Pramod A. Jamkhedkar
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.
- J. Alvear. Realnetworks, Microsoft face off on DRM. streamingmedia.com, June 22, 2001.Google Scholar
- H. Alverstrand. The role of the standards process in shaping the internet. Proceeding of the IEEE, 92(9):1371--1374, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- ArtistScope. http://www.artistscope.com/copysafe/about.html.Google Scholar
- A. Carroll, M. Juarez, J. Polk, and T. Leininger. Microsoft palladium: A business overview. Technical report, Microsoft Content Security Business Unit, June 2002.Google Scholar
- V. G. Cerf. On the evolution of internet technologies. Proceeding of the IEEE, 92(9):1360--1370, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. D. Clark. The design philosophy of the DARPA internet protocols. In ACM SIGCOMM, pages 106--114, Stanford, CA, Aug. 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Clark. IBM closes cryptolopes unit, 2002. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-206465.html?legacy=cnet.Google Scholar
- Contentguard. XrML 2.0 Technical Overview, March 2002.Google Scholar
- I. J. Cox, M. L. Miller, and J. A. Bloom. Digital Watermarking. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- The DRM vendor graveyard. http://www.info-mech.com/drm_vendor_graveyard.html.Google Scholar
- 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/.Google Scholar
- H. Goldstein, G. L. Heileman, M. D. Heileman, T. Nicolakis, C. E. Pizano, B. Prumo, and M. Webb. Protecting digital archives at the greek orthodox archdiocese of america. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, pages 13--26, Washington, DC, Oct. 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Y. Halpern and V. Weissman. A formal foundation for XrML licenses. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pages 251--265, Asilomar, CA, June 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. L. Heileman and C. E. Pizano. An overview of digital rights enforcement and the MediaRights technology. Technical report, Elisar Software Corporation, Apr. 2001.Google Scholar
- R. Iannella. Open digital rights language (ODRL), Version 0.7. http://odrl.net/ODRL-07.pdf, Oct. 2000.Google Scholar
- M. A. Kaplan. IBM cryptolopes, superdistribution and digital rights management, 1996. http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/people/k/kaplan/cryptolope-docs/crypap.html.Google Scholar
- U. Kohl, J. Lotspiech, and M. A. Kaplan. Safeguarding digital library contents and users: Protecting documents rather than channels. D-Lib Magazine, Sept. 1997.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Krochmal. Alchemedia protects pictures with plug-ins. TechWeb News, Oct. 28, 1999. http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991028S0012.Google Scholar
- M. McKenzie. Copyright protection: Understanding your options. Technical Report 4, The Seybold Report on Internet Publishing, Dec. 1996.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- B. C. Popescu, F. L. A. J. Kamperman, B. Crispo, and A. S. Tanenbaum. A DRM security architecture for home networks. To appear in DRM'04, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Pucella and V. Weissman. A logic for reasoning about digital rights. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pages 282--294, Nova Scotia, Canada, June 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Rosenblatt, B. Trippe, and S. Mooney. Digital Rights Mangement: Business and Technology. M&T Books, New York, NY, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. H. Saltzer, D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark. End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM Transactions in Computer Systems, 2(4):277--288, Nov. 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. B. Schneider, editor. Trust in Cyberspace. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Schneier. The fallacy of trusted client software (cryptorhythms column). Information Security Magazine, Aug. 2000.Google Scholar
- N. Shivakumar. Detecting Digital Copyright Violations on the Internet. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O. Sibert, D. Bernstein, and D. Van Wie. Securing the content, not the wire, for information commerce. Technical report, InterTrust Technologies Corp., 1996.Google Scholar
- A. S. Tanenbaum. Computer Networks. Prentice Hall, 4th edition, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- The eXtensible Media Commerce Language (XMCL). http://www.xmcl.org.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- DRM as a layered system
Recommendations
Is DRM working?: how could we tell?
DRM '11: Proceedings of the 11th annual ACM workshop on Digital rights managementThe success or failure of digital rights management is often taken in legal circles to be a technological question: has a particular scheme already been cracked? How broadly is protected content being redistributed? Can any scheme provide absolute ...
Towards a software architecture for DRM
DRM '05: Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on Digital rights managementThe domain of digital rights management (DRM) is currently lacking a generic architecture that supports interoperability and reuse of specific DRM technologies. This lack of architectural support is a serious drawback in light of the rapid evolution of ...
DRM interoperability analysis from the perspective of a layered framework
DRM '05: Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on Digital rights managementInteroperability is currently seen as one of the most significant problems facing the digital rights management (DRM) industry. In this paper we consider the problem of interoperability among DRM systems from the perspective of a layered architectural ...
Comments