"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tom Holden" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"Tom Holden" wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Telamon"
Newsgroups: alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:35 PM
Subject: DRM


In article ,
"Aztech" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message
I see that they are still lying about this on the web page.

"DRM is the world's only non-proprietary, universally
standardized
on-air system for short-wave, medium-wave/AM and long-wave. The
DRM
consortium does not endorse or certify products. Links to
products
are listed on the DRM web site at the discretion of the DRM
consortium. The DRM Consortium is not responsible for the content
of external internet sites."

The decoding software was proprietary and as far as I know it
still
is in part at least.

It depends on the definition, when it comes to broadcast or
telecoms
hardware non-proprietary means it's based on a published open
standard (usually ISO/ITU approved) that any company is free to
implement, for instance many companies produce their own AAC
implementations with specific performance and quality tweaks, but
the
bitstream that comes out of each implementation is exactly in spec.

There is of course a combination of patent and royalties concerns,
however MPEG-LA have to licence each indiscriminately and on equal
terms. Compare that to MS where they control the standard, which
may
not even be (fully) published, they produce the encoders and
decoders
with any input from competition companies, and they licence the
actual codec in final form rather than just charge royalties on
some
of the patents behind that. (MS have tried to rectify some of this
by
getting SMPTE to rubberstamp WM9)

MPEG2 for example isn't a "free" standard, royalties must be paid
whilst the underlying patents are in force, however there are
thousands of companies who have produced their own implementation,
there are hundreds of vendors that produce silicon so there is
immense competition, and no one company can control the standard.

AAC+ may not be free but that doesn't necessarily mean it's
"proprietary" in the above context.

OK, here is my simple definition of proprietary in and out of
context.

It is the public domain or it is not.

Some of the software that is used in DRM requires a license.

If it requires a license that you must agree to in order to use it
then
it is proprietary.

The license MEANS that they are reserving the rights to the use of
that
software. Please tell me this point is not lost by you?

This license can be revoked at any time or they can start charging
for
its use or they can limit the conditions of use or whom may use it
and
any other circumstance you can think of.

You must obey the rights of the owner of the software or the courts
will
fine you and the cops will put you in jail depending on the
circumstances.

No thank you DRM!

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

The licensing fees for DRM consumer products are at
http://www.vialicensing.com/products...ense_fees.html, ranging
from
No
Charge (under 1000 units annually) to $1.70 per unit for 1001 to
500,000.
The DRM patent-pool licensors includes AT&T Corp., Coding
Technologies,
Dolby Laboratories, France Telecom, Fraunhofer IIS, NEC Corporation,
Philips
Electronics, Robert Bosch GmbH, Sony Corporation, TDF, T-Systems
International GmbH, Thales, and VoiceAge Corporation.

The license is not for software, as far as I can tell, rather for the
USE
of
the audio coding and modulation schemes which have been patented.
There
was
decoding software sold by the DRM consortium or one of its members
that
was
truly proprietary by all definitions - it was closed, no source code
provided, and a fee was charged. And there is decoding software that
is
publicly and freely available in source code form from sourceforge.net
under
the Gnu Public License - which, by all or most definitions, is
non-proprietary. However, there is a warning that its USE may infringe
third
party IP and thus may not be legal in some countries.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"Something proprietary is something exclusively owned by someone,
often
with
connotations that it is exclusive and cannot be used by other parties
without negotiations. It may specifically mean that something is
covered
by
one or more patents, as in proprietary technology. It can also mean
that
the
copyright is used in a way that restricts the users' freedoms."

It would seem that there are components of the DRM technology that are
proprietary, i.e., patented by someone, but that they have taken steps
to
make the specifications freely available and the fee for use of the
technology nearly or absolutely free of charge for consumer
applications.
That would make it far less proprietary than many other technologies.
On
the
proprietariness scale, DRM would be closer to the non-proprietary end
than
the other.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. You can minimize the impact of
the situation but I'm not inclined to do that. I'm not comfortable with
the notion of free but under license. Like I have stated you are under
obligation to follow the license restrictions which can change at the
whim of the property owners.

There are at least two levels of IP to overcome if DRM is going to
claim
non proprietary as you have noted. There is the software and there is
the algorithms the software employs.

The fact that they lie about it does not help their cause.

Just because you can access source code and compile it yourself does
not
mean you are free of license constraints using that software. The
source
code is the IP of the software. It does not matter if it complied or
not.

I don't understand your conclusion of "On the proprietariness scale,
DRM
would be closer to the non-proprietary end than the other." I don't see
you stating anything that supports that point. A court of law won't
care
about how proprietary you think the software or the algorithms it
employs is only that it is or is not. If it is then the court will rule
in favor of the owner and that's not you.

You and other need to face up to the fact that the license holders are
not willing to give up their rights and that you have limited temporary
rights to use the IP in the software.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I think you are viewing the proprietary axis as having only Yes and No
values and on that binary scale, I agree with you that DRM is
proprietary. I
never said it was not. What I see is some differentiation along the
range -
a secret being the most extreme as it is the most exclusive. A patent
would
be less exclusive because it would require vigilance and action to
protect
the holder's rights. An easily licensed technology and one that is free
of
charge strikes me as being less proprietary than one that requires
extensive
patent searching and onerous fees. In that sense (and I suspect that is
the
sense that the DRM Consortium intends by their use or misuse of the term
"non-proprietary"), the DRM technology is less proprietary than the
Microsoft Outlook Express software and the underlying platform with which
I
am sending this message. I'm certainly not uncomfortable that OE was free
but under license and I daresay that you aren't either with many things
you
use daily. The DRM Consortium's objective nonetheless is to encourage the
adoption of the technology by many manufacturers, and thereby encourage
broadcasters and consumers in the development of a market in which many
competitors can share. Maybe they should use the term "non-exclusive"...

Tom

I find it interesting that the very thing putting you at ease causes
alarm in myself. If I pay for something then by entering into contract
with another entity I gain certain rights. The exchange of money for
goods or service is defined. If I acquire something for free then there
is no contract and I have no acquired rights at all. All goods or
service is subject to change on the whim of the rights owner regardless
of the type of ownership be it copyright or patent when they feel like
it unless you can prove some special rights pertain to your use.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Acquiring something for no exchange of money does not mean there is no
contract. Each time you accept the terms and conditions when you install
free software, you have entered into a contract.

You say "I'm not comfortable with the notion of free but under license".
Then you must be uncomfortable (or would have been in the past) listening to
FM radio, which is or once was covered by either Edwin Armstrong's patents
or RCA Victor's. RCA and/or Armstrong's estate made money from the license
fees collected, just as the holders of the many patents in the DRM pool hope
to make money from the license fees collected from DRM receiver
manufacturers. The DRM radio that you might someday buy will bury that
license cost in what you pay, but you won't see the license or its cost and
would appear to be as free as the old FM radio was.

Regards,

Tom

"Tom Holden" wrote in message
.. .

I find it interesting that the very thing putting you at ease causes
alarm in myself. If I pay for something then by entering into contract
with another entity I gain certain rights. The exchange of money for
goods or service is defined. If I acquire something for free then there
is no contract and I have no acquired rights at all. All goods or
service is subject to change on the whim of the rights owner regardless
of the type of ownership be it copyright or patent when they feel like
it unless you can prove some special rights pertain to your use.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Acquiring something for no exchange of money does not mean there is no
contract. Each time you accept the terms and conditions when you install free
software, you have entered into a contract.

That maybe so, but if you ended up in a court of law you will find that the
contract is ultimately unenforceable without the exchange of monies . That's why
you'll find that agreements, no matter how trivial, have a stated nominal or
token figure, without that you cannot enforce terms like deliverables, duration
or liability, otherwise you just have a gentlemen's agreement.

Before you talked about patent holders withtaining rights and being to change
licensing terms at a whim, that's not the case, the whole point of a contract is
to set down specific terms. If you sign a contract licensing 1m DRM units at $1
a piece as fixed term then it's in black a white so they can't **** you about
and demand $2.00 in the future. If they initially said "you can use our codec
free of charge at our prerogative" and then 18 months down the line they want
$2.00 per unit then you have no claim against them.


Az.

wrote:
Mike Terry wrote:

Anyone know where to buy a DRM receiver?



Are the still making them? Better act fast, as DRM's disappointing
entry onto the world stage will have the manufacturers of DRM receivers
closing up shop.

Steve



http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/digtrav.htm

This looks a good buy at e199

"Steve Jonson" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Mike Terry wrote:

Anyone know where to buy a DRM receiver?



Are the still making them? Better act fast, as DRM's disappointing
entry onto the world stage will have the manufacturers of DRM receivers
closing up shop.

Steve



http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/digtrav.htm

This looks a good buy at e199

It's not... as I said, wait a bit longer and hopefully the new stand alone
DRM / DAB radio will be a marked improvement