GSM TERMS UPSET PHONE NETWORKS

The Register reports that the GSM Association, which represents more than a billion mobile phone users worldwide, is unhappy at the Digital Rights Management terms proposed by the MPEG LA in January, which require carriers to pay one per cent of transactions and US$1 per handset back to the DRM patent holders, which include ContentGuard, Intertrust, Matsushita, Philips and Sony. The proposals are described as "unworkable" and the fear is that users will move away from the DRM standard, adopting cheaper but incompatible music download schemes.

The IPKat doubts that the proposed terms are unworkable: the real issue is whether they are desirable. If market forces drive mobile operators away from the proposed terms, it is up to the patent holders to drive them back again by offering something better.

Music and telephones: from cords to chords ...

Music downloads here and here

GSM TERMS UPSET PHONE NETWORKS GSM TERMS UPSET PHONE NETWORKS Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, April 04, 2005 Rating: 5

2 comments:

  1. “We cannot live for ourselves alone. Our lives are connected by a thousand invisible threads, and along these sympathetic fibers, our actions run as causes and return to us as results.”
    - Herman Melville

    RSS is the way of the Future...
    blog rss

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your Blog is Awesome, ny giants blog is the easiest way to get your blog read by more people.

    ny giants blog has always been my thing

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.