Creating Standards for the Book Rights Registry: Using Existing Standards Part 3 – ONIX for RRO’s

I would like to express a particular thanks to Mark Bide, Executive Director of EDItEUR, for his patience and wisdom in helping me to better understand ONIX for RRO’s.  I would also like to thank Piero Attanasio, for his guidance in helping me understand ARROW, and their involvement in the creation of ONIX for RRO’s.

To begin, I will reiterate our goal.  As part of the Google Book Settlement, a Book Rights Registry (BRR) will be created that will enable rights holders to identify the rights that they control, and how those rights may be expresed, if at all.  The BRR will in turn enable third parties to easily license those rights while acting as a clearinghouse for royalty payments due to the rights holders.

The above description suggests the need for interfaces between rights holders and the BRR, and between the BRR and licensees (e.g. Google).  Those interfaces will almost certainly be managed through automation and/or web-based interfaces.  Thus the need for standards.

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, July 2, 2009, Presentation to PLS Annual Copyright Meeting

Over the last several weeks, I have been investigating existing standards for communication between these interfaces.  At last, much of the search is over.  The solution is ONIX for RRO’s.

ONIX for RRO’s is actually two messaging standards:  ONIX-DS (“DS” = “Distribution”) and ONIX-RP (“RP”= “Repertoire”).  A repertoire represents the available uses for content, while the distribution reports on how the content was actually used, and the payments associated with it.  (Note:  I edited the original text based on a correction provided by Mark Bide – please see comments for more details).

These ONIX messages allow a rights holder to identify their content (a whole subject of its own), and the rights that they hold for that content.  It enables the specification of territories, usage, context, timing, and payment.  Finally, it provides fields for licensees of content to specify payments due for the use of that content.

So ONIX for RRO’s can provide the standard messaging for interfaces between the BRR, licensors, and licensees.  What is the status of ONIX for RRO’s – is it ready for prime time?

These standards are relatively new.  They are currently undergoing their first trial implementations in the UK.  So the jury is still out.  In my opinion, though, the standard offers real potential as it has been well conceived by people with intimate knowledge of international rights. (Note:  Please see Mark Bide’s comment for a more informed status of the trial).

Another issue are the codes.  One strength of ONIX is that it separates the message format from the codes used to populate much of the data.  This enables much greater flexibility in how the message can be used.  A new set of codes will likely be required for use in the US, and for the implementation specific to the BRR.  The good news is that these codes can be built off the great work already performed on the two existing code sets (that are still under development):  those of IFRRO and those of the UKRRO.

Another question also remains – it appears that the ONIX for RRO messages can indicate payment information.  Do these messages represent too much overhead for that type of report?  Or should we investigate the use of the Digital Sales Reporting (DSR) message (also an EDItEUR intitiative).  (Disclaimer:  I co-chaired the original committee that created the DSR message).