content providers until profits have been proven to be reachable and systematically secure. Moreover, end users are unlikely to pay for the service if they can access the contents freely and easily from the Internet. Well-defined business models are thus required to enable content marketing.

Digital Rights Management (DRM) [1], as an essential part of a business enabler, has been

language, the DRM solutions differ from each other.

Also, with the consideration of security, the implementation of DRM is strictly and confidential for the company. The nature of DRM leads to interoperability problems between different DRM solutions.

The fact that DRM systems do not interoperate with each other frustrates both content providers and end users. Content providers have to adapt their contents for different formats in order to fit into the business models based on different DRM systems. End users suffer from incompatibility problems for content usage between devices or software based on different DRM solutions. For example, an end user purchases a music file for his mobile phone but he might not be able to play it on his PC or iPod, simply because these devices deploy different DRM systems. Incompatibility problems appear even on the different versions of the DRM systems within the same standard. In order to solve the problem, we either need a generic DRM standard to unify the DRM solutions, or we have to deal with incompatibility between various DRM solutions.

A few mature and sophisticated DRM standards have been generated and well adopted by industry, such as Windows Media DRM [2], and Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) DRM version 2 [3]. However, the purpose of these is not to unify the DRM standards.

Wenhui Lu, Zheying Zhang, Jyrki Nummenmaa

 

140 International Journal of Wireless Communications and Networking, 2(2) Dec. 2010 created by differences between different systems.

Section II reviews related work; Section III introduces our proposal for the rights model and Section IV the related decomposition operation.

Section V contains conclusions.

An earlier less complete version of this paper [14]

has appeared in the Proceedings of the IEEE conference for wireless communications, networking and information security (WCNIS) in 2010.

II. RELATED WORK

As various DRM systems are continuously emerging, the lack of DRM interoperability becomes increasingly problematic. Many authors have raised discussions against DRM interoperability in general. They mainly focus on the techniques and approaches to interoperability in DRM systems.

Most studies remain on a strategic level to summarize the different ways to implement right transformation, and to predict possible categories of transformation results. They often lack studies of the basic constructs of rights in DRM, and rarely propose a concrete process to achieve the interoperability. A right forms the basis in DRM. It can be represented with permissions and conditions, together with a certain linkage between them. In order to come up with an efficient and effective technique for DRM interoperability, it is important to understand the basic constructs in DRM, and the different kinds of internal relationships. In this section, we sum up central research on generic approach to DRM interoperability.

Koenenet al. [4] proposed three approaches to interoperability in DRM systems. They are

• full format interoperability, requiring all participants (creators, distributors, manufactures, etc) to use the same data representation, encoding, protection scheme, trust management, key management, etc;

• connected interoperability, which translates content and rights from one DRM to another via online service offered by a third-party; and

• configuration-driven interoperability, whereby tools can be downloaded to the importing device, and configured in real time in order to use protected content from other DRM systems.

Full format interoperability is regarded as the ideal approach. However, it is not practical in the short term as it requires consolidation among all existing standards and an effort to build a standard that covers all the requirements that come from various environments. Configuration-driven interoperability is especially suitable for solutions between two specific systems since it forces the target DRM systems to change by way of installing tools. When dealing with interoperability between many systems, this approach shows its limitation, in that installations are required on all the DRM systems concerned. Also, tool installation implies the potential risk of security compromise. The

In document Effective Rights Exporting Process - Towards system interoperability of digital rights management (sivua 80-137)