Rights Management Information
Chris_Brand at spectrumsignal.com
Fri Apr 5 14:00:06 EST 2002
Russell asked for thoughts on RMI, so I changed the subject accordingly.
I think you're right in saying that RMI that reflects moral rights is
probably ok, with some caveats.
1. If it's wrong or over-extensive, we should be able to correct it.
2. If it's used to invade privacy, we should be able to avoid that invasion
(I'm thinking of a system which demands to access some central database
before deciding to actually play a file).
3. The issue of derivative works needs to be addressed - should the
derivative work include the original RMI ?
4. "RMI" is the wrong description of the stuff that is reasonable.
The reasonable stuff is "Attribution Information" and has nothing
to do with Rights Management. "Rights Management" implies TPM
(the "Management" is being done by something).
5. Any inclusion of monopoly privilege information under the category
of RMI is wrong.
(There is a definition of RMI in the WIPO stuff and I think it was
also in the original consultation paper from the government. We
need to check whether it contains monopoly privilege information
6. Removal as a result of format-shifting should be ok (assuming the new format
can't maintain the information). This prevents RMI being used to
prevent format-shifting (which is often necessary for libraries,
access for the impaired, and preservation of our culture and history).
That's all I can think of right now.
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/
More information about the Discuss