Blockchain-Based Smart Propertization of Digital Content for Intellectual Rights Protection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is about blockchain-based smart propertization of digital content
to protect  intellectual rights.

The abstract is satisfactory. However, it requires improvement. Before introducing the proposed method the authors need to point out the problems/weaknesses in the related field so that the necessity of this research work can be determined.

Please review the following sentence:
This study aims to propose ----> Since the authors are proposing a novel method in this paper, not in a future paper;  therefore,   "This study proposes" or " "We propose" will be more
appropriate. Please correct throughout the paper ( where necessary).

 

The "Introduction" needs improvement.  Although the paper is about blockchain, there is not a single sentence discussing blockchain or smart contracts.  Please re-write the "Introduction" discussing contexts that are related to the topic.

 

Moreover, the "Related work"/subsection 1.3  is unclear and needs improvement.  For instance, Methods in [22–25], Methods in [26–31], method in [27], Methods in [32–35], etc, does not provide much information about the related methods.  I would suggest elaborating those methods with a few more lines, at least to give the readers a better idea about other existing methods.  It would also be better to see if the authors can include a few weaknesses/drawbacks of those related methods, giving the readers enough idea why the proposed method is necessary.

I would also suggest separating "Related work"/subsection 1.3  from "Introduction", and make it an individual Section.

 A new Section, "Background", is necessary. The "Background" should define enough contexts related to the topics/proposed method so that the readers can easily get the idea about the concepts throughout the paper.

 

Section 2 seems ok. However, it can be improved.  Instead of introducing the 3 components right at the beginning  of the Section, it would make more sense if the authors discuss the overall functionalities of the proposed method first and then talk about the 3 components.

Section 3 and 4 seem ok. However, a Conclusion section is necessary detailing the achievements from the research work.

Overall,  the paper contributes towards Intellectual Rights Protection by proposing a novel method. Although it is a nicely written paper, the concepts are not discussed precisely. Moreover, a few new Sections must be added in order to make the paper look more complete. Similarly, the authors are advised to reorganise the sections/subsections to make the paper more presentable

 

Language, and style should be revisited; there are minor grammar errors throughout the paper.  A few examples;

can be operated in completely decentralized ---> can be operated in a completely decentralized
Most people unlikely pay for --> Most people unlikely to pay for
consumers will suffer for the consequence --> consumers will suffer from the consequence
limited number of plays ---> a limited number of plays
sells digital content in encrypted format --> sells digital content in an encrypted format

Author Response

We appreciate referee's constructive and thoughtful comments.

We have addressed all points that referees raised and made following changes.

Please, Check the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting proposal for the use of a DRM system using blockchain. I have no comment on the technical proposal, it looks feasible and achievable, and it should prove to be an interesting addition to the existing literature.

I have some serious misgivings about the need for such a system, and the framing of the criticism regarding DRMs.

Firstly, the authors cite 2 main criticisms with regards to DRM in lines 52-56, namely that DRM hasn't been perfect, and that it sometimes restricts legitimate uses. This section is missing references, but most importantly, it is missing an important criticism. Copyright law permits some legitimate uses, this is known as fair dealing or fair use, depending on the jurisdiction. DRM is not programmed to allow users to use works in accordance to these permitted uses, for example, you cannot code for parody use, or for legal citation for criticism and/or commentary.

Secondly, the article assumes the need for blockchain DRM systems with little evidence other than listing some proposals. While I agree that the lack of alternatives to existing platforms is a problem, the alternative need not be blockchain based, on the contrary, it's evident that scalability is an issue.

These misgivings can mostly be addressed by framing the introduction differently, be a bit more critical of both DRM and blockchain.

The paper needs a thorough scrub, there are some language issues.

Author Response

We appreciate referee's constructive and thoughtful comments.

We have addressed all points that referees raised and made following changes.

Please, Check the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The proposed digital content service model offers more benefits to users and content owners than the current monopolistic platform service. The suggested approach also provides various options to owners in promoting their content. Users will also be beneficial by not having intermediaries. Nowadays, intermediary platform companies set almost equal fixed prices on equivalent types of digital content, even though some content owners choose to reduce the cost to sell their content more effectively. However, under the current process, the price will be decided by the owner so that consumers will benefit from lower costs.
 The digital content is encrypted in a self-decryptable form known as “smart propertized digital content” which would generate extra overheads in distributing and storing digital content. The model uses a hierarchical multi-blockchain system (HMBS) to receive license fees and manage content accounts by specifying license usage rules in the account chain. It also uses several sidechains (SCs) and dual sidechains (dSCs) to efficiently HMBS transactions and smart contracts via parallel processing. The transparent traceability and the tamper-proof of the proposed HMBS allow content owners to hire several promoters to increase content sale revenues without worrying about the possibility of income hiding by some promoters.
The authors specify the difference in blockchain usage compared to other studies. The studied methods use blockchain as a database to record ownership or identity of digital content or as a payment collecting system. The proposed method uses the blockchain as a virtual machine to determine which digital content can be used by whom and how. The future research program includes a study on reducing those overheads and an empirical evaluation of the proposed smart propertization method for the protection of intellectual rights on digital content.
The information in the article is well documented and well organized. The subject is well interpreted and the methodology presented is supported by diagrams. Still, because it addresses the issue of security, blockchain usage, is a subject with a certain level of complexity, thus a novice reader would have some hard time understanding, as some equations, for example, require some background knowledge.
There are not so many diagrams and tables, but equations which might be a bit harder to understand. 

There should be a separate conclusions sections and the discussions session should present performance results.

The references should include more references to related work regarding interoperability of distributed ledger technologies, for example:

- Ren, Na, et al. "Copyright Protection Based on Zero Watermarking and Blockchain for Vector Maps." ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10.5 (2021): 294.

- Nadrag, Carmen, et al. "Comparative analysis of distributed ledger technologies." 2018 Global Wireless Summit (GWS). IEEE, 2018.

- Hei, Yiming, et al. "Making MA-ABE fully accountable: A blockchain-based approach for secure digital right management." Computer Networks 191 (2021): 108029.

Author Response

We appreciate referee's constructive and thoughtful comments.

We have addressed all points that referees raised and made following changes.

Please, Check the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract is improved. However, the authors still fail to indicate the problem areas.
The readers will not be able to determine the importance of the proposed method if the
problem areas are not pointed out clearly.
Therefore, once again, I would suggest the authors  pointing out the problems/weaknesses in a few lines
before introducing the proposed method.

 

The "Introduction" still needs improvement.
The  updated problem statement/ Subsection (1.1) does not discuss a single problem in the related context rather it provides a simple definition of what  blockchain is.
The definition of blockchain must be moved in the above paragraphs.
Similarly,  I would suggest the authors pointing out the problems clearly in  problem statement/ Subsection (1.1).

Moreover, It would be more appropriate if the authors  define the "Problem statement" in Subsection 1.1 and "Key Contributions" in Subsection 1.2.
There is no need to use a  subsection for "Organization of the paper".  It can be defined in a new/separate paragraph.

The Background is satisfactory.

The Conclusion is too broad. It should only discuss the overall achievements from the research work and if any future works
to be undertaken.

The Language, and style should be revisited. There are still minor grammar errors.  A few examples;

The proposed method uses a system of blockchains --> The proposed method uses a  blockchain system
we proposes a public blockchain-based ---> we propose a public blockchain-based

Author Response

We appreciate referee’s constructive and thoughtful comments. We have addressed all points that referees raised and made following changes.

Recommendations by the first reviewer

1. The abstract is improved. However, the authors still fail to indicate the problem areas. The readers will not be able to determine the importance of the proposed method if the problem areas are not pointed out clearly. Therefore, once again, I would suggest the authors pointing out the problems/weaknesses in a few lines before introducing the proposed method.

Following the recommendation, we pointed out the problem, namely, the natural monopoly in digital content markets as follows:

“Digital content markets tend to be naturally dominated by few platforms which vigorously use consumer data and scale of economies. To reduce the natural monopoly in digital content markets, we proposes a public blockchain-based digital content service method. ...”

→

(Line 1) “Several platform companies have been successful in competing with digital piracy by producing consumer-friendly services. Nowadays, however, they are more and more monop- olizing digital content service markets by forming barriers to entry for new platform companies and making it difficult for customers to switch to other platforms. The platform monopoly would cause serious problems both to content providers and consumers. To remove the plat- form monopoly in digital content markets, we propose a public blockchain-based digital content service method. ...”

We also changed the following sentence.

“To reduce the natural monopoly in digital content markets, we proposes a public blockchain- based digital content service method.”

→

(Line 74) “To remove the natural monopoly in digital content markets, we propose a public blockchain-based digital content service method.”

2. The ”Introduction” still needs improvement. The updated problem statement/ Subsec- tion (1.1) does not discuss a single problem in the related context rather it provides a simple definition of what blockchain is. The definition of blockchain must be moved in the above paragraphs.

Following the recommendation, we removed the following paragraph related to the blockchain in the Introduction.

“Ever since blockchain technology has been introduced in [14], it has evolved and found its way into many applications beyond cryptocurrencies. The blockchain is a chain of blocks, where blocks consist of record-keeping data of all transactions ever issued and links between blocks are implemented by hash pointers. Combined with the incentivization by the reward system for the block chaining, the record-keeping in the blockchain can establish a decentralized consensus in a trustless environment.”

We specified that the proposed method used the decentralization and traceability of the public blockchain to remove the natural monopoly in digital content markets as follows:

(Line 75) “To be specific, we use the decentralization and traceability of the public blockchain to provide a non-monopolistic content service ecosystem.”

3. Similarly, I would suggest the authors pointing out the problems clearly in problem statement/ Subsection (1.1). Moreover, It would be more appropriate if the authors define the ”Problem statement” in Subsection 1.1 and ”Key Contributions” in Subsection 1.2.

Following the recommendation, we separated the ”Problem statement” in Subsection 1.1 and ”Key Contributions” in Subsection 1.2. and changed the last paragraph of Subsection 1.1 as follows:

“Those platform companies have one thing in common; they do not impose powerful DRM technologies to fight against the digital piracy (but their DRM methods are strong enough to keep most consumers from attempting to make illegal content copies), but give consumer- friendly platform services to honest consumers.”

→

(Line 66) “Those platform companies do not impose powerful DRM technologies to fight against digital piracy (but their DRM methods are strong enough to keep most consumers from attempting to make illegal content copies) but give consumer-friendly platform services to honest consumers. They vigorously use consumer data and the scale of economies to attract more consumers. Such efforts make digital content markets to be dominated by few platforms nowadays. This phenomenon is often called the natural monopoly in digital content markets.”

4. There is no need to use a subsection for ”Organization of the paper”. It can be defined in a new/separate paragraph.

Following the suggestion, we removed the subsection for ”Organization of the paper”.

5. The Background is satisfactory. The Conclusion is too broad. It should only discuss the overall achievements from the research work and if any future works to be undertaken.

Following the suggestion, we removed the following paragraph in the conclusion.

“The proposed method has a similar structure to traditional public blockchains such as Bitcoin and can be easily adaptable to other blockchain models such as private or consortium blockchains. It is also true that the proposed method can be easily extendable to a mul- tipurpose hierarchical HMBS. Based on usability, individual HMBS can be operated under the guidance of the parent-chain of HMBS. As a child-chain, each HMBS can be used for its own purpose. Examples include the control of ownership and drivership of the smart car, privacy-preserving data sharing, et cetera.”

6. The Language, and style should be revisited. There are still minor grammar errors. A few examples; The proposed method uses a system of blockchains – The proposed method uses a blockchain system we proposes a public blockchain-based — we propose a public blockchain- based

We corrected described mistakes and checked the whole manuscript with ‘Grammarly’ program (Online Writing Assistant).

→

(Line 6, 74) “To remove the platform monopoly in digital content markets, we propose a public blockchain-based digital content service method.”

(line 96 - contents → content) “The more the platform company learns about its users’ preferences, the more accurately it can market content based on their specific preferences.”

(Line 195)“Their blockchains, however, are not the main reason for preventing the illegal copying of digital content.”

(Line 516)“To avoid this type of the wrong accusation, the proposed method lets the accused user V have an ‘appeal chance’.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf