Proposal for Establishing a Sub-Committee to Develop Rights Standards

1. Standardizing Communication with RRO’s (e.g. The BRR) Proposal for Establishing a Sub-Committee to Develop Rights Standards (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

2. Agenda • The Business Case • Work to Date • Next Steps (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

3. The Business Perspective WHY WE NEED RIGHTS STANDARDS (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

4. THE DIGITAL FUTURE …IS, UM, NOW • GBS and the BRR • Publishers + Distributors + Booksellers + Libraries + new digital players = oh my! • Readers’ Rights • The International Scene: it’s getting complicated (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

5. GBS and the BRR • BRR preparations exposed our current representation of digital rights – piecemeal, un-standardized • Regardless of the GBS Settlement, the digital market for books and book products is here and growing fast • We need to get ahead of changes and establish a common language for transactions (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

6. Old Supply Chain + New Players = HUH? • Publishers, distributors, libraries and booksellers are embracing change at different speeds, with different priorities. • New digital companies are entering the book world with lots of energy…but limited understanding of rights issues. • A common rights language would ease this transition and communication along the chain and reduce costs. (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

7. Read me my rights! • What rights does the reader have? Am I buying a book or a license? The conversation is only beginning… • Rights standards could improve clarity in communication from beginning to end, giving authors and publishers a more direct role to play in what limits (if any) to put on the end user. (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

8. How do you say ebook in Croatian? • Digital rights are not just an American thing. • All the digital issues we have here will, in time, be replicated in foreign rights deals with every country around the world. • As publishers and agents move old contracts into rights databases, we need a common language if each system is not to be an island unto itself. (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

9. Work to Date Digital Content Standards for Rights Registries (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

10. Preliminary Work • Identified the need for standards in BRR world • Identified key interfaces to the BRR • Established strategic Uses/Needs • Researching standards for communicating with the BRR (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

11. Usage Overview (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

12. Model • Rights Holders • Authors • Publishers • Estates • Etc. • Reproduction Rights Organizations (RROs) • Licensees • Google • Web sites • Students • Businesses • Etc. (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

13. Use A: Claiming • Rights Holders “claim” content • Identify content • Claim newly published content • Claim ownership of existing content • Associate rights with content • Interface via: • Human • Batch (via FTP or Webservice) • Web Service (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

14. Use B: Licensing • Licensee licenses content • Requesting content availability • Requesting content license • Granting content license • Interfaces: • Human • Batch • Web Service (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

15. Use C: Royalties • Royalties flow from: • Licensors to RRO (e.g. BRR) • RRO to rights holders • Rights holders to royalty recipient (often the same entity) • Interfaces: • TBD. Possibilities Include: • Push (email, web service, FTP) • Pull (rights holders retrieve from RRO) (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

16. What A, B, and C Have in Common: The Need for Communication Between Systems • Need to standardize that communication • Message contents • Message form • Message transmission protocols • In an increasingly networked world, clear and unambiguous communication (between machines) is essential.  Imagine a telephone network without standards – or the internet…Machines know HOW to talk to each other…  but we need industry standards so that they know WHAT to say to each other – a common vocabulary… in other words, “identifiers” and “metadata”- Mark Bide (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

17. Creating the Language • Systems communicate via messages • Daunting Task • Fortunately, can make use of other “trailblazers” • Studied: • ACAP • ARROW • ONIX-DS, ONIX-RP (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

18. ACAP • Designed for a different, though related purpose • http://www.rightsandroyalties.com/2009/07/acap/ (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

19. Arrow • Not a standard • Designed to identify rightsholders of content and to aid in claiming of orphan works • They have been involved in developing standards to assist them • http://www.rightsandroyalties.com/2009/07/arrow/ (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

20. ONIX for RROs • Partnership between EDItEUR and IFRRO • Designed to communicate rights between RRO’s • Structured to handle most, if not all, messages • Requires modest work on code list – can build off UKRRO (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

21. Next Steps • Establish Subcommittee • Recruit Participants • Authors • Agents • Publishers • Large • Small • Trade • STM, Academic, Educational, etc. • System Vendors • Licensees (Google, Amazon, etc.) (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

22. Next Steps (cont’d) • Refine mission statement and goals • Identify deliverables (and phases) • Create project plan • Recruit pilot organizations (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson

23. Useful Links • http://delicious.com/dmarlin/brr • http://www.rightsandroyalties.com (c) 2009 MetaComet Systems Inc. and LJNDawson