|
ABSTRACT
The current landscape for digital rights management(DRM) consists of various ad hoc technologies and platforms that largely focus on copy protection. The fragmented nature of the DRM industry in 2004 is somewhat reminiscent of the telecommunications industry in the late 1980's. At that time various networking technologies were available, and what was needed was a technology that could integrate existing networks and provide various services to users. The OSI layered framework and the TCP/IP communications protocol suite provided a solution to this situation. The OSI model divides the process of digital data communications into layers. Likewise, in this paper we divide the process of DRM into layers in which various services are offered to the users of digital content at each layer. Three blocks of layers have been identified. The upper layers deal with the end-to-end functions of the application, the middle layers deal with rights expression and interpretation, and the lower layers ensure rights enforcement. This paper describes how responsibilities might be distributed among the various layers, and considers where in these layers it would be appropriate to define protocols and standards.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
J. Alvear. Realnetworks, Microsoft face off on DRM. streamingmedia.com, June 22, 2001.
|
| |
2
|
H. Alverstrand. The role of the standards process in shaping the internet. Proceeding of the IEEE, 92(9):1371--1374, 2004.
|
| |
3
|
ArtistScope. http://www.artistscope.com/copysafe/about.html.
|
| |
4
|
A. Carroll, M. Juarez, J. Polk, and T. Leininger. Microsoft palladium: A business overview. Technical report, Microsoft Content Security Business Unit, June 2002.
|
| |
5
|
V. G. Cerf. On the evolution of internet technologies. Proceeding of the IEEE, 92(9):1360--1370, 2004.
|
 |
6
|
|
| |
7
|
T. Clark. IBM closes cryptolopes unit, 2002. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-206465.html?legacy=cnet.
|
| |
8
|
Contentguard. XrML 2.0 Technical Overview, March 2002.
|
| |
9
|
|
| |
10
|
The DRM vendor graveyard. http://www.info-mech.com/drm_vendor_graveyard.html.
|
| |
11
|
J. Feigenbaum, D. Boneh, and R. Venkatesan. Report on the DIMACS workshop on management of digital intellectual property. Technical report, DIMACS, Apr. 2000. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Management2/.
|
 |
12
|
Theo Nicolakis , Carlos E. Pizano , Bianca Prumo , Mitchell Webb, Protecting digital archives at the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on Digital rights management, October 27-27, 2003, Washington, DC, USA
[doi> 10.1145/947380.947384]
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
G. L. Heileman and C. E. Pizano. An overview of digital rights enforcement and the MediaRights technology. Technical report, Elisar Software Corporation, Apr. 2001.
|
| |
15
|
R. Iannella. Open digital rights language (ODRL), Version 0.7. http://odrl.net/ODRL-07.pdf, Oct. 2000.
|
| |
16
|
M. A. Kaplan. IBM cryptolopes, superdistribution and digital rights management, 1996. http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/people/k/kaplan/cryptolope-docs/crypap.html.
|
| |
17
|
U. Kohl, J. Lotspiech, and M. A. Kaplan. Safeguarding digital library contents and users: Protecting documents rather than channels. D-Lib Magazine, Sept. 1997.
|
| |
18
|
M. Krochmal. Alchemedia protects pictures with plug-ins. TechWeb News, Oct. 28, 1999. http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991028S0012.
|
| |
19
|
M. McKenzie. Copyright protection: Understanding your options. Technical Report 4, The Seybold Report on Internet Publishing, Dec. 1996.
|
| |
20
|
MPEG-21 Committee. Information technology --- multimedia framework (MPEG-21) --- part 1: Vision, technologies and strategy. Working document: ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N 4333, July 2001.
|
| |
21
|
M. L. Nelson, B. Argue, M. Efron, S. Denn, and M. Pattuelli. A survey of complex object technologies for digital libraries. Technical report, NASA TM-2001-211426, 2001.
|
 |
22
|
|
| |
23
|
|
| |
24
|
|
 |
25
|
|
| |
26
|
|
| |
27
|
B. Schneier. The fallacy of trusted client software (cryptorhythms column). Information Security Magazine, Aug. 2000.
|
| |
28
|
|
| |
29
|
O. Sibert, D. Bernstein, and D. Van Wie. Securing the content, not the wire, for information commerce. Technical report, InterTrust Technologies Corp., 1996.
|
| |
30
|
|
| |
31
|
The eXtensible Media Commerce Language (XMCL). http://www.xmcl.org.
|
CITED BY 10
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Michiels , Kristof Verslype , Wouter Joosen , Bart De Decker, Towards a software architecture for DRM, Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on Digital rights management, November 07-07, 2005, Alexandria, VA, USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory L. Heileman , Pramod A. Jamkhedkar , Joud Khoury , Curtis J. Hrncir, The drm game, Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on Digital Rights Management, October 29-29, 2007, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|