Electronic Rights Management Information
Digital rights management (DRM) is an emerging area of concern within copyright policy. It is also an evolving area, as the potential of DRM shifts with technological advances. Currently, two areas of potential seem to be the focus. The first covers what the position paper refers to as Electronic Rights Management Information (ERMI) - basically identifying information about authorship, ownership, and usage conditions that can be embedded in the work itself. The more recent set of emerging debate covers the developing of associated technology that can automatically track content and/or enforce those usage conditions. That second set of issues also includes some discussions over the degree to which it is appropriate for copyright owners to restrict use.
I would agree that policy should prohibit the unauthorized removal or alteration of identifying information from content. In that sense, I would support the Ministry's proposal to protect the intentional removal and alteration of ERMI, and I share the Ministry's concern that in such a case, that the ERMI be narrowly limited to identifying information.
As noted in paragraph 141-142, DRM information may also include information that facilitates the tracking of information, or that allows the limitations of use by associated technologies. For instance, DRM information may include a limit on the number of viewings of material, or a time frame of viewing. Such limitations would run counter to the first sale doctrine, or the fair dealing exception of time shifting. I would be concerned that this ability to control use in essence extends a right to control copying to a right to control subsequent uses of authorized copies. As such, it would grant a substantial new set of advantages and control to copyright owners without any additional benefit argued for users. It would have the potential to severely shrink user rights, and to impose significant additional costs upon them, resulting in less use of information with its concomitant loss of social value and welfare.
The position paper supports this argument, in its discussion of limiting the "tracking" function of ERMI. However, tracking is only one aspect, and one that actually tends to occur outside of the ERMI itself (that is, the technology to track only needs to read the ERMI, rather than be embedded in the ERMI itself). The broader DRM issue of access controls is one that, in a very large sense, lies outside of the ERMI itself. My concern is not so much that there is this information, but that copyright concerns might be used to mandate that tracking and usage control technologies be included in digital media. I would urge the Ministry to consider allowing such technology, but to make a stand against mandating that digital media include tracking and/or usage control information.
Back to Top