Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Anti-Piracy Patents for Cell Phones Pooled
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:44:58 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-0406 () bobf frankston com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:30:22 -0500 To: <dave () farber net>, 'Ip' <ip () v2 listbox com> Cc: 'Dewayne Hendricks' <dewayne () dandin com> Subject: RE: [IP] Anti-Piracy Patents for Cell Phones Pooled This seems like "son of the broadcast bit". Let's remember, this is a "pro piracy" conspiracy -- the goal is pirate knowledge away from the commons. What's different between licensing an image format or protocol and the broadcast bit? Basically those who want to maintain control have taken information out of the commons and pirated it away for their own purposes. I'm not against people being compensated for their efforts -- the problem comes when the means prevent even fair use. On a related topic -- today's Boston Globe has a story on the problems of airing the "Eyes on the Prize" Civil Rights documentary because of the complex rights (irony anyone?) issues. The right-to-air expired in 1993 and a DVD release would require relicensing. I guess there is a good side -- if you walk down the street whistling "Happy Birthday" you may be protected from surveillance. At least until someone stops you on the street and demands you pay the licensing fee for the whistling rights. Are they separate from the singing rights? -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 13:43 To: Ip Subject: [IP] Anti-Piracy Patents for Cell Phones Pooled ------ Forwarded Message From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> Reply-To: <dewayne () warpspeed com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:07:18 -0800 To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Anti-Piracy Patents for Cell Phones Pooled Anti-Piracy Patents for Cell Phones Pooled Thu Jan 6, 2005 12:22 AM ET <http://olympics.reuters.com/audi/newsArticle.jhtml? type=technologyNews&storyID=7250310> AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A film and music technology firm said on Thursday it had grouped together all the patents needed to protect digital film and music on mobile phones against piracy, the first time digital rights have been pooled. MPEG LA, which already offers all essential patents for the international digital video compression standard known as MPEG-2, said five companies had pooled essential anti-piracy patents for a standard set by the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), an organization of handset makers and mobile telecoms operators. Mobile phone makers which implement the technology into their handsets can protect songs, software and other digital content against forwarding, or they can allow consumers to use or copy the material under certain conditions. The standard is expected to promote the availability of digital content for mobile phones. Music, film and software companies have been reluctant to make their catalogs available for mobile phone consumption. The pooling of the anti-piracy and content control technology will make it easier for handset makers and mobile operators to start using the technology, because they can buy the rights to all essential patents in one place, MPEG LA said. "They will know what the price is, so there is no uncertainty when they make their business plans," said MPEG LA's Vice President for Licensing, Larry Horn. Handset makers will pay $1 to include OMA's Digital Rights Management (DRM) 1.0 standard into a mobile phone. Content owners which want to protect their material with OMA DRM, will pay royalties representing one percent of the consumer selling price of their service. The five companies are InterTrust and ContentGuard, two very small but powerful DRM companies, plus consumer electronics giants Sony Corp and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd from Japan, and Dutch Philips Electronics. The pooling should also make clear that everyone who uses OMA's DRM needs to pay royalties. ContentGuard told Reuters in October that OMA had not informed its members properly and that many handset makers thought the anti-piracy standard was free. [snip] Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as BobIP () Bobf Frankston com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Anti-Piracy Patents for Cell Phones Pooled David Farber (Jan 17)