From jimlongo mac.com Tue Apr 2 19:39:19 2002 From: jimlongo mac.com (Jim Longo) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] AAC Licensing proposal Message-ID: <3C7336A9-469B-11D6-9693-00306545DE98@mac.com> Haven't seen any reaction on this list to the announced audio news. Although the dreaded usage fees are not contemplated, I am not sure I fully understand the language of the royalty structure. > Under the new license terms, licensees will pay the following royalty > rates for MPEG-4 AAC products: > > • For a consumer (non-commercial) decoder product: $0.50 to $0.12 > (volume-based) per channel > - Royalty rates for PC-based software decoder products are $0.25 per > channel, up to a maximum annual payment of $25,000 per legal entity I read this to be FREE products. This would be all the streaming players wouldn't it. Does the maximum go for both? What hardware can there be in this category - Free cell phones? > • For a consumer (non-commercial) encoder product: $0.50 to $0.12 > (volume-based) per channel > - Royalty rates for PC-based software encoder products are $0.50 to > $0.27 per channel (volume-based), up to a maximum annual payment of > $250,000 per legal entity I understand this would be iTunes, etc., That may be a reasonable amount $250,000 for Apple. Again what hardware devices would be free? > • For a professional (commercial) decoder product: $2.00 per channel > • For a professional (commercial) encoder product: $20.00 per channel This seems to me to be high if we are talking about QT Pro, or many other commercial software products that are in that price range, but probably acceptable for DVD-type players and any recording devices. If I understand this correctly we won't see many shareware software-based AAC rippers. This is for instance much higher than the current mp3 encoder licences isn't it? > There are no royalties or usage fees for content distribution in AAC > format, either in electronic form or in packaged media. At least this seems a good omen of the current thinking on the subject. Regards, Jim Longo From ACF dolby.com Wed Apr 3 09:04:19 2002 From: ACF dolby.com (Fischer, Andrew) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] AAC Licensing proposal Message-ID: Jim: Thanks for the opportunity to clarify some aspects of the MPEG-4 AAC licensing terms. Your first set of questions... >> I read this to be FREE products. >> This would be all the streaming players >> wouldn't it. Does the maximum go for both? >> What hardware can there be in this >> category - Free cell phones? ... relate to the licensing terms for PC-based software. The maximum annual payments of $25,000 in the case of PC-based software decoders and $250,000 in the case of PC-based software encoders are intended to be flexible enough to accommodate even business models that include the provision of PC-based software at no-charge to end-users. "Free" PC-based decoders are the rule rather than the exception, and an annual fee of $25,000 is low-enough for any company with a significant (understood as generating significant revenue) business to be able to offer PC-based AAC decoding on that basis. These low annual maximum payments apply only to PC-based software. A CD or DVD player is not a PC, a PDA is not a PC, a portable digital audio player is not a PC and televisions, set-top boxes, or radio receivers are not PCs. The "Standard Rates" (please see www.aac-audio.com/licensing) apply to such devices. It's true that properly equipped PCs can play CDs or DVDs or even receive television or radio signals, and in the case of PC-based playback, generous terms for AAC decoding are available. This, in our view, is necessary in order to make MPEG-4 AAC an attractive alternative to both proprietary (WMA) or even MPEG (MP3) technologies which are available to companies that provide PC-based products at no or very low cost to end-users. We believe that this approach is essential for MPEG-4 AAC to be successful. >> I understand this would be iTunes, etc., >> That may be a reasonable amount $250,000 >> for Apple. Again what hardware devices would be free? There are no royalty-free products. In the case of PC-based decoders and encoders, there maximum annual payments. In the case of non-PC software or hardware devices, there are no such "caps." >> This seems to me to be high if we are >> talking about QT Pro, or many other commercial >> software products that are in that price >> range, but probably acceptable for DVD-type >> players and any recording devices. If I understand >> this correctly we won't see many shareware >> software-based AAC rippers. This is for >> instance much higher than the current mp3 >> encoder licences isn't it? Here you are referring to the standard rates for Professional Products, as opposed to Consumer Products. For a definition of "Professional" vs. "Consumer" in this context, please see the AAC Licensing FAQ at www.aac-audio.com/licensing/LicensingFAQ.html Professional products are typically sold into the media production or distribution infrastructure and command prices of hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars. In this context, the AAC royalty rates are in keeping with the expectations of licensees and the current practices of licensors. "Shareware software-based AAC rippers" are definitely not Professional products. The royalties for MPEG-4 AAC encoding are significantly lower than the royalties for MP3 encoding - dramatically so in the case of PC-based software encoding where the maximum annual fee is capped in the case of AAC, and not capped in the case of MP3. Best Regards, Andrew Fischer Director of Business Development, EMD Dolby Laboratories 100 Potrero Avenue San Francisco, CA 94103 -----Original Message----- From: Jim Longo [mailto:jimlongo@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2024 4:39 PM To: Discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] AAC Licensing proposal Haven't seen any reaction on this list to the announced audio news. Although the dreaded usage fees are not contemplated, I am not sure I fully understand the language of the royalty structure. > Under the new license terms, licensees will pay the following royalty > rates for MPEG-4 AAC products: > > • For a consumer (non-commercial) decoder product: $0.50 to $0.12 > (volume-based) per channel > - Royalty rates for PC-based software decoder products are $0.25 per > channel, up to a maximum annual payment of $25,000 per legal entity I read this to be FREE products. This would be all the streaming players wouldn't it. Does the maximum go for both? What hardware can there be in this category - Free cell phones? > • For a consumer (non-commercial) encoder product: $0.50 to $0.12 > (volume-based) per channel > - Royalty rates for PC-based software encoder products are $0.50 to > $0.27 per channel (volume-based), up to a maximum annual payment of > $250,000 per legal entity I understand this would be iTunes, etc., That may be a reasonable amount $250,000 for Apple. Again what hardware devices would be free? > • For a professional (commercial) decoder product: $2.00 per channel > • For a professional (commercial) encoder product: $20.00 per channel This seems to me to be high if we are talking about QT Pro, or many other commercial software products that are in that price range, but probably acceptable for DVD-type players and any recording devices. If I understand this correctly we won't see many shareware software-based AAC rippers. This is for instance much higher than the current mp3 encoder licences isn't it? > There are no royalties or usage fees for content distribution in AAC > format, either in electronic form or in packaged media. At least this seems a good omen of the current thinking on the subject. Regards, Jim Longo _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------------- This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. From jimlongo mac.com Wed Apr 3 12:52:19 2002 From: jimlongo mac.com (Jim Longo) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] AAC Licensing proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8B5BCC64-472B-11D6-A222-00306545DE98@mac.com> Thanks for your response Andrew. The FAQ clears up my misunderstanding of Consumer (non-commercial) and Professional (commercial) quite nicely from the faq > Q. What is the difference between a "Professional" encoder or decoder > product and a "Consumer" encoder or decoder product? > A. A Professional product is purchased for commercial (i.e. revenue > generating) purposes. A Consumer product is purchased or made available > for non-revenue generating purposes. Examples of Professional products > include broadcast encoders or high-end audio or audio/video workstation > applications. Professional products are typically used in a production > environment or within the context of a backend distribution system. > Examples of typical Consumer products include jukebox products for > creating a personal digital music library, portable digital music > players, DVD/CD players, or television receivers. <<<<< in light of that explanation the proposed license seems extremely fair. The only area that seems to beg for a different tier are commercial PC based encoders. Audio editing programs that offer MP3 encoding options for $20 would now have to charge $40 just to cover their cost. What is the distinction between high-end workstations versus many applications that can be used in a revenue generating production environment such as Peak, QTPro, etc., Again thanks for your clarification. Regards, Jim Longo On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 12:04 PM, Fischer, Andrew wrote: > Jim: > > Thanks for the opportunity to clarify some aspects of the MPEG-4 AAC > licensing terms. > > Your first set of questions... >>> I read this to be FREE products. >>> This would be all the streaming players >>> wouldn't it. Does the maximum go for both? >>> What hardware can there be in this >>> category - Free cell phones? > > ... relate to the licensing terms for PC-based software. The maximum > annual > payments of $25,000 in the case of PC-based software decoders and > $250,000 > in the case of PC-based software encoders are intended to be flexible > enough > to accommodate even business models that include the provision of > PC-based > software at no-charge to end-users. "Free" PC-based decoders are the > rule > rather than the exception, and an annual fee of $25,000 is low-enough > for > any company with a significant (understood as generating significant > revenue) business to be able to offer PC-based AAC decoding on that > basis. > > These low annual maximum payments apply only to PC-based software. A > CD or > DVD player is not a PC, a PDA is not a PC, a portable digital audio > player > is not a PC and televisions, set-top boxes, or radio receivers are not > PCs. > The "Standard Rates" (please see www.aac-audio.com/licensing) apply to > such > devices. It's true that properly equipped PCs can play CDs or DVDs or > even > receive television or radio signals, and in the case of PC-based > playback, > generous terms for AAC decoding are available. This, in our view, is > necessary in order to make MPEG-4 AAC an attractive alternative to both > proprietary (WMA) or even MPEG (MP3) technologies which are available to > companies that provide PC-based products at no or very low cost to > end-users. We believe that this approach is essential for MPEG-4 AAC to > be > successful. > >>> I understand this would be iTunes, etc., >>> That may be a reasonable amount $250,000 >>> for Apple. Again what hardware devices would be free? > > There are no royalty-free products. In the case of PC-based decoders > and > encoders, there maximum annual payments. In the case of non-PC > software or > hardware devices, there are no such "caps." > >>> This seems to me to be high if we are >>> talking about QT Pro, or many other commercial >>> software products that are in that price >>> range, but probably acceptable for DVD-type >>> players and any recording devices. If I understand >>> this correctly we won't see many shareware >>> software-based AAC rippers. This is for >>> instance much higher than the current mp3 >>> encoder licences isn't it? > > Here you are referring to the standard rates for Professional Products, > as > opposed to Consumer Products. For a definition of "Professional" vs. > "Consumer" in this context, please see the AAC Licensing FAQ at > www.aac-audio.com/licensing/LicensingFAQ.html Professional products are > typically sold into the media production or distribution infrastructure > and > command prices of hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars. In this > context, > the AAC royalty rates are in keeping with the expectations of licensees > and > the current practices of licensors. > > "Shareware software-based AAC rippers" are definitely not Professional > products. The royalties for MPEG-4 AAC encoding are significantly lower > than > the royalties for MP3 encoding - dramatically so in the case of PC-based > software encoding where the maximum annual fee is capped in the case of > AAC, > and not capped in the case of MP3. > > Best Regards, > > Andrew Fischer > Director of Business Development, EMD > Dolby Laboratories > 100 Potrero Avenue > San Francisco, CA 94103 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Longo [mailto:jimlongo@mac.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2024 4:39 PM > To: Discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] AAC Licensing proposal > > > Haven't seen any reaction on this list to the announced audio news. > Although the dreaded usage fees are not contemplated, I am not sure I > fully understand the language of the royalty structure. > >> Under the new license terms, licensees will pay the following royalty >> rates for MPEG-4 AAC products: >> >> • For a consumer (non-commercial) decoder product: $0.50 to $0.12 >> (volume-based) per channel >> - Royalty rates for PC-based software decoder products are $0.25 per >> channel, up to a maximum annual payment of $25,000 per legal entity > > I read this to be FREE products. > This would be all the streaming players wouldn't it. Does the maximum > go for both? > What hardware can there be in this category - Free cell phones? > >> • For a consumer (non-commercial) encoder product: $0.50 to $0.12 >> (volume-based) per channel >> - Royalty rates for PC-based software encoder products are $0.50 to >> $0.27 per channel (volume-based), up to a maximum annual payment of >> $250,000 per legal entity > > I understand this would be iTunes, etc., That may be a reasonable > amount $250,000 for Apple. Again what hardware devices would be free? > >> • For a professional (commercial) decoder product: $2.00 per channel >> • For a professional (commercial) encoder product: $20.00 per channel > > This seems to me to be high if we are talking about QT Pro, or many > other commercial software products that are in that price range, but > probably acceptable for DVD-type players and any recording devices. > If I understand this correctly we won't see many shareware > software-based AAC rippers. This is for instance much higher than the > current mp3 encoder licences isn't it? > >> There are no royalties or usage fees for content distribution in AAC >> format, either in electronic form or in packaged media. > > At least this seems a good omen of the current thinking on the subject. > > Regards, > > Jim Longo From jimlongo mac.com Thu Apr 4 10:08:48 2002 From: jimlongo mac.com (Jim Longo) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Audio interview with Larry Horn In-Reply-To: <8B5BCC64-472B-11D6-A222-00306545DE98@mac.com> Message-ID: FYI there is an interview with Larry Horn from April 3, starts about 60% of the way through the show after a long commercial break, at 1h14m35s up to 1h31m26s. http://www.yourmaclife.com/subpages/archives.html From jeffh bisk.com Thu Apr 4 09:35:09 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] 29 MPEG-4 Vendors Successfully Test Interoperable Products Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A093763F8@mail.corp.bisk.com> > MPEG-4 standard passes major test with interoperability > achieved between a growing number of vendors Interesting that MS still isn't participating. After all, they are one of the major visual patent holders. Weird. Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education - Technology Development World Headquarters - Tampa, FL 800-874-7877 x360 jeffh@bisk.com http://www.bisk.com Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Apr 4 16:42:55 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Audio interview with Larry Horn Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5208@exchange.epr.com> Thanks Jim, it's an interesting piece of journalism that touches on a lot of issues. For the careful readers of this discussion list, it will not reveal anything truly new, but it does perhaps explain the philosophy behind the scheme in some more detail, and it does give some more insight into the thinking that goes on at MPEG LA (and I assume the licensors). It also debunks some rumors. It is good to hear MPEG LA stressing that the success of the licensing program is in the interest of all, and that they will work towards that success. Larry Horn says that he expects to be able to come to an acceptable business arrangement with Apple, which, if true, would be good news, as Apple is the informal voice of many concerned parties at this moment. Best, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Longo [mailto:jimlongo@mac.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2024 7:09 > To: Discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Audio interview with Larry Horn > > > FYI there is an interview with Larry Horn from April 3, > starts about 60% > of the way through the show after a long commercial break, at > 1h14m35s > up to 1h31m26s. > > http://www.yourmaclife.com/subpages/archives.html > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From 94426082 eeng.dcu.ie Fri Apr 5 12:34:43 2002 From: 94426082 eeng.dcu.ie (Nikki) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG4 Codec & SDK Message-ID: <004b01c1dc95$e2102030$f523ce88@anca> Hi All, Im a post-grad doing research in QoS for MPEG4. I was wondering if anyone could suggest a good MPEG-4 codec with SDK that will allow me to encode, decode in real-time and play out real-time content. In short: What codecs would you suggest? Is there an easy to use SDK that will interface with Java? What kind of price range? (RE: Limited student research grant budget) Are there any discounts for universities and non-profit organisations? Thanking you, regards, Nikki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020405/2218ee28/attachment.html From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Apr 19 01:25:15 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 implementations and MPEG-J Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF181F@exchange.epr.com> This is really a question for the Technotes list. I know that Envivio and iVast have implementations of MPEG-J, and Sun too, as far as I know. If there are any others out there, reply to the asker and the technotes list please. Best, Rob -----Original Message----- From: John Riise [mailto:John.Riise@NetAdtack.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2024 20:35 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 implementations and MPEG-J Hello Everyone, We're a company that among other things develops streaming related products for logging, analysis and targeting. These products very much rely on the ability to run client-side scripting/applets and my question is: How far are the existing MPEG-4 implementations on the support of MPEG-J? Thanks, John Riise ---------------------------------------------- John George Riise CTO NetAdtack ApS Dronning Olgas Vej 39B DK-2000 Frederiksberg Tel.: +45 70 27 28 52 Fax: +45 70 27 28 53 John.Riise@NetAdtack.com www.NetAdtack.com -------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020419/d6f1f5bc/attachment.html From i.g.richardson rgu.ac.uk Fri Apr 19 17:50:14 2002 From: i.g.richardson rgu.ac.uk (Iain Richardson (ensigr)) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 Message-ID: <9B4C0CE0F5BE4E4F83226707BFA0D1B42D077D@EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk> The JVT draft standard is due to become Part 10 of MPEG-4 and also ITU-T H.264. Does anyone have a feel for the likely "popular" name for the standard ? E.g. many people still refer to it as H.26L; "14496 Part 10" isn't very catchy, nor is H.264. Any opinions ? Thanks Iain Richardson www.vcodex.com Video Coding Research and Consultancy www.eng.rgu.ac.uk The Robert Gordon University From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Apr 19 10:07:56 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF52E1@exchange.epr.com> Iain, It's also called the JVT codec in places ... Decisions on names are being taken by MPEG and ITU respectively. MPEG has chosen "Advanced Video Coding" (AVC) as the name of part 10. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Iain Richardson (ensigr) [mailto:i.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 8:50 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 > > > The JVT draft standard is due to become Part 10 of MPEG-4 and > also ITU-T > H.264. Does anyone have a feel for the likely "popular" name for the > standard ? E.g. many people still refer to it as H.26L; > "14496 Part 10" > isn't very catchy, nor is H.264. Any opinions ? > > Thanks > > Iain Richardson > www.vcodex.com > Video Coding Research and Consultancy > www.eng.rgu.ac.uk > The Robert Gordon University > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From kldi ei.tum.de Fri Apr 19 19:09:10 2002 From: kldi ei.tum.de (Klaus Diepold) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 References: <9B4C0CE0F5BE4E4F83226707BFA0D1B42D077D@EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <004c01c1e7bc$8ad7a220$6469bb81@ldv.etechnik.tumuenchen.de> Iain, how about "Advanced Video Coding" or "AVC" ? Klaus Diepold ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iain Richardson (ensigr)" To: Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 5:50 PM Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 > The JVT draft standard is due to become Part 10 of MPEG-4 and also ITU-T > H.264. Does anyone have a feel for the likely "popular" name for the > standard ? E.g. many people still refer to it as H.26L; "14496 Part 10" > isn't very catchy, nor is H.264. Any opinions ? > > Thanks > > Iain Richardson > www.vcodex.com > Video Coding Research and Consultancy > www.eng.rgu.ac.uk > The Robert Gordon University > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > From Vinayagam.M lntinfotech.com Sat Apr 20 00:05:33 2002 From: Vinayagam.M lntinfotech.com (Vinayagam.M@lntinfotech.com) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Reg: MPEG-4 System Message-ID: Dear All, I like to know more basic details about MPEG-4 System Design & DMIF Layer Design. Please tell me some details design with different delivery layer protols. Regards, Vinayagam.M From garysull microsoft.com Fri Apr 19 11:59:37 2002 From: garysull microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 Message-ID: <0170DDAD0BADFA4CBEC3B55A0748DCCC040EF68D@red-msg-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Tough question. It has at least six names right now. Different people have different names. The informal name agreed upon by both organizations in the charter of the joint agreement is the JVT codec. I think that is probably the most popular name at the moment. However, there are various people who call it H.26L, MPEG-4 Part 10, AVC, H.264, and 14496-10. I suppose all those names may be correct, although they do get confusing. Best Regards, Gary Sullivan +> -----Original Message----- +> From: Iain Richardson (ensigr) [mailto:i.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk] +> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 8:50 AM +> To: discuss@lists.m4if.org +> Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 +> +> +> The JVT draft standard is due to become Part 10 of MPEG-4 +> and also ITU-T +> H.264. Does anyone have a feel for the likely "popular" name for the +> standard ? E.g. many people still refer to it as H.26L; +> "14496 Part 10" +> isn't very catchy, nor is H.264. Any opinions ? +> +> Thanks +> +> Iain Richardson +> www.vcodex.com +> Video Coding Research and Consultancy +> www.eng.rgu.ac.uk +> The Robert Gordon University +> +> _______________________________________________ +> Discuss mailing list +> Discuss@lists.m4if.org +> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss +> From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Apr 19 12:05:12 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Reg: MPEG-4 System Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF52EB@exchange.epr.com> this is a question for the technotes list, not the discuss list. BUt even there, it is too general to expect a detailed answer on the list. Check out http://www.m4if.org/resources.php first, notably WEMP4 2001. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Vinayagam.M@lntinfotech.com [mailto:Vinayagam.M@lntinfotech.com] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 10:36 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Reg: MPEG-4 System > > > Dear All, > I like to know more basic details about MPEG-4 System Design > & DMIF Layer > Design. Please tell me some details design with different > delivery layer > protols. > Regards, > Vinayagam.M > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From knkneib knk-mpeg.com Sat Apr 20 13:26:20 2002 From: knkneib knk-mpeg.com (Kristine N. Kneib, Ph.D.) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:18 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Reg: MPEG-4 System In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF52EB@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20020420121123.02342ec0@pop3.norton.antivirus> ... and for basic practical and implementation details about MPEG-4 System design for products and the design details, status and issues for different delivery layer protocols such as IP, MPEG2 transport, DSM-CC, mobile, etc and DMIF, check out the agenda of Day 2 May 22, 2024 of KNK Seminars "MPEG-4 Technologies & Applications" seminar at www.knk-mpeg.com/mpeg4b.htm Best regards, Kristine Kneib KNK Seminars & Strategies Making MPEG Work for You! At 11:05 AM 4/19/02 -0700, you wrote: >this is a question for the technotes list, not the discuss list. >BUt even there, it is too general to expect a detailed answer on the >list. > >Check out http://www.m4if.org/resources.php first, notably >WEMP4 2001. > >Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vinayagam.M@lntinfotech.com [mailto:Vinayagam.M@lntinfotech.com] > > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 10:36 > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Reg: MPEG-4 System > > > > > > Dear All, > > I like to know more basic details about MPEG-4 System Design > > & DMIF Layer > > Design. Please tell me some details design with different > > delivery layer > > protols. > > Regards, > > Vinayagam.M > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020420/17032c6a/attachment.html From craig pcube.com Thu Apr 25 10:57:59 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:18 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] PR: MPEG-4 Visual Essential Patent Holders Meet to Discuss Licensing Terms Message-ID: MPEG-4 Visual Essential Patent Holders Meet to Discuss Licensing Terms April 25, 2024 12:00am Source: Business Wire DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE) -- MPEG LA and patent holders to the proposed MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License met on April 18 and 19 in New York City. They continue to discuss licensing terms and consider the constructive views, interests and concerns of prospective licensees. The group continues to discuss alternate royalty approaches, including forms of use-based royalties that place royalties on products and services for which remuneration is received and whose value supports the royalties charged. Among other approaches discussed, the group considered industry proposals that the widespread use of MPEG-4 Visual technology may be enhanced across various business models by the adoption of (a) reasonable annual limitations on certain royalties (in addition to those for decoders and encoders) in order to provide more cost predictability and (b) threshold levels below which certain use-based royalties would not be charged. The process is advancing, and MPEG LA hopes to have a further announcement in the near future. As in the past, we caution that no final decisions have been reached. The group intends to meet again in late June but will be working hard to resolve these issues in the interim. MPEG LA, LLC MPEG LA successfully pioneered one-stop technology standards licensing, starting with a portfolio of essential patents for the international digital video compression standard known as MPEG-2, which it began licensing in 1997. One-stop technology standards licensing enables widespread technological implementation, interoperability and use of fundamental broad-based technologies covered by many patents owned by many patent holders. MPEG LA provides users with fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to these essential patents on a worldwide basis under a single license. For more information, please refer to http://www.mpegla.com, http://www.1394la.com and http://www.dvbla.com. On January 31, 2002, MPEG LA announced that it will offer fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, worldwide access to patents that are essential to the MPEG-4 Visual (Simple and Core) digital compression standard under a single license to be known as the MPEG-4 (Visual) Patent Portfolio License. The License currently includes patents owned by 20 companies: Canon Inc.; France Telecom; Fujitsu Limited; GE Technology Development, Inc.; General Instrument Corp.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hyundai Curitel, Inc.; KDDI Corporation; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Microsoft Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.; Philips Electronics; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha; Sony Corporation; Telenor AS; Toshiba Corporation; and Victor Company of Japan, Limited. <> CONTACT: MPEG LA, LLC | Lawrence Horn, 301/986-6660 | Fax: 301/986-8575 | lhorn@mpegla.com << Copyright ?2002 Business Wire >> From craig pcube.com Fri Apr 26 09:56:37 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:18 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] News: RealNetworks: MPEG-4 could be DOA Message-ID: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-892259.html RealNetworks: MPEG-4 could be DOA By Stefanie Olsen Special to ZDNet News April 25, 2002, 11:55 AM PT LOS ANGELES--Proposed licensing fees for MPEG-4, a next-generation video compression standard, could mean its early death on the personal computer, RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser said in a press conference Wednesday. "The licensing structure is putting the technology on a path to become irrelevant in the PC industry," Glaser said after giving a keynote speech at the Streaming Media West conference here. His remarks address a fee structure put forth in early February by MPEG LA, a licensing body representing 18 patent holders of the technology. Still under consideration by the group, the plan would require licensees to pay 25 cents for each MPEG-4 product, such as an encoder or decoder, with fees capped at $1 million a year. The plan also suggests charging a per-minute use fee, equivalent to 2 cents for each hour encoded in the format, that includes content on DVDs. Such fees would make it cost prohibitive for media players such as RealNetworks' RealOne or Apple Computer's QuickTime to support the emerging standard. Apple immediately rejected the proposed licensing terms, leaving the future of its QuickTime multimedia technology in limbo. The licensing impasse over MPEG-4 could help Microsoft, which has refused to sign on to the standards effort. Even if acceptable terms are eventually hammered out, the delay will give Microsoft more time to push its proprietary Windows Media format. MPEG-4 is the successor to MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, technologies behind digital broadcast transmissions over cable, satellite and the Internet. Like its predecessors, MPEG-4 comprises audio and video technologies that condense large digital files into smaller ones that can be easily transferred via the Web. It also adds such features as interactivity, e-commerce and digital rights management to audio and video files. RealNetworks is pursuing a dual strategy, Glaser said, partly to offset uncertainty over MPEG-4's future in light of the licensing issue. The company's proprietary media player system, RealSystem, supports MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 as well as MPEG-4. Meanwhile, the company on Wednesday backed the new standard by launching a site that promotes interoperability between different codecs, or video and audio compression and decompression technology. Larry Horn, vice president of licensing and business development at MPEG LA, said he disagrees with Glaser's assessment, saying "it's premature" since the group is still defining the licensing terms. "Final terms of the license have not yet been developed, and we're working on them," Horn said. "The marketplace can see that the patent holders are working hard to address some of the concerns, and we will come up with a license that is acceptable to the marketplace and everything should work out just fine." Horn said MPEG LA and patent holders met last week to discuss the concerns of prospective licensees as well as alternate royalty approaches. The group is considering, for instance, use-based payments that place royalties on products and services that receive remuneration, such as encoding MPEG-4 for DVDs. Horn said he expects a final licensing structure to be in place in a few months. Some streaming media experts said there are few signs so far that MPEG LA feels pressured to drastically overhaul the proposed licensing structure. "Given the fact that the media player companies bear the brunt of these licensing fees--they would have to pay the encoding and decoding fees--I wonder if MPEG LA is listening," said Derek Top, managing editor of Streaming Media Research. News.com's Gwendolyn Mariano contributed to this report. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs