3GPP TSG-T2 SWG3 SMS / EMS ad hoc #1
London, UK
3rd to 5th April 2001	T2E-010021	

Agenda Item:	

Source:	Nokia/Motorola

Title:	

Document for:	Object Protection

___________________________________________________________________________

3GPP TSG-T2 #12
Los Angeles, US
12th - 16th February 2001	T2-010161 	

Agenda Item:	T2 SWG3, SMS		

Source:	Nokia, Motorola 

Title:	Comments On the SMS Copyright CR 

Document for:	Discussion

___________________________________________________________________________
Introduction

In the last T2#11 meeting Alcatel introduced a CR to 23.040 for handling copyright protection in SMS/EMS. Before the T2#12 meeting there has been a discussion on the email list to expand the functionality to protect single objects in one SMS/EMS. Different copyright protection levels have been suggested,  such as "can be saved, cannot be saved", "can be forwarded, cannot be forwarded",  "can be modified, cannot be modified".
Discussion

The protection of copyrighted content (pictures, sound, video, trademark symbols, etc.) should be seen as an issue beyond the scope of SMS/EMS. There are currently several different organisations defining copyright protection mechanisms.

Utilising SMS/EMS mechanisms as the basis for copyright protection, as the proposed solution suggests, does not protect the content itself as it only uses a flag to indicates whether or not a message can be forwarded, manipulated, saved, etc.  The IEI bit may prevent the user from forwarding a message, but not the content. It is the content that needs to be protected. 

If this proposed CR is accepted by 3GPP, then there will inevitably become software available (e.g. shareware / freeware from the Internet) that can be downloaded to, for example, a PC or PDA, to externally manipulate this protection bit.  Additionally, many of today's phones already have a copy paste function; should this be restricted also?  In addition,  the content can be copied into alternative applications on the phone, e.g. from SMS to email, or SMS to fax, SMS to MMS, etc.

The CR also proposes that the terminal and the SMSC should both implement this feature in order to prevent the forwarding of copyright content in a SMS /EMS. This extra functionality in the SMSC would mean that the SMSC would have to check every single SMS and decide whether to forward it or reject it. This extra functionality in the SMSC would definitely reduce the throughput of the SMSC.

Other aspects are legal questions. Who is liable when someone breaks the copyright protection? The manufacturer of the phone? Or perhaps the network operator as he transports the content? Or maybe the user himself?

Conclusion

This document has discussed potential major problems with the copyright flag and has shown that the proposed copyright protection scheme for SMS is unsatisfactory.

The only adequate solutions to the protection copyrighted content are mechanisms which protects the content directly (e.g. the use of digital signatures).   Any attempt to protect copyright material in the way suggested will be problematic and will easily be defeated.  Essentially, copyright protection  must be linked directly to the content and be in independent  of the transport medium by which it is delivered.