W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > March 2011

Re: RF-ness

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:07:50 +0100
To: "'Mark Watson'" <watsonm@netflix.com>, 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>
Cc: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "'Alexander Adolf'" <alexander.adolf@me.com>, "'W3C Web+TV W3C Web+TV IG'" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vr2rzcqg6ugkrk@rabdomant-ubuntu>
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 07:21:26 +0100, 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com> wrote:

> As we received official liaison letter from MPEG DASH last Berlin, we  
> could
> reply back with more specific questions on RF to them in upcoming Geneva
> meeting scheduled at March 21 week.
> Let's start discussion on what questions should be asked and to which
> extent the questions would be explored.
> To W3C familiar people,
> Do we have official liaison letter form?
All information about Liaisons in W3C can be found here

Anyway, as you pointed out above, first we need a clear list of questions  
that should be asked
(I read someone complaining that wasn't clear so far what we are really  
asking for)


> Best regards,
> HJ
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> Sent: 없음
> To: Mark Watson
> Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer; Alexander Adolf; W3C Web+TV W3C Web+TV IG
> Subject: Re: RF-ness
> As a proponent and participant in MPEG royalty free activities I'd
> suggest there is a constructive role for W3C and community.
> ISO and MPEG are large organizations with well-defined procedures.  I'd
> suggest working through them.
> Informative materials and links can be found at http://www.sc29.org.
> For those of you who may not be familiar with the outcome from the last
> MPEG meeting, see the press release
> (http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/daegu11/daegu_press.htm).
> Rob
> On 3/2/2011 10:39 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
>> Alexander,
>> I agree with many of your points, but want to point out two things:
>> - as time passes there will be less and less distinction between 'on the
> web' and the other domains you mention, at least on terms of technology.
> Given that we should strive for something we can all agree on.
>> - when I said 'work-around', I mainly meant using something which pre-
> dates DASH - like our existing system, or Microsofts - rather than
> inventing something new.
>> To Sylvias point, I really think if someone has some essential IPR in  
>> the
> manifest or file formats defined by DASH, then there are just two
> possibilities:
>> 1) you can work around it by defining new formats, in which case the IPR
> is IMHO somewhat pitiful and likely valueless anyway, or
>> 2) it's more fundamental and any other format you invent would also  
>> carry
> similar risks - in which case the whole question is moot and we might as
> well agree on the thing which is already defined.
>> ...Mark
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 4:51 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer"<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> Just keep in mind that on the Web everyone and their dog are a
>>> (potential) publisher. And since we want all publishers to use the
>>> same compatible technology, FRAND is simply not an option. I'd rather
>>> develop a completely new format if there is such a potential threat in
>>> DASH. It's not that hard to develop a different proposal and if it
>>> means freedom for the Web, then this is a lot more useful.
>>> Regards,
>>> Silvia.
>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Adolf<alexander.adolf@me.com>
> wrote:
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>> On 2011-02-22, at 18:34 , Mark Watson wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 21, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>>>>> Let's just say I find the claim "if DASH is not RF then it will not
> be successful, since there are RF alternatives... that noone is ever  
> going
> to make any money out of royalties on this thing" to be both naive and
> idealistic.
>>>>> Well, it's interesting that you think there is a business case in
> licensing DASH IPR for those that have it. I think it very unlikely that
> Netflix would ever pay royalties for something like that which we know we
> can easily work around.
>>>>> [...]
>>>> I think both, Glenn and Mark have a point here. Although I wouldn't
> subscribe to all of their conclusions.
>>>> In the 15+ years of my digital broadcast work, I have never ever seen
> anyone really making noteworthy money with IPR. So I'd agree to that  
> there
> is no serious business case for IPR. The environments I have been working
> in are working on FRAND (where "F" is for fair) terms, and it has worked
> out. In the case of broadcast, for a century. ;)  In all cases I am aware
> of, the IPR-givers did not make their money on the licence fees, but on  
> the
> consultancy for integrating their tech into products. But then nobody is
> forced to buy their services if one thinks yer own engineers are good
> 'nough.
>>>> Remember that the things the "big wigs" give away for free is because
> they can re-finance the development from other income, not because they
> think the Web is such a great place that we all should have a free lunch.
> What they buy with that is a little bit of market control. That's the
> management level equation.
>>>>> On Feb 21, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>>>>> Let's just say I find the claim "if DASH is not RF then it will not
> be successful, since there are RF alternatives...
>>>>>> [...]
>>>> I think I might clarify that to say "...then it will not be successful
> ON THE WEB." It may still be successful in environments where FRAND terms
> are common practice and accepted, like IPTV and Cable.
>>>> So I guess the RF vs. (F)RAND debate might still be going on for a
> while. Not for everybody may it be the end of the world and freedom as  
> such
> if their tech is not on the Web; since there are other domains where it
> will be deployed. And maybe the Web community will have to swallow one or
> two decisions of this sort, that sth. will not be available on the Web
> because the IPR holders refuse to make it RF. I guess both sides will be  
> on
> a learning curve here. Where will or should this end? My crystal ball is
> mucky...
>>>> Then Mark also has a point of course:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> I think it very unlikely that Netflix would ever pay royalties for
> something like that which we know we can easily work around.
>>>>> [...]
>>>> This is the Chinese model. Take the original, and tweak it until it
> becomes RF. This is a good approach in terms of business model. But it is
> IMHO a not so good approach in terms of cross-sector convergence. It  
> would
> cement the trench between the broadcast and Web domains; and I thought we
> were working to bridge it?
>>>> So my compromise proposal would be this: if it turns out that sth. (I
> agree with Mark that the probability for DASH is low) turns out to be not
> RF, for once ask "if it's not free, what would the licence fees be the?"
> Listen to the answer, and keep in mind that such terms are *always*
> negotiable. Then consider whether you have been talking to Mr. Evil Devil
> himself, or whether the tech offered is really so great that folks would  
> be
> willing&  able to survive with the licence.
>>>> Just my two cents anyway.
>>>> BTW, anyone attending #dvbw11 in Nice next week?
>>>> Thanks a lot and cheers,
>>>> --alexander
>>>> --
>>>> Condition-ALPHA Digital Broadcast Technology Consulting Alexander  
>>>> Adolf
>>>> EMAIL alexander.adolf@me.com          XMPP c-alpha@jabber.org
>>>> WEB www.condition-alpha.com           AIM alexander.adolf@me.com
>>>> MOBILE +49 151 12722124               TWITTER @c_alpha
>>>> TEL +49 89 52314163                   GEO Gabelsbergerstrasse 60b
>>>> UST-IDNR./VAT-ID DE268430335          80333 Munich / Germany
>>>> PUBKEY 5B30 94FB 7F2C E404 D977  3830 7FBE 74F3 17EC F239

Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 12:09:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:02 UTC