Rights Management Information

[Chris Brand]

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
	or not).
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.

Chris
--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/