[IETF-IDRM] Re: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work -- "content holder" vs. "content owner"

[Jason Petrone]

I think both terms 'content owner' and 'content holder' are both vague.  I
understand 'content' to mean 'original work'.  Despite the misleading term
'intellectual property', it is not something a person can own.   I think better
terms are 'copyright owner' and 'instance owner'.

A copyright owner is guaranteed 6 exclusive rights: reproduction, adaptation,
distribution, performance, display, and digital audio transmission. 

In the example Madonna or her publishing company is the copyright owner.
If you give me a copy of Madonna's mp3, I don't owe her anything.  I am not
infringing on any of the 6 rights copyright law grants her.  However, you
may have.

It is possible to split up these rights.  For example, Madonna can give YOU
exclusive reproduction and distribution rights.  Then both you and her 
would be copyright owners.  However, she can also grant you the same rights
under a non-exclusive license, and she will remain the sole copyright owner.
  
So in addition to 'copyright owner' and 'work instance owner', we also have
licensee, a person who holds non-exclusive rights for that work.

Jason

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 11:16:09AM -0400, Thomas Hardjono wrote:
> 
> OK, I'm still rather confused about the Content-Holder, but let me try a 
> very simple example:
> 
>   - Madonna issues a new song downloadable as MP3 through some
>     Content-Distributor.
> 
>     Here Madonna (or he record company/publisher) is the Content-Owner.
> 
>   - I download the song and pay $2 (reasonable I think :)
> 
>     Here I am the Content-Holder (where the Content is that MP3 file).
>     I only own my copy (1 copy) of that Content.  I do not have further
>     rights.
> 
> In this scenario, if I gave a copy of Madonna's MP3 song to my neighbor,
> then clearly my neighbour has to (again) pay the Content-Owner (ie. Madonna
> or her record company/publisher).
> 
> Neither I nor my neighbour own the *rights* to that Content/MP3.
> 
> Thus, I think the term Content-Holder means a holder of an instance
> of a digital Content, where that holder is *not* the legal
> owner of the copyright of the Content.
> 
> Hmmmm, am I on track here?  Isn't the Content-Holder = Consumer  ?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> thomas