I just donwloaded the BDA charter from here:
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/downloadablefile/BDA_Charter(version1.0)-13035.pdf
There's a clause there that says BDA members will agree to grant "irrevocable" rights to any entity the BDA authorizes to issue license for the use of BD. So it seems to me that the Sony threat is all bluster and can't revoke licenses unilaterally. Did I interpret that right?
Ang tindi mo naman, bosing -- nakita mo pa yung Charter nila!
I didn't read the whole thing; I just browsed it. Chap. IV, Clause 13, Par. 3 states:
"All FC Members hereby grant an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive and royalty-free right to an entity appointed by the BOD to grant licenses under FC Members’ copyrights on any Blu-ray Disc Format pursuant to the terms and conditions determined by the BOD on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis to all interested parties to (i) develop and promote any such Blu-ray Disc Format, (ii) internally evaluate any Blu-ray Format to explore the feasibility of future development and/manufacture of products in compliance with the Blu-ray Disc Format or any other commercial activity that would benefit from the utilization of the Blu-ray Disc Format and/or (iii) use, develop, manufacture, have manufactured, sell, offer for sale, export, import or otherwise dispose of products that are in full compliance with any Blu-ray Disc Format."As I understand it, what is "irrevocable" is not the license itself, but the BOD's (Board of Directors?) appointment of an entity that will grant those licenses.
Thus, it appears from the quoted paragraph that: (a) The BOD appoints an entity; (b) The appointed entity gets a right to grant licenses "to all interested parties"; and (c) The appointed entity's right to grant licenses includes the right to license the "manufacture ... of products that are in full compliance with any Blu-ray Disc Format".
Let's apply the provision to the following situation:
The BOD appoints Sony as a licensor. The appointment is irrevocable. Sony issues a license to Company X to master, author and replicate discs with a "no-porn" stipulation in the license contract. May Sony revoke the license for violation of the license contract? --- Yes.
Is the license of Company X irrevocable? --- As a general rule, no. But that depends on the agreement between Sony and Company X. Chap. IV, Clause 13, Par. 3 of the BDA Charter cannot be properly invoked to support the theory that the license of Company X is "irrevocable" because under the cited provision, what is irrevocable is the appointment of Sony as a licensor, but the said provision is silent as to whether the license granted by Sony to Company X is revocable or not.
Now, let's go to the situation contemplated by sir iampoch:
The BOD appoints Samsung as a licensor. Samsung issues a license to Company Y to master, author and replicate discs. May Sony revoke Company Y's license on the ground that Sony's licenses contain a prohibition against porn? --- Of course not. There is no privity of contract between Sony and Company Y. In other words, the agreement was between Samsung and Company Y, and Sony has no part in it.
