RE: RF-ness

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?

Best regards,

-----Original Message-----
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

For those of you who may not be familiar with the outcome from the last 
MPEG meeting, see the press release 


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
> 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"<>
>> 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<>
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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          XMPP
>>> WEB           AIM
>>> 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

Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 06:22:25 UTC