RE: Core Model Clarification - Asset and Party

A note on Alapan’s considerations:

 

That are interesting waters indeed: if a set-top box downloads an asset is this device the one taking a decision? 

-          It could have been called to do this  by its user

-          If some rules are applied resulting in a download action humans must have programmed the rules into the device.

But we should also be aware that ODRL aims at a communication in a legal context and in this context still human individuals or organisations of humans are the ones taking decisions and responsibility.

 

Michael

 

From: Alapan [mailto:alapan@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 3:49 PM
To: Renato Iannella
Cc: ODRL Community Group
Subject: Re: Core Model Clarification - Asset and Party

 

Hi Renato,

My question was perhaps misdirected here - what I was thinking of here was - what entities would we consider as appropriate? Would a set-top box be allowed to be an entity - or would that entity be restricted to the owner of the set top box or manufaturer of the set-top box? If fthe set-top box decides to download content (perhaps based on some algorithm) who is accountable to performt he associated duties (e.g. pay) for that content - especially if that content was not appreciated/consumed/etc? If we replace set-top box with more autonomous devices - such as a self driving car - we would trully be wading into interesting waters :)

Alapan




Blog: http://idiots-mind.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Life's a gamble - take a chance

 

On 8 September 2014 03:58, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote:

 

On 6 Sep 2014, at 22:47, Alapan <alapan@gmail.com> wrote:

 

A question on party - should we not stick to "legal entity"? Otherwise, the license may not be enforceable (as a legal document, not technically).

 

I don't think that describing the party as a "legal" party would have significant difference when its comes to "enforcement" as a legal agreement.

The key definitions (if used by a court of law) would be what is the purpose of the Policy (ie the Policy Types)

 

For example, we currently define the Agreement as:

"Policy expressions that are formal contracts (or licenses) stipulating all the terms of usage and all the parties involved"

with comment:

"Must contain at least the Party entity with Assigner role and a Party with Assignee role. The latter being granted the terms of the Agreement from the former."

 

I think a court of law would interpret "Party" in the traditional "legal" sense. 

 

Also, looking at the Creative Commons legalcode [1] (which is all about the law ;-) they define You and Licensor  simply as "individual(s) or entity(ies)"

 

Cheers...

Renato Iannella

Semantic Identity

http://semanticidentity.com

Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206

 

[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode