Marc,

"Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@...> writes:

>    The requirement you posted states:
>
>    "The ontology should be implementable without the need to pay
>    royalties."
>
>    This statement does not distinguish between access to the
>    Ontology itself from "implementations" of the Ontology in
>    applications that may require charges even if it is simply to
>    recuperate costs. I think this distinction is necessary.

I think that your distinction is nonsense. Let me explain.

An ontology is a formal specification of a shared conceptualisation.

My requirement means that a formal specification of a shared
conceptualisation (of copyright) should be implementable without the
need to pay royalties.

As Leonardo said, the MVCO, a conceptualisation (of copyright) shared
by the MPEG members, will become a standard.

>    But even it that were to be made clear, I am not sure that such a
>    policy statement should be included as a technical requirement as
>    it says nothing about the viability of proposals.  There may very
>    well be cases where some sort of royalty may be involved and
>    where said royalties in and of themselves do not make the
>    proposals inviable.

My requirement is not a policy statement. The rationale is that the
MVCO standard should be independent of economical constraints.

The MVCO is a conceptualisation of copyright. Copyright is law. Law is
a system of rules to be enforced through a set of institutions. It
shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways [1].

There may be other standards where some sort of royalties are
involved. But how could an MVCO shape politics, economics and society
if users had to pay royalties to apply the law? I am afraid that the
"power to shape society in the digital space" would depend on the
value-chain users' economical power. Such a standard would diverge
from my understanding of law.

yours sincerely,
Martin Springer

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

>      _________________________________________________________________
>
>    De: mvco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com] En nombre de
>    Martin Springer
>    Enviado el: miércoles, 23 de abril de 2008 16:48
>    Para: mvco@yahoogroups.com
>    Asunto: Re: [mvco] Revised Requirement of Media Value Chains Ontology
>
>    Marc, All,
>    "Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@...> writes:
>    > "royalty free implementation" can be misunderstood as the
>    > ontology itself may be royalty free as in access to the OWL file
>    > however the application that implements the OWL cannot be
>    > guaranteed to be royalty free.
>    "Royalty free implementatable" requires that an implementation of the
>    ontology without paying royalties CAN EXIST. Please note that I did
>    not require that ANY implementation of the ontology should be royalty
>    free.
>    > Requierment 13 "Unfettered Access" covers much of what I
>    > understand is the intent behind your requirement for "royalty
>    > free implementation" in that technically access to the logic
>    > contained in say the OWL file needs to be easily accessible to
>    > any application in order for the ontology to gain widespread
>    > acceptance.
>    Three months ago I posted my requirement on this list. So far nobody
>    disagreed with it. Now you talk about "access to OWL files and
>    applications that implement the OWL". I don't understand what the
>    access to OWL files has to do with my requirement but I presume that
>    you misunderstood my requirement.
>    > Can you suggest a new wording that avoids confusing access to the
>    > ontology with access to implementations of the ontology?
>    I believe that my wording is very clear. Therefore I suggest that my
>    requirement will be added to the list without any changes.
>    yours sincerely,
>    Martin Springer
>    --
>    Martin Springer GPG-ID 1024D/23058565
>    Husemannstrasse 7 PHONE +49.30.41717658
>    D-10435 Berlin MOBILE +49.172.3036702
>
>    No virus found in this incoming message.
>    Checked by AVG.
>    Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1387 - Release Date:
>    19/4/2008 11:31
>
>    No virus found in this outgoing message.
>    Checked by AVG.
>    Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1387 - Release Date:
>    19/4/2008 11:31
>

--
Martin Springer         GPG-ID  1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7       PHONE  +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin          MOBILE +49.172.3036702

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1394 - Release Date: 23/4/2008 19:16

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1394 - Release Date: 23/4/2008 19:16

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1387 - Release Date: 19/4/2008 11:31

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1387 - Release Date: 19/4/2008 11:31

Marc, All,

"Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@...> writes:

>    "royalty free implementation" can be misunderstood as the
>    ontology itself may be royalty free as in access to the OWL file
>    however the application that implements the OWL cannot be
>    guaranteed to be royalty free.

"Royalty free implementatable" requires that an implementation of the
ontology without paying royalties CAN EXIST. Please note that I did
not require that ANY implementation of the ontology should be royalty
free.

>    Requierment 13 "Unfettered Access" covers much of what I
>    understand is the intent behind your requirement for "royalty
>    free implementation" in that technically access to the logic
>    contained in say the OWL file needs to be easily accessible to
>    any application in order for the ontology to gain widespread
>    acceptance.

Three months ago I posted my requirement on this list. So far nobody
disagreed with it. Now you talk about "access to OWL files and
applications that implement the OWL". I don't understand what the
access to OWL files has to do with my requirement but I presume that
you misunderstood my requirement.

>    Can you suggest a new wording that avoids confusing access to the
>    ontology with access to implementations of the ontology?

I believe that my wording is very clear. Therefore I suggest that my
requirement will be added to the list without any changes.

yours sincerely,
Martin Springer
--
Martin Springer         GPG-ID  1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7       PHONE  +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin          MOBILE +49.172.3036702

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1233 - Release Date: 19/1/2008 18:37

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1387 - Release Date: 19/4/2008 11:31

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.12/1372 - Release Date: 10/4/2008 17:36

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.12/1372 - Release Date: 10/4/2008 17:36

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.11/1368 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 16:20

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.11/1368 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 16:20

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1366 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 17:03

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1366 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 17:03

Leonardo,

this is an interesting use case. I wrote down my understanding of it,
using our DMP terminology. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assumption:

- User C operates the License Provider Device (LPD)
- User B operates the Content Provider Device (CPD)
- User A operates the End-user Device (EUD)

Walkthrough:

    C     B     A
___________________

    <--------------- User A requests Content Item x from User C
                     User C generates Key pair for Content Item x
                     (User C creates License)
    ---------------> User C sends private Key (x) to A
                     (User C sends License to A)
    ------>          User C sends public Key (x) to B
                     User B encrypts Content Item with public Key (x)
                     (B produces Governed Content Item)
    ------>          User C sends User A's IP Adress to User B
            -------> User B streams encrypted Content Item to User A's
                     IP address
                     (B publishes Governed Content Item)
                     User A uses private Key (x) to decrypt Content
                     Item x
                     (A plays Governed Content Item)

- User C knows that User A has requested Content Item x
- so User C knows User A's identity and User C knows User A's IP
   address
- User B does not know User A's identity but User B knows User A's IP
   address
- User A trusts that User C keeps his identity confidential

Requirements:

- Anonymous Licensing: it must be possible that a User produces and
   distributes a piece of Governed Content (a Content with a License)
   without knowing the Licensee's User Identity.
- it must be possible that independent Value-Chain Users operate the
   License Provider Device (LPD) and the Content Provider Device (CPD).

Cheers,
Martin

"Leonardo Chiariglione" <leonardo@...> writes:

>    Xin,
>
>    For the time being I would like to stay with a pre-defined set of
>    roles.
>
>    What I would like to achieve is the extension of the current set of
>    requirements to support the role of a VCU who sits in between two
>    other users, not as an unwanted intermediary but at the request of at
>    least one of the parties.
>
>    The use case is
>
>
>    1.       End User A would like to subscribe to Provider B of streamed
>    videos
>
>    2.       End User A is afraid that Provider B will collect
>    confidential information about himself (because videos are (adult,
>    political etc.)
>
>    3.       User A subscribes to the services of Company C which has seen
>    a role in buying wholesale rights to resell videos to End Users
>
>    4.       Every time End User A wants to watch a video
>
>    a.       End User A gets a licence from Company C
>
>    b.       Company C instructs Provider B to stream the particular video
>    to End User A's IP address
>
>    c.       Provider B streams the selected video to the IP address
>
>    d.       End User A watches the video as per licence terms
>
>
>    Leonardo
>    ______________________________________________________________________
>
>    From: mvco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>    Wang, Xin
>    Sent: Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 21:54
>    To: mvco@yahoogroups.com
>    Subject: RE: [mvco] MVCO
>
>
>    On 4, we may want to be more specific on what we mean by "support".
>    Support a pre-defined set of roles, a mechanism for defining roles,
>    both, or some other things? I figure this was an issue in many
>    previous email discussions.
>
>
>    -- Xin
>
>
>    From: mvco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>    Leonardo Chiariglione
>    Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:48 AM
>    To: mvco@yahoogroups.com
>    Subject: RE: [mvco] MVCO
>
>
>    Sure J
>
>
>    With the 4^th I mean all the proxies that can exist in the content
>    world, e.g. a video is streamed by a company but the licence is
>    provided by another company so as to disassociate knowledge about
>    content use and identity of the end user using the content
>
>    Leonardo
>
>    ______________________________________________________________________
>
>    From: mvco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>    Marc Gauvin
>    Sent: Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 12:39
>    To: mvco@yahoogroups.com
>    Subject: RE: [mvco] MVCO
>
>
>    Leonardo,
>
>
>    I agree with your suggestions for the ones I proposed but I do not
>    understand the new one number 4. Can you explain?
>
>
>    Marc
>
>
>    ADVERTENCIA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: La información contenida en este
>    mensaje es confidencial. La posible información de carácter personal
>    que pudiera contener este comunicado, se encuentra amparada en la LOPD
>    15/99. Si recibe este e-mail erróneamente rogamos nos lo reenvíe, lo
>    elimine de todos sus archivos y se abstenga de utilizar, reproducir,
>    alterar, archivar o comunicar a terceros el presente mensaje, todo
>    ello bajo pena de incurrir en responsabilidades legales. El emisor no
>    garantiza la integridad, rapidez o seguridad del presente correo, ni
>    se responsabiliza de posibles perjuicios derivados de la captura,
>    incorporaciones de virus o cualesquiera otras manipulaciones
>    efectuadas por terceros.
>
>    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted in this message is
>    confidential and only for the intended recipients. The possible
>    information that this document could contain, related to personal
>    and/or professional data is protected by Law. If you have received
>    this e-mail in error, please inform the sender, delete it, and refrain
>    from any reproduction, use, alteration, filing or communication to
>    third parties. Any unauthorised use of the contents of this message is
>    subject to incurring legal responsibilities and possible legal
>    penalty. The sender does not guarantee the integrity, the accuracy,
>    the swift delivery or the security of this e-mail transmission, and
>    assumes no responsibility for any possible damage incurred through
>    data capture, virus incorporation or any manipulation carried out by
>    third parties.
>
>
>
>
>
>    ______________________________________________________________________
>
>    De: mvco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com] En nombre de
>    leonardo@...
>    Enviado el: martes, 08 de abril de 2008 12:03
>    Para: mvco@yahoogroups.com
>    Asunto: RE: [mvco] MVCO
>
>    As I have tried to send the email below 3 taimes via 2
>    different smtp servers and never received I am trying via
>    web interface
>    Leonardo
>    Marc,
>    My comments
>    >1) MCVO must be able to represent the flow of User Use Data and
>    corresponding rights.in its appropriate context not necessarily equal
>    to that of copy/Author right material
>    I would say
>    1) MVCO shall be able to represent the generation, flow
>    and processing of Use Data generated by Users
>    This involves, as a minimum, End Users, VCUs through which
>    content has reached the End User and Users who
>    monitor/report how content is used
>    >2) MCVO will support relationships that will allow for the content to
>    be generated in support of advertising scenarios
>    I would say
>    2) MCVO shall support relationships that enable various
>    forms of creation and distribution of content associated
>    with advertisement
>    >3) MCVO will support scenarios where payment may be made not only to
>    content owners by VCUs for rendering content but also to VCUs for
>    rendering content as determined by the content right's holders e.g. an
>    advertiser must not only be able to control who accesses his
>    adverstisement as is the case with any content owner but also must be
>    able to reward VCUs for rendering or publicly communicating his
>    content.
>    I would say
>    3) MCVO shall support scenarios where remuneration may be
>    done in support of content, advertisement and
>    content+advertisement distribution, and in permitting the
>    use of Use Data of Users by another User
>    I would also add
>    4) MCVO shall support the role played by various
>    intermediaries whose role is to shield some properties of
>    a User
>    Leonardo
>
>
>    No virus found in this incoming message.
>    Checked by AVG.
>    Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.9/1364 - Release Date:
>    7/4/2008 18:38
>
>
>    No virus found in this outgoing message.
>    Checked by AVG.
>    Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.9/1364 - Release Date:
>    7/4/2008 18:38
>
>

--
Martin Springer         GPG-ID  1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7       PHONE  +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin          MOBILE +49.172.3036702

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1366 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 17:03

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1366 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 17:03

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1366 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 17:03

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1366 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 17:03

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1366 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 17:03

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1366 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 17:03