- 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>
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 http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison 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) Regards, /g > 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