From igino.manfre shs.it Fri Feb 1 18:12:25 2002 From: igino.manfre shs.it (Igino Manfre) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:47 2003 Subject: [Discuss] 2 cent per hour with no limit Message-ID: <00c901c1ab43$a074c410$d2050dac@caronte> I've got the news of MPEGLA as a joke. Is it ? If it is not is dramatic. Let's think it's not. Anyone has the right to get from his invention a proper fee, but this is "out of time". Trying to realize money "now" in this way is a dirty suicide of the entire technology, with the overall result to istigate to the "crime". Do we need to put a taxameter on the pc ? Can you imagine a royalty on internet usage ? Who can put more money on a "free" parallel technology can easily win this fightless match. Who ? ----------------------------- Igino Manfre' - igino.manfre@shs.it SHS Multimedia - http://www.shsgroup.net Rome Branch Office 60, Via Alessandro De Stefani I 00137 ROMA - ITALY Tel. (+39) 06.820805.317 Fax (+39) 06.82003157 Mobile (+39) 335.1200220 From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Feb 1 09:33:35 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:47 2003 Subject: [Discuss] Discussion list Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591876ED@exchange.epr.com> People, the subscriptions on the M4IF Discussion list are pouring in right now. We will hold all posts (except for this one :-) over the weekend, and turn them all loose on Monday, so that we will have a good crowd. Meantime - add the discussion mail address to your Address Book! Best, Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Sun Feb 3 22:07:23 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:47 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Discussions started Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187753@exchange.epr.com> People, The discussions on this list will start shortly. The subscription response has been huge, which is a sign that there is a large and growing interest in MPEG-4 deployment. After this mail, I will "turn loose" the other mails that have been waiting to get sent out since last Friday. This is an open list, accessible to members and non-members of M4IF alike. I look forward to an open-minded discussion on all issues regarding the uptake of MPEG-4 in the market. I look forward to participation of *ALL* parties affected. I look forward to these discussions benefiting the uptake of MPEG-4. Let's have the facts, discuss the consequences and have an open-minded discussion. Let's refrain from abusive or insulting language. The mailing list is non-moderated at the moment, and I hope and expect we can keep it that way. We do reserve the right to moderate the list if messages appear that the Board of M4IF deems inappropriate. Best Regards, Rob Koenen President, M4IF (Note that technical disussions take place on a different list: technotes@lists.m4if.org Subscribe at http://www.m4if.org/public/publiclistreg.html ) From yuval envivio.com Fri Feb 1 09:44:11 2002 From: yuval envivio.com (Yuval Fisher) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:47 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff Message-ID: <3C5AD3EB.207CE7F1@envivio.com> So.... does M4IF have any influence over, opening with, connections to MPEGLA ? Are they soliciting industry comments about their licensing. There seems to be a general feeling that the license is a good start on killing MPEG-4. Best, Yuval Envivio From dim psytel-research.co.yu Fri Feb 1 19:50:55 2002 From: dim psytel-research.co.yu (Ivan Dimkovic) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:47 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual License scheme announced References: <994284AE-16F8-11D6-9E2B-00039358A5A2@lostboys.nl> Message-ID: <018501c1ab51$61c14000$e635fea9@hal> Dear Rob, All - Is there any way to invite someone responsible for MPEG-4 visual licensing (MPEG-LA) to the board. We need urgent clarification of the licensing process as one of our licensing agreements is completely depending on some important clarifications of the fees and payments. Best Regards, ************************************************* Ivan Dimkovic, Technical Manager PsyTEL Research Multimedia Coding Solutions Belgrade Yugoslavia phone: +381 63 264 334 phone: +381 64 11 40 600 fax: +381 11 32 25 275 email: dim@psytel-research.co.yu www: http://www.psytel-research.co.yu ************************************************* This e-mail may contain confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is solely for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us by return e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Fri Feb 1 13:12:33 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:47 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: [M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis Message-ID: <11CD90EDC5439A4AB30C7C13C314DDEE7B3EDF@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> -----Original Message----- From: Jordan Greenhall Sent: Friday, February 01, 2024 10:48 AM To: 'Rob Koenen' Subject: RE: [M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis Rob, In reference to your call for responses from service providers, DivXNetworks cuts the gamut. We are a technology provider, but we are also a service provider (we actually deliver quite a bit of content over the Internet right now for our content partners). In this light, here are my immediate thoughts: 1. Current license is a sweetheart deal for the Enterprise space. Unless the "use fees" somehow apply to teleconferencing and "e-learning", you are looking at a very cheap license in that space. 2. Current license effectively kills broadcast and "streaming" markets, possibly excluding VOD. By example, an MSO using MPEG-4 to deliver 100 channels to 500,000 subs would run roughly $1.5M in "use fees" alone - or roughly 9% of their gross margin. Not a chance. What is particularly concerning as a service provider is the lack of distinction between different content-monetization models. Ad-supported broadcast video monetizes viewers very differently than, say, VOD. More specifically, a $0.02 per hour fee has much less of an impact on a $20 per viewer WWF Smackdown PPV than it has on a $0.30 per viewer ad-supported episode of Smallville. This lack of distinction in the license could have profound negative effects on the entire market. 3. The decoder fee for software decoders is a big problem. The model is straight-forward: big companies (companies that can afford to pay a $1M cap per year) can attempt to promote their MPEG-4 decoders in software. Everyone else is more or less out of the game. I share the concern that when the competition is proprietary technologies such as WMA and Real that give away their software decoders for free, it is going to be difficult for MPEG-4 vendors to establish an adequate footprint to jumpstart the market. I also find it odd that the licensing fees are identical for encoders and decoders when margins for those products are certainly *not* the same in the market. In general, I match the consensus that licensing fees arranged more around encoding than decoding or content would be considerably more likely to promote the standard and generate the kinds of synergies necessary to ensure its comprehensive success. I look forward to the committee's release of additional licensing models as the market develops over the coming year. Jordan Greenhall CEO DivXNetworks From dim psytel-research.co.yu Mon Feb 4 09:44:20 2002 From: dim psytel-research.co.yu (Ivan Dimkovic) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: [M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis References: <11CD90EDC5439A4AB30C7C13C314DDEE7B3EDF@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <004301c1ad58$2419ea50$e635fea9@hal> Dear Jordan, All, > > 1. Current license is a sweetheart deal for the Enterprise space. Unless the > "use fees" somehow apply to teleconferencing and "e-learning", you are > looking at a very cheap license in that space. That's the right question - we are having problems in unederstanding whether "use fee" applies to e-learning solutions. We are also technology provider, and our possible partner have asked Larry Horn from MPEG-LA about this issue. However, Larry was on the business trip, so I suppose we will have answers today on in the next few days. I will send more details to this group when I get more answers. Kind Regards, ************************************************* Ivan Dimkovic, Technical Manager PsyTEL Research Multimedia Coding Solutions Belgrade Yugoslavia phone: +381 63 264 334 phone: +381 64 11 40 600 fax: +381 11 32 25 275 email: dim@psytel-research.co.yu www: http://www.psytel-research.co.yu ************************************************* This e-mail may contain confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is solely for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us by return e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. From jeffh bisk.com Mon Feb 4 09:32:35 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Where does this leave education? Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A09376108@mail.corp.bisk.com> Its certainly a new licensing model. I'm not sure how it affects our work in education. Can someone enlighten me on this? Our content is all educational and only part of our learning environment. We've not had to pay any royalties of any sort to serve our Windows Media and QuickTime content. Is that going to change now? We already pay Akamai for streaming service. Does that just mean the cost will be built into our monthly service? Our stuff also ships out on CD. Do we have to pay royalties for each student's set of CDs depending on the length of content? Etc... 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 Mon Feb 4 09:44:07 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918775E@exchange.epr.com> Hi Yuval, > So.... does M4IF have any influence over, opening with, connections to > MPEGLA ? Are they soliciting industry comments about their licensing. MPEGLA acts as an administrator of the license holders. Many of these are M4IF members, and so is MPEGLA. While M4IF cannot determine licensing in any way, it can of course convey, to the licensors and MPEGLA, the opinion of its members and of potential MPEG-4 users beyond its membership. This is precisely why this discussion list was created. I am sure licensors are willing to listen to comments about the announced licensing scheme. > There seems to be a general feeling that the license is a > good start on killing MPEG-4. It would be good for this discussion if you could explain why. Rob From kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com Mon Feb 4 10:28:27 2002 From: kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com (Sanjay Kulkarni) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918775E@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <3C5ED2CB.43EBD897@dvd.panasonic.com> Deal All: I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt about using the MPEG-4 format for streaming media. I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for consumers and am considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and MPEG4. What is the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming media solution? Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that licensing would be the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media formats). Not to mention that the rest of the players are already popular in the market and their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Sanjay Kulkarni Senior Software Engineer Panasonic Disc Services Corp. From ramakrishna_kakarala agilent.com Mon Feb 4 11:45:03 2002 From: ramakrishna_kakarala agilent.com (KAKARALA,RAMAKRISHNA (A-SantaClara,ex1)) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <999F6F1E8EB8D311AC190090277A77260C4CF64C@axcs08.cos.agilent.com> Dear Sanjay, all The real advantage MPEG-4 simple profile has over the others (real networks, windows media, quicktime) is that the hardware implementation is relatively straightforward. MPEG-4 codec chips are simple and cheap enough to make sense for inclusion in cellphones, where the battery power and unit cost are serious constraints. Therefore, there will be MPEG-4 content that both comes from mobile appliances, and can be decoded on mobile appliances. These other formats don't comparable hardware solutions. Ram Deal All: I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt about using the MPEG-4 format for streaming media. I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for consumers and am considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and MPEG4. What is the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming media solution? Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that licensing would be the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media formats). Not to mention that the rest of the players are already popular in the market and their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Sanjay Kulkarni Senior Software Engineer Panasonic Disc Services Corp. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramakrishna Kakarala | ramakrishna_kakarala@agilent.com Agilent Technologies | (408) 970-2467 3175 Bowers Av, MS 87H | Santa Clara, CA 95054 | USA From ramizer wmr.com Mon Feb 4 11:06:04 2002 From: ramizer wmr.com (richard mizer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918775E@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <3C5EDB91.5CF23A84@wmr.com> My comments on the licensing arrangement revolves around enforcibility and privacy. It is easy in the MPEG2 world to assess manufacturers of chips the appropriate fees for encoders and decoders (software encoders are probably easily collected as well, but perhaps not all software decoders, if they can be downloaded) It would be relatively straight forward to assess manufacturers of MPEG-4 hardware encoders/decoders the appropriate fees, and probably software encoders, but downloaded software decoders may be a little difficult to enforce. But the question of enforcing content playback on a per minute basis, first requires a sophisticated tracking system, that even with IPMP may not be enforceable on shared content...but also puts MPEGLA in the position of invading the privacy of viewers by knowing what content they have viewed, and when and how long, etc. While I know it is every patent holders dream to get a piece of the content pie, the current proposed arrangement will kill MPEG-4, since even if it is technically doable, it is an invasion of privacy and will cause Windows and Real to remain the most desirable options where no such invasion is required. Rob Koenen wrote: > > There seems to be a general feeling that the license is a > > good start on killing MPEG-4. > > It would be good for this discussion if you could explain why. > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jeffh bisk.com Mon Feb 4 15:06:56 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3B8@mail.corp.bisk.com> > While I know it is every patent holders dream to get a piece > of the content pie, That's just it. In our case, we don't charge for content. Its part of the whole package. Then there comes the question of: how important is that piece? If we have to pay a use fee every time someone wants to view their lectures, we'll end up sticking with QuickTime. I really don't want that. I want my cake and to eat it in one big gulp. Why not use the same licensing model as MPEG-2? Its not perfect, but it works well enough for the bandwagon to move. Or why not limit the use charge to a percentage rather than a flat rate - say .0002 percent of proceeds? But then I can see objections there too. How did MPEG-2 ever make it off of the ground?? 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 Mon Feb 4 12:26:52 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual License scheme a nnounced Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187770@exchange.epr.com> > Is there any way to invite someone responsible for MPEG-4 > visual licensing > (MPEG-LA) to the board. We need urgent clarification of the licensing > process as one of our licensing agreements is completely > depending on some > important clarifications of the fees and payments. There is definitely such a need, and I think that MPEG-LA is aware of it. I hope and believe they will take part in the discussions on this list. Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 12:51:43 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio Licen se Announced Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187773@exchange.epr.com> > The fee would be prohibitively expensive IF calculated based on: > [Channels] X [programming hours] X [total subscribers] X > [$0.02/hr] = usage fees While not passing any judgement on the announced scheme at this moment, the press release makes it somewhat clear that this is not the way things will be calculated. "[... a surrogate (e.g., standard industry audience measurement) is under consideration." http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html But this is far from conclusive; what exactly the calculation *will* look like is unclear - and MPEG-4's future depends on it. It should also be noted that (AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT) you pay *either* the encoder/decoder fee *or* the use fee, not both. You pay a use fee for use of MPEG-4 "[...] in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed (including without limitation pay-per-view, subscription and advertiser/underwriter-supported services)." To me that seems to include all free-to-air broadcasts ... You pay encoder/decoder fees for other services. All this seems to imply a one-to-one link between the decoder and the service, which is not going to exist in this context of an open standard where any player can play any content -- so I wonder how this is going to be detailed. Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 12:53:47 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: [M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187774@exchange.epr.com> Thanks for your comments Jordan. > 1. Current license is a sweetheart deal for the Enterprise > space. Unless the > "use fees" somehow apply to teleconferencing and "e-learning", you are > looking at a very cheap license in that space. > > 2. Current license effectively kills broadcast and "streaming" markets, > possibly excluding VOD. By example, an MSO using MPEG-4 to deliver 100 > channels to 500,000 subs would run roughly $1.5M in "use fees" alone - or > roughly 9% of their gross margin. Not a chance. It's these calculations and arguments that we need to discuss. For instance: are fees only due when programs are watched or are they due when delivered? The release gives some clues (looks like actual audience is the key, not the streaming itself), but we need more information. > What is particularly concerning as a service provider is the lack of distinction > between different content-monetization models. Ad-supported broadcast video > monetizes viewers very differently than, say, VOD. More specifically, a $0.02 > per hour fee has much less of an impact on a $20 per viewer WWF Smackdown PPV > than it has on a $0.30 per viewer ad-supported episode of Smallville. This lack of > distinction in the license could have profound negative effects on the entire > market. > > 3. The decoder fee for software decoders is a big problem. The model is > straight-forward: big companies (companies that can afford to pay a $1M cap > per year) can attempt to promote their MPEG-4 decoders in software. Everyone > else is more or less out of the game. I share the concern that when the > competition is proprietary technologies such as WMA and Real that give away > their software decoders for free, it is going to be difficult for MPEG-4 > vendors to establish an adequate footprint to jumpstart the market. This is an important point. If service providers choose a different format because MPEG-4 is not competitive, then we have a problem ... > I also > find it odd that the licensing fees are identical for encoders and decoders > when margins for those products are certainly *not* the same in the market. That depends on which market. Much more expensive encoders would be prohibitive for mobile 2-way communication. > In general, I match the consensus that licensing fees arranged more around > encoding than decoding or content would be considerably more likely to > promote the standard and generate the kinds of synergies necessary to ensure > its comprehensive success. I look forward to the committee's release of > additional licensing models as the market develops over the coming year. Just to be sure we are all on the same page: "the committee" means "the license holders". (And to explain the obvious one more time: M4IF has no say in licensing, it can only make its opinions known to licensors. But as M4IF represents the view of the MPEG-4 supporting community, I think license holders will take these opinions into account). Best, Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 13:33:09 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918777C@exchange.epr.com> It is an open standard, anyone can create technology supporting it, and many are in fact doing that. The competition among the various providers will ensure quality products, be they encoders, decoders, authoring tools, etc. Using such an open format, the need for supporting multiple proprietary formats, in many cases a burden, will disappear. Licensing -- the absence thereof -- has so far been the blocking factor for MPEG-4's adoption. Now that it will become available, It will determine the viability of the standard in the various application spaces. How this plays out will be greatly dependent on the application and its underlying business model. In the case of, e.g., a DVD, I see it working like this (BUT THIS IS ONLY MY INTERPRETATION OF MPEGLA'S PRESS RELEASE!) * encoders and decoders are free, because there is a renumeration for the content, and hence a use fee; * use fee is based on the playtime of the DVD. If there is 90 minutes of MPEG-4 programming, then the use fee would be 3 cents. Best, Rob ps: interestingly, MPEG-4 is great for authoring non-linear content, and for such content the concept "play time" may be very hard to establish for such material. What would you do, e.g., with a game in which you can spend hours and hours or get "killed" in 5 minutes? > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjay Kulkarni [mailto:kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2024 10:28 > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > Deal All: > > I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt > about using the > MPEG-4 format for streaming media. > > I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for > consumers and am > considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and > MPEG4. What is > the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming > media solution? > Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that > licensing would be > the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a > comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media > formats). Not to > mention that the rest of the players are already popular in > the market and > their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. > > Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! > > Regards, > Sanjay Kulkarni > Senior Software Engineer > Panasonic Disc Services Corp. > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From craig pcube.com Mon Feb 4 16:15:19 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff In-Reply-To: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3B8@mail.corp.bisk.com> References: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3B8@mail.corp.bisk.com> Message-ID: At 3:06 PM -0500 2/4/02, Jeff Handy wrote: > > While I know it is every patent holders dream to get a piece >> of the content pie, > > >That's just it. In our case, we don't charge for content. Its part of >the whole package. Then there comes the question of: how important is >that piece? If we have to pay a use fee every time someone wants to >view their lectures, we'll end up sticking with QuickTime. I really >don't want that. I want my cake and to eat it in one big gulp. Why not >use the same licensing model as MPEG-2? Its not perfect, but it works >well enough for the bandwagon to move. Or why not limit the use charge >to a percentage rather than a flat rate - say .0002 percent of proceeds? >But then I can see objections there too. How did MPEG-2 ever make it >off of the ground?? > There was a high level of commitment (and involvement) among companies that needed MPEG-2 to realize the benefits of digital compression. Many of the companies involved with commercial implementations also participated in the development process and have essential IP in the royalty pool. There were two key areas that helped get MPEG-2 off the ground: 1. DBS, which needed the bandwidth conservation benefits to compete with cable. 2. DVD-V which needed the bandwidth conservation benefits to fit a high quality movie onto an optical disc. In both cases, the tools in MPEG-2 to encode interlaced ITU-R BT 601 source was a key consideration. With DBS it was quite simple to deal with the decoder royalty as it was collected by the chip vendors. This was also true for DVD-V players. And with DVD, the "usage fee" is collected by the disc replicators, which is quite easy to administer. It is also worth noting that the CE manufacturers who have used MPEG-2 have long been accustomed to paying royalties for essential patents. In fact, it is part of the culture. We have seen this time and again with VHS, CD-Audio, DVD, video games, etc. It is also worth noting that cable, DBS and DTV broadcasters have never paid usage fees for a basic video distribution technology (they have paid Dolby royalties on some essential audio technology - but not usage fees). But the Internet and streaming media have evolved in a much different culture. One way of portraying this is that essential technology is frequently offered on a royalty free basis - at least for the mass market components; compensation for these essential patents is generally obtained via royalties on encoders and tools, or simply from the profits generated by reaching critical market mass. MPEG-4 is thus caught in the middle of a cultural war. The old business model of licensing may no longer be an effective approach; the success of MPEG-4 is not assured, as there are competitive options. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From craig pcube.com Mon Feb 4 16:55:16 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Calculating IP Multicase usage fees Message-ID: John McClenny posed another interesting question about the MPEG-4 usage fee on OpenDTV today: >So, if I commercially encode MPEG-4 and multicast it over an IP >network, does this count as one copy or multiple copies :)? Isn't >this going to keep everyone on either MPEG-2 or some other >proprietary encoder? -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 14:18:57 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Calculating IP Multicase usage fees Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187782@exchange.epr.com> Good question. Let's distinguish: 1) no renumeration 2) users don't pay but content provider collects some (modest) advertising revenue on the website that this stream is linked from 3) users pay per view. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig@pcube.com] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2024 13:55 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Calculating IP Multicase usage fees > > > John McClenny > > posed another interesting question about the MPEG-4 usage fee > on OpenDTV today: > > > >So, if I commercially encode MPEG-4 and multicast it over an IP > >network, does this count as one copy or multiple copies :)? Isn't > >this going to keep everyone on either MPEG-2 or some other > >proprietary encoder? > > > -- > Regards > Craig Birkmaier > Pcube Labs > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From sm dicas.de Tue Feb 5 18:52:52 2002 From: sm dicas.de (Moeritz, Sebastian) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] e-inSITE - The Electronics Industry Knowledge Network Message-ID: <000e01c1ae76$51db8740$bb8f5dc2@oemcomputer> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: e-inSITE - The Electronics Industry Knowledge Network.url Type: application/octet-stream Size: 264 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020205/f6e36632/e-inSITE-TheElectronicsIndustryKnowledgeNetwork.exe From jeffh bisk.com Tue Feb 5 14:44:48 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Here's a thought Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937612B@mail.corp.bisk.com> What's to stop us from forming an MPEG-4 coalition where all members coop the cost of the $1mil caps for the encoders and decoders? Maybe then, the use fee wouldn't hurt so badly. If there were enough corporate and private members, it might make sense. Your thoughts? 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020205/59ad3651/attachment.html From ben interframemedia.com Tue Feb 5 09:18:38 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: <3C5ED2CB.43EBD897@dvd.panasonic.com> Message-ID: Sanjay, The critical feature of MPEG-4 is interoperability. Content created by any compliant tool can be served by any compliant server and play back in any compliant player, even if they're all from different vendors (within the same Profile@Level). Proprietary formats obviously can't offer this. How important the interoperability is relative to player ubiquity and encoder cost will vary hugely by the industry. MPEG-4's first big successes are unlikely to be in head to head competition against QuickTime, Windows Media, and RealVideo. MPEG-4's initial wins will be in areas where those technologies don't provide a complete solution today. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/4/02 10:28 AM, Sanjay Kulkarni at kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com wrote: > I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt about using the > MPEG-4 format for streaming media. > > I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for consumers and am > considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and MPEG4. What is > the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming media solution? > Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that licensing would be > the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a > comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media formats). Not to > mention that the rest of the players are already popular in the market and > their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. > > Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Feb 5 13:53:45 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877E8@exchange.epr.com> Ben is exaclty right. Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2024 9:19 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Cc: Sanjay Kulkarni > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > Sanjay, > > The critical feature of MPEG-4 is interoperability. > Content created by > any compliant tool can be served by any compliant server and > play back in > any compliant player, even if they're all from different > vendors (within the > same Profile@Level). > > Proprietary formats obviously can't offer this. > > How important the interoperability is relative to player > ubiquity and > encoder cost will vary hugely by the industry. > > MPEG-4's first big successes are unlikely to be in head to head > competition against QuickTime, Windows Media, and RealVideo. MPEG-4's > initial wins will be in areas where those technologies don't provide a > complete solution today. > > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > on 2/4/02 10:28 AM, Sanjay Kulkarni at > kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com wrote: > > > I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt > about using the > > MPEG-4 format for streaming media. > > > > I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for > consumers and am > > considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and > MPEG4. What is > > the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming > media solution? > > Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that > licensing would be > > the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a > > comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media > formats). Not to > > mention that the rest of the players are already popular in > the market and > > their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. > > > > Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From trbarry trbarry.com Tue Feb 5 18:21:39 2002 From: trbarry trbarry.com (Tom Barry) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877E8@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <000a01c1ae9b$dcc8de00$9100a8c0@com.robot> | Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working | at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. | Yes, it may be they have implemented a licensing structure where everyone is willing to implement support but no one is willing to create and transmit content. - Tom | -----Original Message----- | From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org | [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen | Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2024 4:54 PM | To: 'Ben Waggoner'; discuss@lists.m4if.org | Cc: Sanjay Kulkarni | Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? | | | Ben is exaclty right. | | Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working | at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. | | Rob | | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] | > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2024 9:19 | > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org | > Cc: Sanjay Kulkarni | > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? | > | > | > Sanjay, | > | > The critical feature of MPEG-4 is interoperability. | > Content created by | > any compliant tool can be served by any compliant server and | > play back in | > any compliant player, even if they're all from different | > vendors (within the | > same Profile@Level). | > | > Proprietary formats obviously can't offer this. | > | > How important the interoperability is relative to player | > ubiquity and | > encoder cost will vary hugely by the industry. | > | > MPEG-4's first big successes are unlikely to be in head to head | > competition against QuickTime, Windows Media, and | RealVideo. MPEG-4's | > initial wins will be in areas where those technologies | don't provide a | > complete solution today. | > | > | > Ben Waggoner | > Interframe Media | > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding | > | > | > | > on 2/4/02 10:28 AM, Sanjay Kulkarni at | > kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com wrote: | > | > > I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt | > about using the | > > MPEG-4 format for streaming media. | > > | > > I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for | > consumers and am | > > considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and | > MPEG4. What is | > > the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming | > media solution? | > > Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that | > licensing would be | > > the killer to launching this format in the market (again, | this is a | > > comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media | > formats). Not to | > > mention that the rest of the players are already popular in | > the market and | > > their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. | > > | > > Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! | > | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > 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 | From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Feb 5 15:28:08 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877F9@exchange.epr.com> > | Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working > | at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. > | > > Yes, it may be they have implemented a licensing structure where > everyone is willing to implement support but no one is > willing to create > and transmit content. > That is a good comment, and one that I would like to see supported or refuted by the facts. Let's try to understand how it works out for specific use cases. I have invited the people that know to explain the scheme in more detail, and also to explain where the details still need to be worked out. It will greatly help if we get concrete examples of where licensing supposedly works and where it allegedly doesn't. Rob From kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com Tue Feb 5 15:54:46 2002 From: kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com (Sanjay Kulkarni) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877F9@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <3C6070C6.96F7140F@dvd.panasonic.com> Oh, I would be willing to develop MPEG4 content and distribute it, as long as it is accepted in the market. In that case, I would be responsible for content conversion and licensing issues. But then, I'd like see more and more consumers having MPEG4 decoders to view my content. As someone on this list rightly pointed out (I miss the name), it is going to be hard to get popular support for MPEG4 for markets in which Windows Media, RealVideo, etc are popular - such as PC based streaming content - but for areas where there are no solutions as yet, MPEG4 has a big chance. Examples - streaming media over Internet connected STBs and TVs or mobile commn. Sanjay P.S. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT MY COMPANY IN ANY WAY Rob Koenen wrote: > > | Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working > > | at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. > > | > > > > Yes, it may be they have implemented a licensing structure where > > everyone is willing to implement support but no one is > > willing to create > > and transmit content. > > > > That is a good comment, and one that I would like to see supported > or refuted by the facts. Let's try to understand how it works out > for specific use cases. I have invited the people that know to explain > the scheme in more detail, and also to explain where the details still > need to be worked out. It will greatly help if we get concrete > examples of where licensing supposedly works and where it allegedly > doesn't. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Senior Software Engineer Panasonic Disc Services Corp. 525 Maple Ave, Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: 310-783-4800 x674 Fax: 310-783-4849 Email: kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com From ben interframemedia.com Tue Feb 5 16:45:38 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877E8@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Rob, Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working > at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. From i.g.richardson rgu.ac.uk Wed Feb 6 08:45:17 2002 From: i.g.richardson rgu.ac.uk (Iain Richardson (ensigr)) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Details of patent claims Message-ID: <9B4C0CE0F5BE4E4F83226707BFA0D1B42D06CB@EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk> Is there a statement available giving the details of the claims made by the MP4 Visual patent holders ? For example, the short header mode is identical to baseline H.263 which (as far as I'm aware) isn't covered by a licensing scheme. Is there evidence that an MPEG4 Visual codec operating in this mode actually requires licensing ? Thanks Iain Richardson Scotland, UK From adrockus earthlink.net Wed Feb 6 12:10:24 2002 From: adrockus earthlink.net (Adam Siegel) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and servers, it is still not clear to me that supporting exclusively MPEG-4 will provide adequate cost savings or other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 of the Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with really large amounts of content will save on storage costs, but is this significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to make the user choose a format or try to detect the user's installed players. But are these benefits enough to justify the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and publishing systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing issues...Then there will probably also be inconsistencies in the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we will be limited to the functionality supported by all. I really want to see MPEG-4 happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the market to be ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. Adam Siegel ex-cubed media minds -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Ben Waggoner Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2024 7:46 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Rob, Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working > at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From yuval envivio.com Wed Feb 6 09:47:34 2002 From: yuval envivio.com (Yuval Fisher) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: Message-ID: <3C616C36.17ADEBAC@envivio.com> > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their players, at least > to some extent. Even if it subtracts $1 million from their bottom line ? That's the cap on the recently released visual license outline. Yuval From Bill streamingmedia.com Wed Feb 6 10:16:40 2002 From: Bill streamingmedia.com (Bill Bernat) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <0BC3DFA40E5BD511919800B0D0D0893B3A089C@MAILSRV> Internet streaming is only one part of a much bigger MPEG-4 picture, and for much of that picture the recently proposed Visual licensing terms are perhaps excellent. For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) and it's understood that marketplace adoption will take time; however, assuming the big three were willing to pay the $1 cap on the decoder, and in some cases perhaps on the encoder, to allow unlimited distribution, would they be subject to the content use fee of $0.02 per hour played if the content were downloaded and not streamed? For some content only? Also, would they be willing to then include server support as well, and include technology to enable webcasters to track and pony up the $0.02 for each unicast hour? Would a webcaster see enough benefit in MPEG-4 that he/she would pay the $0.02 per hour. What other questions do people have about the licensing agreement? -billb > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Siegel [mailto:adrockus@earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 9:10 AM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their > players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players > support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or > else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the > case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that > there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing > in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. > > Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and > servers, it is still not clear to me that supporting > exclusively MPEG-4 will provide adequate cost savings or > other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 of the > Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with > really large amounts of content will save on storage costs, > but is this significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to > make the user choose a format or try to detect the user's > installed players. But are these benefits enough to justify > the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and > encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and > publishing systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing > issues...Then there will probably also be inconsistencies in > the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we will be limited to the > functionality supported by all. I really want to see MPEG-4 > happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the > market to be ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. > > Adam Siegel > ex-cubed media minds > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On > Behalf Of Ben > Waggoner > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2024 7:46 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > Rob, > > Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would > play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > > > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support > working at NAB > > last year, and Real has announced it too. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > From rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM Wed Feb 6 10:35:17 2002 From: rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM (Robert Saint John) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:49 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F6D@SF-MAIL.ligos> I think it's worth pointing out that when it comes to "the big 3", history is probably a good indicator of how this will work out. Supporting a codec/architecture is not the same thing as including it. In the example of MPEG-1, each of the big three support it "out of the box" by including the codec. The one exception to this might be Real; I can't recall if the Real Players include the MPEG-1 decoder (by Digital Bitcasting/EMC?) by default. But in general, I think one reason that there is such a great deal of content in MPEG-1 format is because there is true support for it for every player on every OS and platform. The same cannot be said of MPEG-2. MS supports MPEG-2 by including hooks that allow DVD Video players from different vendors to operate. There are some straightforward MPEG-2 decoder options available for Windows, but it is unlikely that MS will ever license or distribute MPEG-2. I believe Apple only recently started supporting MPEG-2 out of the box (also for DVD), but does not include an MPEG-2 codec with QuickTime. And Real has no support for MPEG-2 whatsoever. I firmly believe (actually, I've been told) that this is due to the cost of licensing. MPEG-2 became a victim of sorts (on the PC platform) of the chicken and the egg syndrome. The Big 3 don't fully support it because the content is not there. The content is not there because there is no ubiquitous support. There are other reasons certainly (average stream size of MPEG-2 for instance), but the licensing issue associated with decoders is certainly a contributing factor. Of course, it didn't stop MPEG-2 from becoming the most successful codec of all time (without any help from the PC). I see few reasons why it should be any different with MPEG-4. Any success on the PC platform (if that matters) will be directly related to its full support by the Big 3. And I really don't see that happening. More likely that MPEG-4 will become near and dear to one of the Big 3, and that's how it will establish itself on the PC. But I think we need to keep perspective about how important that really is. If we look at this from a PC-Internet-Media Player -centric point of view, we're missing one of the key points of MPEG-4 in the first place. Robert -- Robert W. Saint John - rsaintjohn@ligos.com Director of Technical Marketing Ligos Corporation - http://www.ligos.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Adam Siegel [mailto:adrockus@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 9:10 AM Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and servers, <...snipped...> From kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com Wed Feb 6 10:44:31 2002 From: kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com (Sanjay Kulkarni) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: <0BC3DFA40E5BD511919800B0D0D0893B3A089C@MAILSRV> Message-ID: <3C61798F.782868C4@dvd.panasonic.com> I have a similar question. If I were to bundle some MPEG4 content on my DVD (as ROM content), who would pay for the viewership? The player manufacturer for supplying the decoder, me for encoding the content, or the disc replicator for replicating N discs with MPEG4 content on it? What baffels me more is if part of my content is on the disc and some content is streamed from the Server. What kind of licensing would I be looking at in these cases? ...should I be thinking about copy-protection issues too? Sanjay Bill Bernat wrote: > Internet streaming is only one part of a much bigger MPEG-4 picture, and for > much of that picture the recently proposed Visual licensing terms are > perhaps excellent. > > For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) > and it's understood that marketplace adoption will take time; however, > assuming the big three were willing to pay the $1 cap on the decoder, and in > some cases perhaps on the encoder, to allow unlimited distribution, would > they be subject to the content use fee of $0.02 per hour played if the > content were downloaded and not streamed? For some content only? Also, > would they be willing to then include server support as well, and include > technology to enable webcasters to track and pony up the $0.02 for each > unicast hour? Would a webcaster see enough benefit in MPEG-4 that he/she > would pay the $0.02 per hour. What other questions do people have about the > licensing agreement? > > -billb > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Siegel [mailto:adrockus@earthlink.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 9:10 AM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > > > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their > > players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players > > support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or > > else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the > > case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that > > there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing > > in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. > > > > Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and > > servers, it is still not clear to me that supporting > > exclusively MPEG-4 will provide adequate cost savings or > > other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 of the > > Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with > > really large amounts of content will save on storage costs, > > but is this significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to > > make the user choose a format or try to detect the user's > > installed players. But are these benefits enough to justify > > the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and > > encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and > > publishing systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing > > issues...Then there will probably also be inconsistencies in > > the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we will be limited to the > > functionality supported by all. I really want to see MPEG-4 > > happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the > > market to be ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. > > > > Adam Siegel > > ex-cubed media minds > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On > > Behalf Of Ben > > Waggoner > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2024 7:46 PM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > Rob, > > > > Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would > > play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. > > > > Ben Waggoner > > Interframe Media > > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > > > > > on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > > > > > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support > > working at NAB > > > last year, and Real has announced it too. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 10:51:08 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918783B@exchange.epr.com> Bill, > For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) > and it's understood that marketplace adoption will take time; I exect Systems to come along, I am more worried about Audio. My expectations may be proven wrong. > however, assuming the big three were willing to pay the $1 cap on the $1? That would be great for users. M$1 is more like it:-) > decoder, and in some cases perhaps on the encoder, to allow unlimited > distribution, would > they be subject to the content use fee of $0.02 per hour played if the > content were downloaded and not streamed? AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND the difference between streaming and downloading is moot. What counts is: is there renumeration for the content. If there is, I read the release as saying that the use-fee applies. In that case the ENcoder would be royalty free (but hey, what is 25 cts on a professional encoder anyway?) > For some content only? Also, > would they be willing to then include server support as well, and include > technology to enable webcasters to track and pony up the $0.02 for each > unicast hour? Would a webcaster see enough benefit in MPEG-4 that he/she > would pay the $0.02 per hour. What other questions do people have about the > licensing agreement? That is indeed where there are big question marks. * How does it work in the case of 1 to many? (broadcast and webcast) * How does it work when there is no direct renumeration like 5 USD per user per hour, but indirect, e.g. through advertising? (and maybe not all that much either?) Rob From adrockus earthlink.net Wed Feb 6 13:55:45 2002 From: adrockus earthlink.net (Adam Siegel) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: <3C616C36.17ADEBAC@envivio.com> Message-ID: Let's put it this way: I don't think $1 million is going to keep Microsoft, Real and Apple from any market that is worth being in. So if they decide not to pay the money, this will be a good indication about the nature of the opportunity for all of us. I mean, think about how much the telcos paid for 3G licenses... To Bill's questions, I think there would be great benefit to all if there were some excel spreadsheet or some other computational model based on the licensing terms that we could use to determine costs related to offering MPEG-4 content and related solutions/services. Any volunteers? ;-) Adam -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Yuval Fisher Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 12:48 PM Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their players, at least > to some extent. Even if it subtracts $1 million from their bottom line ? That's the cap on the recently released visual license outline. Yuval _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From yuval envivio.com Wed Feb 6 11:09:46 2002 From: yuval envivio.com (Yuval Fisher) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F6D@SF-MAIL.ligos> Message-ID: <3C617F7A.595AEE18@envivio.com> > Of course, it didn't stop MPEG-2 from becoming the most successful codec of > all time (without any help from the PC). I see few reasons why it should be > any different with MPEG-4. I disagree. I think it will be very different for MPEG-4. The existing investment in MPEG-2 will not go away. Content owners do not want to live on the bleeding edge at all. As happened with mp3, the hardware and consumer markets will follow wide spread adoption only, and this can only happen over PCs. The success of MPEG-4 depends on adoption on PCs. (Wireless is another argument, which I'll avoid now). y From yuval envivio.com Wed Feb 6 11:18:22 2002 From: yuval envivio.com (Yuval Fisher) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: Message-ID: <3C61817E.EF72DB9A@envivio.com> > Let's put it this way: I don't think $1 million is going to keep Microsoft, > Real and Apple from any market that is worth being in. So if they decide not > to pay the money, this will be a good indication about the nature of the > opportunity for all of us. This seems to suggest that these 3 have crystal balls that tell them what markets will emerge and which won't. That's simply silly. You can review initiatives by all three and see successes and failures. The fact is that no one has consistantly predicted adoption or rejection of technology. The adoption of MPEG-4 *may* happen if it is coddled and promoted in a way that compensates for the dominance of other technologies. MPEG-4 will not be adopted if it is hampered by fees just as it emerges. (The 1 year grace period is insufficient time for a variety of reasons....) From rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM Wed Feb 6 11:47:52 2002 From: rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM (Robert Saint John) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F70@SF-MAIL.ligos> Sorry, I should have left that sentence with the previous paragraph. When I said "I see few reasons why it should be any different with MPEG-4", I simply meant that I felt MPEG-4 support would evolve on the PC in a path similar to MPEG-2 support, for many of the same reasons. I think it's way too early to tell if MPEG-4 will become the most successful codec/architecture, and didn't mean to imply that. My turn to disagree now . I sincerely hope that the success of MPEG-4 does *not* depend on the PC. We can debate (somewhere else) what a "PC" is and what it might evolve into. But if the consensus is that the current Internet-connected PC is the only platform and market that could establish some "killer app" of MPEG-4 that leads it to widespread adoption (within 1 year!), then I find it hard to understand what "the REAL advantage" (the original question) is, and I think we're all in trouble. If that's really the case, then the combination punch of the Big 3 and the licensing scheme will be enough to knock out MPEG-4 in the first round, IMHO. I hope we won't have to depend on the PC alone, and again I really don't think we can ask these questions with only the "streaming media for PCs" market in mind. MPEG and MPEG-LA deal with a much larger world, and the proposal reflects that. I don't think it's likely that MPEG-LA can come up with one set of rules for PC-based implementations, and another set of rules for the rest of the world (wireless, CE, telematics, etc.). Discussions and decisions based upon a single market POV risk damaging the chances of MPEG-4's success in other markets, and success overall. If MPEG-4 is just going to be a "me too" for the PC, then we've already decided that our future depends exclusively on one or more of the Big 3. ugh. BTW, only speaking for me, not my company, who would probably say I should get back to work. Robert -- Robert W. Saint John - rsaintjohn@ligos.com Director of Technical Marketing Ligos Corporation - http://www.ligos.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Yuval Fisher [mailto:yuval@envivio.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 11:10 AM > Of course, it didn't stop MPEG-2 from becoming the most successful codec of > all time (without any help from the PC). I see few reasons why it should be > any different with MPEG-4. I disagree. I think it will be very different for MPEG-4. The existing investment in MPEG-2 will not go away. Content owners do not want to live on the bleeding edge at all. As happened with mp3, the hardware and consumer markets will follow wide spread adoption only, and this can only happen over PCs. The success of MPEG-4 depends on adoption on PCs. (Wireless is another argument, which I'll avoid now). y _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From vasanth pav.research.panasonic.com Wed Feb 6 14:50:49 2002 From: vasanth pav.research.panasonic.com (Vasanth Shreesha) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20020206143942.00b138c0@mailhost.pav.research.panasonic.com> Hello all, How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 cents/hour license fee? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http://www.pavcal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020206/6d8afb8c/attachment.html From singer apple.com Wed Feb 6 12:08:17 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918783B@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918783B@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: At 10:51 -0800 2/6/02, Rob Koenen wrote: >Bill, > > >> For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) actually, it's just the profiles of visual that include the video codec, right, so it's not even FBA or still coding. So it's really two profiles of video only, as I understand. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From LHorn mpegla.com Wed Feb 6 13:25:51 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: Hello, Sanjav. 1) Under last week's announcement, the license would have the disc replicator pay for each packaged medium with MPEG-4 data. 2) For streaming content, a royalty would apply to the use of MPEG-4 video in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed. Regards, Larry Horn MPEG LA -----Original Message----- From: Sanjay Kulkarni [mailto:kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 1:45 PM Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? I have a similar question. If I were to bundle some MPEG4 content on my DVD (as ROM content), who would pay for the viewership? The player manufacturer for supplying the decoder, me for encoding the content, or the disc replicator for replicating N discs with MPEG4 content on it? What baffels me more is if part of my content is on the disc and some content is streamed from the Server. What kind of licensing would I be looking at in these cases? ...should I be thinking about copy-protection issues too? Sanjay Bill Bernat wrote: > Internet streaming is only one part of a much bigger MPEG-4 picture, and for > much of that picture the recently proposed Visual licensing terms are > perhaps excellent. > > For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) > and it's understood that marketplace adoption will take time; however, > assuming the big three were willing to pay the $1 cap on the decoder, and in > some cases perhaps on the encoder, to allow unlimited distribution, would > they be subject to the content use fee of $0.02 per hour played if the > content were downloaded and not streamed? For some content only? Also, > would they be willing to then include server support as well, and include > technology to enable webcasters to track and pony up the $0.02 for each > unicast hour? Would a webcaster see enough benefit in MPEG-4 that he/she > would pay the $0.02 per hour. What other questions do people have about the > licensing agreement? > > -billb > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Siegel [mailto:adrockus@earthlink.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 9:10 AM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > > > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their > > players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players > > support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or > > else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the > > case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that > > there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing > > in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. > > > > Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and > > servers, it is still not clear to me that supporting > > exclusively MPEG-4 will provide adequate cost savings or > > other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 of the > > Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with > > really large amounts of content will save on storage costs, > > but is this significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to > > make the user choose a format or try to detect the user's > > installed players. But are these benefits enough to justify > > the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and > > encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and > > publishing systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing > > issues...Then there will probably also be inconsistencies in > > the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we will be limited to the > > functionality supported by all. I really want to see MPEG-4 > > happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the > > market to be ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. > > > > Adam Siegel > > ex-cubed media minds > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On > > Behalf Of Ben > > Waggoner > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2024 7:46 PM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > Rob, > > > > Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would > > play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. > > > > Ben Waggoner > > Interframe Media > > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > > > > > on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > > > > > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support > > working at NAB > > > last year, and Real has announced it too. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From LHorn mpegla.com Wed Feb 6 13:41:35 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: Hello, Vasanth. In the case of the so-called "use" fees, royalties follow remuneration: If a service provider or content provider/owner receives remuneration in connection with offering/providing the MPEG-4 video for viewing or having the video viewed, then royalties are charged for the use of such MPEG-4 video data. If there is no remuneration to the service provider or content provider/owner in connection with offering/providing the MPEG-4 video for viewing or having the video viewed as in the case of the private communications that you describe, however, then the use fee does not apply; rather, the encoder that encodes such content must be licensed and the applicable royalty paid. Regards, Larry Horn MPEG LA -----Original Message----- From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 2:51 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Hello all, How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 cents/hour license fee? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http://www.pavcal.com From adrockus earthlink.net Wed Feb 6 15:46:30 2002 From: adrockus earthlink.net (Adam Siegel) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:50 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: <3C61817E.EF72DB9A@envivio.com> Message-ID: Well, the big 3 do not need a crystal ball to figure out how to deal with MPEG-4. They can afford to embrace and extend early on if they wish. They ARE the Web streaming market as it exists today - they have the customers and the users and the channels. That puts them in the best position to project what the market will need moving forward. Sure they can be wrong, but they can also afford to be wrong or even just wait and see what happens and then decide to join in if it looks like it is getting interesting. They can always join the game a bit late and still win - remember what happened with MS vs. Netscape in the browser war? I guess I am just taking a longwinded way of expressing what others have already said: I believe the more interesting opportunities for new companies in the MPEG-4 space will be outside of the Web arena. Adam -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Yuval Fisher Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 2:18 PM Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > Let's put it this way: I don't think $1 million is going to keep Microsoft, > Real and Apple from any market that is worth being in. So if they decide not > to pay the money, this will be a good indication about the nature of the > opportunity for all of us. This seems to suggest that these 3 have crystal balls that tell them what markets will emerge and which won't. That's simply silly. You can review initiatives by all three and see successes and failures. The fact is that no one has consistantly predicted adoption or rejection of technology. The adoption of MPEG-4 *may* happen if it is coddled and promoted in a way that compensates for the dominance of other technologies. MPEG-4 will not be adopted if it is hampered by fees just as it emerges. (The 1 year grace period is insufficient time for a variety of reasons....) _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 12:48:02 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918785E@exchange.epr.com> Larry Horn, who has just entered the discussion, can correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand MPEGLA's press release correctly and assuming that you are not charging your friends/family for your content, the answer is 'Yes, you can'. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 11:51 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Hello all, How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 cents/hour license fee? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http ://www.pavcal. com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020206/9525ce30/attachment.html From LHorn mpegla.com Wed Feb 6 13:54:07 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: Yes, per my prior email. :-) Larry -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 3:48 PM To: 'Vasanth Shreesha'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Larry Horn, who has just entered the discussion, can correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand MPEGLA's press release correctly and assuming that you are not charging your friends/family for your content, the answer is 'Yes, you can'. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 11:51 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Hello all, How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 cents/hour license fee? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http ://www.pavcal. com From jeffh bisk.com Wed Feb 6 16:36:49 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937614A@mail.corp.bisk.com> Larry: Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? 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 LHorn mpegla.com Wed Feb 6 14:45:21 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. Message-ID: Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. Therefore, yes, it would apply. Larry -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 4:37 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. Larry: Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? 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 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jeffh bisk.com Wed Feb 6 16:59:27 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937614E@mail.corp.bisk.com> > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or > the university (or both) receives remuneration for this > material. Therefore, yes, it would apply. If by remuneration you mean to "charge" for, then no, we do not. The course material is provided for free over the web. There is no charge for lecture material. The tuition paid for is for education, not for materials. The education is provided in many ways. In fact, some students never even view the lecture material. The CDs are provided free of charge for any student that doesn't have a high-speed connection or just wants them. 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 craig pcube.com Wed Feb 6 16:09:32 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: <3C617F7A.595AEE18@envivio.com> References: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F6D@SF-MAIL.ligos> <3C617F7A.595AEE18@envivio.com> Message-ID: At 11:09 AM -0800 2/6/02, Yuval Fisher wrote: > > Of course, it didn't stop MPEG-2 from becoming the most successful codec of >> all time (without any help from the PC). I see few reasons why it should be >> any different with MPEG-4. > >I disagree. I think it will be very different for MPEG-4. The existing >investment in MPEG-2 will not go away. Content owners do not want to >live on the bleeding edge at all. As happened with mp3, the hardware and >consumer markets will follow wide spread adoption only, and this can >only happen over PCs. > >The success of MPEG-4 depends on adoption on PCs. (Wireless is another >argument, which I'll avoid now). I've got to agree with Yuval. There is a good reason why MPEG-2 succeeded in the consumer electronics space, and now in cable. The major players saw both the need for and the opportunity to make MPEG-2 a success. DBS and DVD could not have happened without a video encoding technology that would deliver the legacy 525/625 line interlaced video formats at the target bit rates. And these vendors were only to happy to play the IP licensing game; they created a bunch of new IP for MPEG-2, and they share in the royalty revenues. It is also noteworthy that ONLY MPEG-2 MP@ML is a commercial success, and even here there is no interoperability...set-top boxes do not inter-connect with DVD players...it's the same old box per function CE mentality. MPEG-2 did not succeed on PCs because of the licensing issues AND because of content management issues. The latter is still more of a barrier than the revised MPEG-2 license fees. Decoded MPEG-2 video cannot be handled like any other data in a PC, it must be separated and protected. MPEG-4 offers a variety of benefits that will eventually play an important role in CE products, PC products and IP distribution networks. All of these markets are converging in terms of the underlying technology - but the barriers to prevent marketplace convergence are as impenetrable as ever. Yuval is correct about the desire to protect the investment in MPEG-2. This extends well beyond the video codec. It helps to preserve the legacy of interlace (a barrier to convergence with the PC) and the control over the appliances that deliver entertainment content. But some cracks are beginning to appear in walls that the CE industry has built. Program distributors are looking for more efficient codecs to deliver more content in fewer bits (and in a few cases higher quality in fewer bits). The new Moxi platform, introduced at CES, supports DBS, Digital cable, DVD-V AND Real Player, and has all of the hooks needed for applications delivered via IP networks. It uses Flash for the development of the user interface. If DirecTV and DISH are allowed to merge, they will have a strong incentive to replace the existing MPEG-2 set-tops with a platform that uses more efficient video coding and a variety of IP based interactive applications. MPEG-4 could be the solution, but not with the proposed licensing model. If MPEG-LA were to pursue a PC based "proliferation" model for MPEG-4 it would stand a very good chance of displacing the big three, or at the very least, full support by the big three. Even with this it won't be an easy path, as fully conformant implementations of MPEG-4 across multiple platforms will be a significant challenge from both a technical and business viewpoint. Unfortunately, this discussion is centered only on MPEG-4 visual, which is but one of many codecs that could be used in a full implementation of the MPEG-4 composition model. There is far too much emphasis on MPEG-4 as an audio/video streaming format. The real power lies in the composition model and the impact it will have on the localization and personalization of digital media content. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From ben interframemedia.com Wed Feb 6 14:45:30 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] \ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam, I'd hope everyone would at least use ISMA Profile 1, which gives Advanced Simple Visual, and a maximum resolution of 352x288. It's in the ballpark of competitive against Big Three solutions today, if you don't need high resolution. I hope we'll see some Scalable profiles become available sooner rather than later. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/6/02 9:10 AM, Adam Siegel at adrockus@earthlink.net wrote: > Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and servers, it is > still not clear to me that supporting exclusively MPEG-4 will provide > adequate cost savings or other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 > of the Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with really > large amounts of content will save on storage costs, but is this > significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to make the user choose a format > or try to detect the user's installed players. But are these benefits enough > to justify the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and > encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and publishing > systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing issues...Then there will > probably also be inconsistencies in the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we > will be limited to the functionality supported by all. I really want to see > MPEG-4 happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the market to be > ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. From ben interframemedia.com Wed Feb 6 14:54:15 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam, Also, there are no license fees for the first year. So the big three can all ship MPEG-4 playback and encode for a year, and see how the market develops. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/6/02 12:46 PM, Adam Siegel at adrockus@earthlink.net wrote: > Well, the big 3 do not need a crystal ball to figure out how to deal with > MPEG-4. They can afford to embrace and extend early on if they wish. They > ARE the Web streaming market as it exists today - they have the customers > and the users and the channels. That puts them in the best position to > project what the market will need moving forward. Sure they can be wrong, > but they can also afford to be wrong or even just wait and see what happens > and then decide to join in if it looks like it is getting interesting. They > can always join the game a bit late and still win - remember what happened > with MS vs. Netscape in the browser war? > > I guess I am just taking a longwinded way of expressing what others have > already said: I believe the more interesting opportunities for new companies > in the MPEG-4 space will be outside of the Web arena. From vmladjov signalstream.com Wed Feb 6 15:26:34 2002 From: vmladjov signalstream.com (Vassil Mladjov) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: OK people, Would it be possible that when you reply to emails we all ( the list ) not get included on every one of them. Please reply to individuals directly when that is necessary. I don't know about others, but I get over 100 emails (not just from this list) a day and that would help. Cheers. Vassil Mladjov Vice President Chief Information Officer ITN Signalstream 901 Battery Street, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94111 415.262.4206 direct 415.956.1703 ITN headquarters 415.956.2040 fax 415.420.2883 cell/sms 877.806.0794 pager/text/email vmladjov@signalstream.com http://www.signalstream.com From rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM Wed Feb 6 15:57:06 2002 From: rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM (Robert Saint John) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F74@SF-MAIL.ligos> Vassil ~ I think there are many of us who are interested in (and need) all of the information and opinions traded here right now. It would very hard to determine who wants to read what. Perhaps you should consider subscribing to the digest instead, or simply reading the list archives at http://lists.m4if.org/pipermail/discuss/ ? As posted on each message, you can maintain your subscription options at http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss . And, yes, I could have replied just to you, but then no one else would see it if they felt the same! Robert -- Robert W. Saint John - rsaintjohn@ligos.com Director of Technical Marketing Ligos Corporation - http://www.ligos.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Vassil Mladjov [mailto:vmladjov@signalstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 3:27 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? OK people, Would it be possible that when you reply to emails we all ( the list ) not get included on every one of them. Please reply to individuals directly when that is necessary. I don't know about others, but I get over 100 emails (not just from this list) a day and that would help. Cheers. Vassil Mladjov Vice President Chief Information Officer ITN Signalstream 901 Battery Street, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94111 415.262.4206 direct 415.956.1703 ITN headquarters 415.956.2040 fax 415.420.2883 cell/sms 877.806.0794 pager/text/email vmladjov@signalstream.com http://www.signalstream.com _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 16:07:15 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918788C@exchange.epr.com> Vassil, all, > Would it be possible that when you reply to emails we all > (the list) not get included on every one of them. This is a discussion list. People replying to the list is inherent to having a discussion. That said, everybody should make the judgement whether a response is relevant for all or just for the person you are responding to. So far, I haven't seen many emails that weren't for the list. You can set your delivery options to digest mode if you still think you receive too much mail. Follow the instructions found the Welcome mail you receied when subscribing. Hope that helps, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Vassil Mladjov [mailto:vmladjov@signalstream.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 15:27 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > OK people, > > Would it be possible that when you reply to emails we all ( > the list ) not > get included on every one of them. > Please reply to individuals directly when that is necessary. > I don't know > about others, but I get over 100 emails (not just from this > list) a day and > that would help. > Cheers. > > Vassil Mladjov > > Vice President > Chief Information Officer > > ITN Signalstream > 901 Battery Street, Suite 220 > San Francisco, CA 94111 > 415.262.4206 direct > 415.956.1703 ITN headquarters > 415.956.2040 fax > 415.420.2883 cell/sms > 877.806.0794 pager/text/email > > vmladjov@signalstream.com > http://www.signalstream.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 16:24:17 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187892@exchange.epr.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] > Adam, > > Also, there are no license fees for the first year. So the big three > can all ship MPEG-4 playback and encode for a year, and see how the market > develops. True, but they will need to sign a licensing agreement or an MoU though. The grace period is not for just everyone. I don't know the terms of the MoU. Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 16:37:18 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] \ Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187894@exchange.epr.com> Ben, all, > I hope we'll see some Scalable profiles become available > sooner rather than later. Next on the list for licensing are Simple Scalable, Advanced Simple and Fine Granular Scalability (FGS). See http://www.m4if.org/patents/video111401.html for MPEG LA's press release. In the case of Advanced Simple and Fine Grain Scalability, MPEG LA called for essential patents even before the standard is published, so the process is self-learning and rapidly catching up with the lag that was here for the first announcement, a few days ago. Advanced Simple is the Profile that ISMA uses. I am not a patent expert, but I expect that there aren't a whole lot of patents necessarily inforinged by an Advanced Simple implementation that aren't also infringed by Simple or Core. On the basis of this (my layman's assumption) so I would expect (pure conjecture) that the terms can be materially the same. FGS is the technology that builds on either Simple or Advanced SIple base layer to give a number of enhancement layers that can be seamlessly added or deleted as bandwidth varies. Rob From retiarius earthlink.net Thu Feb 7 09:07:28 2002 From: retiarius earthlink.net (retiarius laboratories) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. Message-ID: <20020207010728.9343.qmail@earthlink.net> Surely I'm not the only one who realizes the enormity of Mr. Handy's MPEG-4 user-fee workarounds. I can (faintly) hear snippets of a future Hollywood producer conversation -- "Naturally we will only be charging for just the liner notes, not the .mp4-encoded blue-laser HD discs!" "It from bit" indeed. --retiarius -- From Bill streamingmedia.com Wed Feb 6 17:58:44 2002 From: Bill streamingmedia.com (Bill Bernat) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG LA Responds to Licensing Criticism Message-ID: <0BC3DFA40E5BD511919800B0D0D0893B3A08B2@MAILSRV> I spoke with Larry Horn (who is active in this list, also), VP of Licensing at MPEG LA, today to try to get some of the key questions about the announced MPEG-4 licensing terms answered: http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=8174. -billb From jeffh bisk.com Thu Feb 7 00:11:07 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:51 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3CE@mail.corp.bisk.com> "Surely I'm not the only one who realizes the enormity of Mr. Handy's MPEG-4 user-fee workarounds. " How can you say that? I'm trying to get the most accurate and complete info to hand to the brass here. I have to sell them. This means I have to be sold myself. I need to know what we are up against cost-wise. I'm not trying to weasel out of paying. This is a minor cost compared with implementation and deployment. It means re-capturing, re-compressing, re-authoring and redeploying all media. It?s not going to be easy or cheap. We would most likely pay "use fees" through our streaming service provider anyway - Akamai. I just want to know the black and white of all of our costs. I'd hardly call my inquiries and suggestions "workarounds." You make it sound like I'm hiding in the shadows waiting to pirate content. We have more than 100,000 students; so our "use fee" costs will have to be considered as part of our overall costs. My questions have been answered satisfactorily so far. The use fees would apply to our students. After all, it is them who will be paying ultimately. Overall, I think they would be happy to pay a little to get tons more functionality. And it would save us lots of tech support calls. Jeff Handy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4978 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020207/e47afe54/attachment.bin From Laura.Contin TILAB.COM Thu Feb 7 12:51:55 2002 From: Laura.Contin TILAB.COM (Contin Laura) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: Larry, thank you for your clarification, though I still need further details. Let consider the case of remote monitoring through the web. The end-user produces his own sequences and a service provider offers for a fee hosting of the private contents on a server and the end user can connect to that server and view/download his own (private/password protected) contents. In this case: 1. Does the end user pay 25 cents for the encoder + 25 cents for any decoder installed? 2. Does the hosting service provider pays 0.033 cents/minute for each (private) video viewed/downloaded by the end user? 3. What about if the service provider is NOT hosting the contents, but it is giving only the secure internet access to the home private server? 4. If the service provider allows the downloading of the player, does he has to pay 25 cents/download? Thanks in advance for any clarification. Best regards, Laura Contin > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Horn [mailto:LHorn@mpegla.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 9:42 PM > To: Vasanth Shreesha; discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > Hello, Vasanth. > > In the case of the so-called "use" fees, royalties follow > remuneration: > If a service provider or content provider/owner receives > remuneration in > connection with offering/providing the MPEG-4 video for viewing or > having the video viewed, then royalties are charged for the > use of such > MPEG-4 video data. If there is no remuneration to the > service provider > or content provider/owner in connection with offering/providing the > MPEG-4 video for viewing or having the video viewed as in the case of > the private communications that you describe, however, then > the use fee > does not apply; rather, the encoder that encodes such content must be > licensed and the applicable royalty paid. > > Regards, > Larry Horn > MPEG LA > -----Original Message----- > From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 2:51 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > Hello all, > How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers > encode MPEG4 > content > and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 > cents/hour > license fee? > > -vasanth > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > Vasanth Shreesha > Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. > http://www.pavcal.com > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From chodge5 utk.edu Thu Feb 7 11:43:11 2002 From: chodge5 utk.edu (Chris Hodge) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > If a service provider or content provider/owner receives remuneration in > connection with offering/providing the MPEG-4 video for viewing or > having the video viewed, then royalties are charged for the use of such > MPEG-4 video data. If there is no remuneration to the service provider > or content provider/owner in connection with offering/providing the > MPEG-4 video for viewing or having the video viewed as in the case of > the private communications that you describe, however, then the use fee > does not apply; rather, the encoder that encodes such content must be > licensed and the applicable royalty paid. How will this play out for .edu's? Will there be an exemption for educational institutions who digitize and distribute media (even if we have cost-recovery fees?) -c From chodge5 utk.edu Thu Feb 7 11:45:51 2002 From: chodge5 utk.edu (Chris Hodge) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry for my earlier post. I think this answers the question I was asking. (Sigh.) -c On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the > university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. > Therefore, yes, it would apply. > > Larry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 4:37 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > Larry: > > Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're > here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. > We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses > include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. > So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six > hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on > CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really > selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" > still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > From jeffh bisk.com Thu Feb 7 12:14:11 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3D7@mail.corp.bisk.com> > How will this play out for .edu's? Will there be an exemption > for educational institutions who digitize and distribute > media (even if we have cost-recovery fees?) Wasn't that my question originally? The way I now understand it (it may be a while before I'm certain), no one is exempt with the exception of personal users. In other words; your uncle Vinny isn't going to be charged for streaming your nephew's 3rd birthday party. If you streaming on behalf of business, you are being charged somehow by someone to use MPEG-4. If you are acting as a consumer, you aren't charged. 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 Feb 7 10:17:15 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878C6@exchange.epr.com> The way I understand it (Again, Larry correct me if I am wrong) the distinction is not whether the use is personal, but whether the use is associated with remuneration. Often, personal use will not involve remuneration, but sometimes it will. If I sell you my home videos (you don't want to buy them , but let's assume) then I owe a use fee to MPEGLA under the current conditions. It will be an administrative challenge, but this is the situation. Often, non-personal use will involve remuneration, but sometimes it will not. Example (testing the waters!) - a government puts its information online in MPEG-4. As far as I understand, no use fee is asked for. Many schools in Europe are public, and require no fees to be paid. I think that these can deploy MPEG-4 technology without having to worry about a use fee. The same may apply to US schools ... Let's see if this is right, or whether I am way off base. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 9:14 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > How will this play out for .edu's? Will there be an exemption > > for educational institutions who digitize and distribute > > media (even if we have cost-recovery fees?) > > > Wasn't that my question originally? The way I now understand > it (it may > be a while before I'm certain), no one is exempt with the exception of > personal users. In other words; your uncle Vinny isn't going to be > charged for streaming your nephew's 3rd birthday party. If you > streaming on behalf of business, you are being charged somehow by > someone to use MPEG-4. If you are acting as a consumer, you aren't > charged. > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From singer apple.com Thu Feb 7 10:34:32 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878C6@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878C6@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: I have questions about the packaged content fee. Say I am selling computers with help and intro files on the hard drive. Some of these files use MPEG-4 video short sequences. Are these files subject to the fee? Say I send some CDs to a pressing plant to be pressed. Is the pressing plant supposed to scan them looking for MP4 files which contain MPEG-4 video, and collect my packaged content fee? -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From singer apple.com Thu Feb 7 10:34:28 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees Message-ID: I have questions about the remuneration fees. Is it true that the fee for a one-time view (e.g. video on demand) is the same as for a purchase (e.g. a "video CD") which can be viewed many times? If someone can watch something because they have a subscription (e.g. a premium ISP subscription which gives them access to premium content), is the ISP receiving remuneration? Is an advertisement per se "remunerated"? The advertiser certainly hopes to gain revenue. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From Vladimir.Levantovsky AgfaMonotype.com Thu Feb 7 13:35:19 2002 From: Vladimir.Levantovsky AgfaMonotype.com (Levantovsky, Vladimir) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Message-ID: This brings another aspect of non-personal use with or without remuneration - let's say TV station web site has a page that links all the latest news video feeds. They do not charge anybody for viewing the news, but the page itself contains advertisement and video is sometimes preceded by short commercial feed. What would be the determination of remuneration in this case - web page ads do generate income but do not use MPEG4, video feed attracts public, but there is no charge for viewing. Just a thought! -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 1:17 PM To: 'Jeff Handy'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? The way I understand it (Again, Larry correct me if I am wrong) the distinction is not whether the use is personal, but whether the use is associated with remuneration. Often, personal use will not involve remuneration, but sometimes it will. If I sell you my home videos (you don't want to buy them , but let's assume) then I owe a use fee to MPEGLA under the current conditions. It will be an administrative challenge, but this is the situation. Often, non-personal use will involve remuneration, but sometimes it will not. Example (testing the waters!) - a government puts its information online in MPEG-4. As far as I understand, no use fee is asked for. Many schools in Europe are public, and require no fees to be paid. I think that these can deploy MPEG-4 technology without having to worry about a use fee. The same may apply to US schools ... Let's see if this is right, or whether I am way off base. Rob From vasanth pav.research.panasonic.com Thu Feb 7 13:52:56 2002 From: vasanth pav.research.panasonic.com (Vasanth Shreesha) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] decoder license fee In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20020207135130.00b0d300@mailhost.pav.research.panasonic.com> Assuming that I have paid the license fee for the decoder the first time, do you have to pay for the upgrades? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http://www.pavcal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020207/67822d34/attachment.html From todsmith mailer.fsu.edu Thu Feb 7 15:55:40 2002 From: todsmith mailer.fsu.edu (Todd Smith) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. References: <200202071701.g17H1fFD022163@mx3.magma.ca> Message-ID: <3C62E9CC.F0B590D3@mailer.fsu.edu> Larry, Thanks also for your participation. Speaking unofficially, due to the proposed licensing of MPEG-4, I seriously doubt whether my university, or any other governmental institution, would be willing to participate in MPEG-4 deployment for these (and other) reasons: 1. It is a violation of law. Specifically, no state agency is permitted to create a blanket, open expenditure -- a budget line without a limit. All expenditures must be foreseen, and budgeted accordingly. Explanation: It seems the proposed licensing scheme could leave the State of Florida (or any other governmental institution) open for unforeseeable expenses based on user demand. Should demand for, say, one of our videos on www.fsufilms.com skyrocket, then (barring some technical limit being developed and put in place, which would seriously diminish the incentive to offer such materials), the State would have to foot the bill for whatever usage appears. That is unbudgetable on the face of it, and moreover, would seem to make usage of MPEG-4 illegal by this (and many other, if not all) "balanced budget" State and its respective agencies. 2. The framing of the "royalties follow [whenever the] owner receives remuneration" statement seems chillingly reminiscent of the legal challenges many non-profit/education/government agencies have faced of late, in which it is argued: These institutions all operate with money; Since these operating funds are gained/continued/prompted by those operations; Therefore any operation constitutes a "profit"-making effort. When the courts have agreed, the citizens have had to foot the bill for what were heretofore considered legitimate non-profit educational/governmental efforts by the People's governing and educational institutions. 3. The licensing doesn't seem to anticipate such pending changes as, for instance, the proposed Federal TEACH Act, which would allow educational institutions to stream copyrighted video at no cost, given certain restrictions (such as password-protection and that it be related to a course). This proposed licensing agreement fails to anticipate that streaming media is a fast-changing industry, in which technical, legal, economic, and social/user paradigms are changing monthly. Seems like a dead-end, permanent arrangement to me. 4. Are there any distinctions made about what exactly constitutes an entity? Would it be a department? A University? A State? A Nation? Could a consortia of, say, all Southeastern higher education institutions pay the $1 million use fee on behalf of all its member institutions? This is how "use" fees are covered for many popular and successful electronic services, such as Lexis-Nexis' Academic Universe. Or could such consortia, should they later be rejected by any one of the companies behind the the license agreement, be annulled leaving the respective parties open for unforeseen fees. 5. There are many "what ifs" presented by this untested spec, such as what if: The video looks bad? Has poor sound? Is hard to implement? Is, through accident or design, poorly tracked in terms of usage (who enforces that)? Isn't as good/cost-effective as QuickTime? Real? Windows Media? And many others mentioned elsewhere on the list... When you put all those together, along with all the work it takes to get up to speed on such a thing... I see most state/education/non-profit workers seeing zero motivation endorsing something that could be a costly time sink (at a time when jobs are scarce). Not a good career to push for unproven, but certainly costly, initiatives. 6. On its face, the license appears to set up MPEG-4 as a Pay per view/use standard. Need I point out that PPV/U has not gone swimmingly for WWW content in general, so how & why would MPEG-4 streaming video be any different? In a general sense, what could the rationale behind this possibly be (besides, because they deserve your money)? It seems as though these developer companies have assumed a grand manifest destiny for MPEG-4. I recognize each contributed, but how many would have a marketable product without the other parts? And doesn't that mean that each individual company is due exactly zip? I mean, isn't the purpose of an open standard to develop options that are free, in every sense of the word? The developer companies do have other avenues to capitalize on their investments... This whole licensing scheme seems just so very disappointing. To be frank, the bitter irony of this licensing scheme claiming to offer "fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, worldwide access to patents" makes you and the developer companies all seem *unbelievably* elitist. So, Larry, if you could stream me some of that Kool-Aid you all have been drinking, maybe this whole scheme will make more sense to me. But please, don't bother streaming it via MPEG-4, cause I don't know how much that'll ending up costing me, money's sort of tight out here in the real world, and besides, I bet I can get it for free somewhere else. Thanks again, Todd Smith discuss-request@lists.m4if.org wrote: > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2024 11:45:51 -0500 (EST) > From: Chris Hodge <> > To: Larry Horn > cc: Jeff Handy , > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > Sorry for my earlier post. I think this answers the question I was asking. > > (Sigh.) > > -c > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > > > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the > > university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. > > Therefore, yes, it would apply. > > > > Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 4:37 PM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > > > > Larry: > > > > Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're > > here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. > > We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses > > include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. > > So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six > > hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on > > CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really > > selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" > > still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? > > > > > > 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 Feb 7 13:17:10 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] decoder license fee Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878D4@exchange.epr.com> > Assuming that I have paid the license fee for the decoder the first > time, do you have to pay for the upgrades? Good question. Note that the license is for manufacturing and selling (which doesn't give the answer yet. I have a similar question: it is very likley that I will end up with 4 different MPEG-4 decoders on my computer, one in Real player, one in Windows Media Player (et's already sitting on my HD) one or two dedicated MPEG-4 players ... Am I right in assuming that for my own usage of MPEG-4 decoding technology, the decoder fee will have been paid 4 times? Rob -----Original Message----- From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 10:53 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] decoder license fee -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http ://www.pavcal. com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020207/e8356394/attachment.html From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Feb 7 13:33:20 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:52 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: License Summary07Feb02.ppt Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878DF@exchange.epr.com> Larry Horn of MPEG LA recently gave a presentation explaining the licesensing in a bit more detail. M4IF has made it available from its page that gives the latest information on licensing of MPEG-4. See http://www.m4if.org/patents/index.php and notably http://www.m4if.org/patents/licsum070202.zip I hope it increases the understanding of what is proposed so that it can further enhance the quality of the discussion (which is already quite good; the right questions get asked and at least some of them seem to get answered). Best, Rob From LHorn mpegla.com Thu Feb 7 15:14:42 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. Message-ID: Hi, Todd. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Maybe you understood this, but just to be clear, the "service provider" (meaning the entity that disseminates the MPEG-4 video) is the one that pays the streaming/downloading royalty (for the use of MPEG-4 video data in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed). Therefore, assuming the State of Florida (in your example) contracts with a service provider for the streaming/download of such MPEG-4 video, then the service provider with whom the State of Florida contracts would be the Licensee responsible for paying the applicable royalty to MPEG LA. From your email, it wasn't clear to me that this was understood, and I just wanted to clear that up. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Todd Smith [mailto:todsmith@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 3:56 PM To: Larry Horn Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; chodge5@utk.edu; jeffh@bisk.com Subject: Re: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. Larry, Thanks also for your participation. Speaking unofficially, due to the proposed licensing of MPEG-4, I seriously doubt whether my university, or any other governmental institution, would be willing to participate in MPEG-4 deployment for these (and other) reasons: 1. It is a violation of law. Specifically, no state agency is permitted to create a blanket, open expenditure -- a budget line without a limit. All expenditures must be foreseen, and budgeted accordingly. Explanation: It seems the proposed licensing scheme could leave the State of Florida (or any other governmental institution) open for unforeseeable expenses based on user demand. Should demand for, say, one of our videos on www.fsufilms.com skyrocket, then (barring some technical limit being developed and put in place, which would seriously diminish the incentive to offer such materials), the State would have to foot the bill for whatever usage appears. That is unbudgetable on the face of it, and moreover, would seem to make usage of MPEG-4 illegal by this (and many other, if not all) "balanced budget" State and its respective agencies. 2. The framing of the "royalties follow [whenever the] owner receives remuneration" statement seems chillingly reminiscent of the legal challenges many non-profit/education/government agencies have faced of late, in which it is argued: These institutions all operate with money; Since these operating funds are gained/continued/prompted by those operations; Therefore any operation constitutes a "profit"-making effort. When the courts have agreed, the citizens have had to foot the bill for what were heretofore considered legitimate non-profit educational/governmental efforts by the People's governing and educational institutions. 3. The licensing doesn't seem to anticipate such pending changes as, for instance, the proposed Federal TEACH Act, which would allow educational institutions to stream copyrighted video at no cost, given certain restrictions (such as password-protection and that it be related to a course). This proposed licensing agreement fails to anticipate that streaming media is a fast-changing industry, in which technical, legal, economic, and social/user paradigms are changing monthly. Seems like a dead-end, permanent arrangement to me. 4. Are there any distinctions made about what exactly constitutes an entity? Would it be a department? A University? A State? A Nation? Could a consortia of, say, all Southeastern higher education institutions pay the $1 million use fee on behalf of all its member institutions? This is how "use" fees are covered for many popular and successful electronic services, such as Lexis-Nexis' Academic Universe. Or could such consortia, should they later be rejected by any one of the companies behind the the license agreement, be annulled leaving the respective parties open for unforeseen fees. 5. There are many "what ifs" presented by this untested spec, such as what if: The video looks bad? Has poor sound? Is hard to implement? Is, through accident or design, poorly tracked in terms of usage (who enforces that)? Isn't as good/cost-effective as QuickTime? Real? Windows Media? And many others mentioned elsewhere on the list... When you put all those together, along with all the work it takes to get up to speed on such a thing... I see most state/education/non-profit workers seeing zero motivation endorsing something that could be a costly time sink (at a time when jobs are scarce). Not a good career to push for unproven, but certainly costly, initiatives. 6. On its face, the license appears to set up MPEG-4 as a Pay per view/use standard. Need I point out that PPV/U has not gone swimmingly for WWW content in general, so how & why would MPEG-4 streaming video be any different? In a general sense, what could the rationale behind this possibly be (besides, because they deserve your money)? It seems as though these developer companies have assumed a grand manifest destiny for MPEG-4. I recognize each contributed, but how many would have a marketable product without the other parts? And doesn't that mean that each individual company is due exactly zip? I mean, isn't the purpose of an open standard to develop options that are free, in every sense of the word? The developer companies do have other avenues to capitalize on their investments... This whole licensing scheme seems just so very disappointing. To be frank, the bitter irony of this licensing scheme claiming to offer "fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, worldwide access to patents" makes you and the developer companies all seem *unbelievably* elitist. So, Larry, if you could stream me some of that Kool-Aid you all have been drinking, maybe this whole scheme will make more sense to me. But please, don't bother streaming it via MPEG-4, cause I don't know how much that'll ending up costing me, money's sort of tight out here in the real world, and besides, I bet I can get it for free somewhere else. Thanks again, Todd Smith discuss-request@lists.m4if.org wrote: > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2024 11:45:51 -0500 (EST) > From: Chris Hodge <> > To: Larry Horn > cc: Jeff Handy , > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > Sorry for my earlier post. I think this answers the question I was asking. > > (Sigh.) > > -c > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > > > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the > > university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. > > Therefore, yes, it would apply. > > > > Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 4:37 PM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > > > > Larry: > > > > Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're > > here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. > > We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses > > include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. > > So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six > > hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on > > CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really > > selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" > > still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? > > > > > > 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 Feb 7 15:19:13 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878F7@exchange.epr.com> > Hi, Todd. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Maybe you understood > this, but just to be clear, the "service provider" (meaning the entity > that disseminates the MPEG-4 video) is the one that pays the That brings me to another question. Wouldn't the State of Florida pay more with increased usage anyway? Isn't that the way most ISP work: baseline charges + usage based additional charges? Rob ps: w.r.t. point 4: the use fee isn't capped. > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Horn [mailto:LHorn@mpegla.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 14:15 > To: Todd Smith > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; chodge5@utk.edu; jeffh@bisk.com > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. > > > Hi, Todd. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Maybe you understood > this, but just to be clear, the "service provider" (meaning the entity > that disseminates the MPEG-4 video) is the one that pays the > streaming/downloading royalty (for the use of MPEG-4 video data in > connection with which a service provider or content owner receives > remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for > viewing or > having the video viewed). Therefore, assuming the State of > Florida (in > your example) contracts with a service provider for the > streaming/download of such MPEG-4 video, then the service > provider with > whom the State of Florida contracts would be the Licensee responsible > for paying the applicable royalty to MPEG LA. From your email, it > wasn't clear to me that this was understood, and I just > wanted to clear > that up. > > Regards, > Larry Horn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Smith [mailto:todsmith@mailer.fsu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 3:56 PM > To: Larry Horn > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; chodge5@utk.edu; jeffh@bisk.com > Subject: Re: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. > > > Larry, > > Thanks also for your participation. Speaking unofficially, due > to the > proposed licensing of MPEG-4, I seriously doubt whether my university, > or any other governmental institution, would be willing to participate > in MPEG-4 deployment for these (and other) reasons: > > 1. It is a violation of law. Specifically, no state agency is > permitted to create a blanket, open expenditure -- a budget > line without > a limit. All expenditures must be foreseen, and budgeted > accordingly. > > Explanation: It seems the proposed licensing scheme could leave > the > State of Florida (or any other governmental institution) open for > unforeseeable expenses based on user demand. Should demand for, say, > one of our videos on www.fsufilms.com skyrocket, then (barring some > technical limit being developed and put in place, which would > seriously > diminish the incentive to offer such materials), the State > would have to > foot the bill for whatever usage appears. That is unbudgetable on the > face of it, and moreover, would seem to make usage of MPEG-4 > illegal by > this (and many other, if not all) "balanced budget" State and its > respective agencies. > > 2. The framing of the "royalties follow [whenever the] owner > receives > remuneration" statement seems chillingly reminiscent of the legal > challenges many non-profit/education/government agencies have faced of > late, in which it is argued: These institutions all operate > with money; > Since these operating funds are gained/continued/prompted by those > operations; Therefore any operation constitutes a "profit"-making > effort. When the courts have agreed, the citizens have had > to foot the > bill for what were heretofore considered legitimate non-profit > educational/governmental efforts by the People's governing and > educational institutions. > > 3. The licensing doesn't seem to anticipate such pending changes > as, > for instance, the proposed Federal TEACH Act, which would allow > educational institutions to stream copyrighted video at no cost, given > certain restrictions (such as password-protection and that it > be related > to a course). This proposed licensing agreement fails to anticipate > that streaming media is a fast-changing industry, in which technical, > legal, economic, and social/user paradigms are changing > monthly. Seems > like a dead-end, permanent arrangement to me. > > 4. Are there any distinctions made about what exactly > constitutes an > entity? Would it be a department? A University? A State? > A Nation? > Could a consortia of, say, all Southeastern higher education > institutions pay the $1 million use fee on behalf of all its member > institutions? This is how "use" fees are covered for many popular and > successful electronic services, such as Lexis-Nexis' Academic > Universe. > Or could such consortia, should they later be rejected by any > one of the > companies behind the the license agreement, be annulled leaving the > respective parties open for unforeseen fees. > > 5. There are many "what ifs" presented by this untested spec, > such as > what if: The video looks bad? Has poor sound? Is hard to implement? > Is, through accident or design, poorly tracked in terms of usage (who > enforces that)? Isn't as good/cost-effective as QuickTime? Real? > Windows Media? And many others mentioned elsewhere on the list... > > When you put all those together, along with all the work it > takes to > get up to speed on such a thing... I see most > state/education/non-profit workers seeing zero motivation endorsing > something that could be a costly time sink (at a time when jobs are > scarce). Not a good career to push for unproven, but > certainly costly, > initiatives. > > 6. On its face, the license appears to set up MPEG-4 as a Pay > per > view/use standard. Need I point out that PPV/U has not gone > swimmingly > for WWW content in general, so how & why would MPEG-4 > streaming video be > any different? In a general sense, what could the rationale > behind this > possibly be (besides, because they deserve your money)? It seems as > though these developer companies have assumed a grand manifest destiny > for MPEG-4. I recognize each contributed, but how many would have a > marketable product without the other parts? And doesn't that > mean that > each individual company is due exactly zip? I mean, isn't the purpose > of an open standard to develop options that are free, in > every sense of > the word? The developer companies do have other avenues to capitalize > on their investments... > > This whole licensing scheme seems just so very disappointing. > To be > frank, the bitter irony of this licensing scheme claiming to offer > "fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, worldwide access to > patents" makes > you and the developer companies all seem *unbelievably* elitist. So, > Larry, if you could stream me some of that Kool-Aid you all have been > drinking, maybe this whole scheme will make more sense to me. But > please, don't bother streaming it via MPEG-4, cause I don't know how > much that'll ending up costing me, money's sort of tight out > here in the > real world, and besides, I bet I can get it for free somewhere else. > > Thanks again, > Todd Smith > > > discuss-request@lists.m4if.org wrote: > > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2024 11:45:51 -0500 (EST) > > From: Chris Hodge <> > > To: Larry Horn > > cc: Jeff Handy , > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > > Sorry for my earlier post. I think this answers the question I was > asking. > > > > (Sigh.) > > > > -c > > > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > > > > > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the > > > university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. > > > Therefore, yes, it would apply. > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 4:37 PM > > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > > > > > > > Larry: > > > > > > Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. > Since you're > > > here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational > content. > > > We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The > courses > > > include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture > material. > > > So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and > six > > > hours of lecture material. The same course material is > offered both > on > > > CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really > > > selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the > "use fee" > > > still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? > > > > > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From LHorn mpegla.com Thu Feb 7 16:45:13 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees Message-ID: Hi, David. Answers follow: 1. Yes (as measured on a duration/playback basis). 2. This is considered remuneration to the service provider or content owner; therefore, the use royalty applies. 3. I am not sure what you mean by this question. Please explain. The relevant question is whether in connection with the advertisement, a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed. Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 1:34 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees I have questions about the remuneration fees. Is it true that the fee for a one-time view (e.g. video on demand) is the same as for a purchase (e.g. a "video CD") which can be viewed many times? If someone can watch something because they have a subscription (e.g. a premium ISP subscription which gives them access to premium content), is the ISP receiving remuneration? Is an advertisement per se "remunerated"? The advertiser certainly hopes to gain revenue. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From LHorn mpegla.com Thu Feb 7 19:13:30 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Details of patent claims Message-ID: Hello, Iain. The MPEG-4 Visual Patent Porfolio patents will be posted in due course. They all have been determined by an independent paent expert to be essential to the MPEG-4 Visual (Simple and Core) Standard and support the proposed licensing terms. In addition, I think it is safe to assume that other compression standards are also subject to licensing under applicable patents. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Iain Richardson (ensigr) [mailto:i.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2024 3:45 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Details of patent claims Is there a statement available giving the details of the claims made by the MP4 Visual patent holders ? For example, the short header mode is identical to baseline H.263 which (as far as I'm aware) isn't covered by a licensing scheme. Is there evidence that an MPEG4 Visual codec operating in this mode actually requires licensing ? Thanks Iain Richardson Scotland, UK _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Thu Feb 7 18:38:38 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c1b049$b67819f0$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> What if I am delivering movie trailers gratis from my website for free, but have banners on the site? What if I don't have any form of advertising, but the site is used to sell my hardware and I am driving traffic by virtue of the movie trailers? What if I specifically decided to deliver the trailers because of a financial analysis that doing so would generate X revenue from hardware sales? I presume that a line will be drawn somewhere, but shouldn't a standard license agreement be easier to interpret than the DMCA? -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Dave Singer Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 10:34 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees I have questions about the remuneration fees. Is it true that the fee for a one-time view (e.g. video on demand) is the same as for a purchase (e.g. a "video CD") which can be viewed many times? If someone can watch something because they have a subscription (e.g. a premium ISP subscription which gives them access to premium content), is the ISP receiving remuneration? Is an advertisement per se "remunerated"? The advertiser certainly hopes to gain revenue. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Thu Feb 7 18:49:58 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187773@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <000001c1b04b$4bf83cc0$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> All, As I read it, the use fee is based on actual hours watched, not hours broadcasted. Thus, the formula below would be modified: [Hours Watched / Subscriber / Month] X [total subscribers] * [$0.02] = usage fees. Then something like Nielsons would be used as a surrogate to determine hours watched by a subscriber. This is a (very little) bit more reasonable, as a stream of seinfeld would cost more than a stream of a brady bunch rerun. But, even then, it is commercially unreasonable. Take a look: 1. DVD with 120 minute movie. Revenue: $25. MPEG-4 license fee: $0.04. Fee as % of Revenue: .16% 2. A broadcast of that exact same movie with commercials. Revenue: $1 (48 30 second commercials at a $25 CPM). MPEG-4 license fee. $0.04. Fee as % of Revenue: 4% The cost of the MPEG-4 license scales with views, not revenue generated by views. This is like the bandwidth problem that has killed streaming media on the Internet. There are other odd effects as well. J -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2024 12:52 PM To: 'craig@pcube.com'; jmcclenny@sandstream.com; OpenDTV Mail List; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced > The fee would be prohibitively expensive IF calculated based on: > [Channels] X [programming hours] X [total subscribers] X > [$0.02/hr] = usage fees While not passing any judgement on the announced scheme at this moment, the press release makes it somewhat clear that this is not the way things will be calculated. "[... a surrogate (e.g., standard industry audience measurement) is under consideration." http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html But this is far from conclusive; what exactly the calculation *will* look like is unclear - and MPEG-4's future depends on it. It should also be noted that (AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT) you pay *either* the encoder/decoder fee *or* the use fee, not both. You pay a use fee for use of MPEG-4 "[...] in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed (including without limitation pay-per-view, subscription and advertiser/underwriter-supported services)." To me that seems to include all free-to-air broadcasts ... You pay encoder/decoder fees for other services. All this seems to imply a one-to-one link between the decoder and the service, which is not going to exist in this context of an open standard where any player can play any content -- so I wonder how this is going to be detailed. Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Feb 7 21:32:06 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Pat ent Portfolio License Announced Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187913@exchange.epr.com> I have some of the same concerns, Jordan. However, my hope for this scenario is the fact that broadcast (which I take to include all one-to-many scenarios, so including webcast), is still under study. Apparently, we are not the only ones that did the math in this way. If what goes below should be taken literally, it is highly doubtful that MPEG-4 can compete. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Jordan Greenhall [mailto:jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 18:50 > To: 'Rob Koenen'; craig@pcube.com; jmcclenny@sandstream.com; OpenDTV > Mail List; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual > Patent Portfolio License Announced > > > All, > > As I read it, the use fee is based on actual hours watched, not hours > broadcasted. Thus, the formula below would be modified: > > [Hours Watched / Subscriber / Month] X [total subscribers] * [$0.02] = > usage fees. Then something like Nielsons would be used as a surrogate > to determine hours watched by a subscriber. > > This is a (very little) bit more reasonable, as a stream of seinfeld > would cost more than a stream of a brady bunch rerun. But, even then, > it is commercially unreasonable. Take a look: > > 1. DVD with 120 minute movie. Revenue: $25. MPEG-4 license > fee: $0.04. > Fee as % of Revenue: .16% > 2. A broadcast of that exact same movie with commercials. Revenue: $1 > (48 30 second commercials at a $25 CPM). MPEG-4 license fee. $0.04. > Fee as % of Revenue: 4% > > The cost of the MPEG-4 license scales with views, not revenue > generated > by views. This is like the bandwidth problem that has killed > streaming > media on the Internet. > > There are other odd effects as well. > > J > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2024 12:52 PM > To: 'craig@pcube.com'; jmcclenny@sandstream.com; OpenDTV Mail > List; M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual > Patent Portfolio License Announced > > > > The fee would be prohibitively expensive IF calculated based on: > > [Channels] X [programming hours] X [total subscribers] X > > [$0.02/hr] = usage fees > > While not passing any judgement on the announced scheme at > this moment, > the press release makes it somewhat clear that this is not the way > things will be calculated. > > "[... a surrogate (e.g., standard industry audience measurement) is > under consideration." > > http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html > > But this is far from conclusive; what exactly the calculation *will* > look like is unclear - and MPEG-4's future depends on it. > > It should also be noted that (AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT) you pay > *either* > the encoder/decoder fee *or* the use fee, not both. You pay a use fee > for use of MPEG-4 "[...] in connection with which a service > provider or > content > owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the > video > for viewing or having the video viewed (including without > limitation > pay-per-view, subscription and advertiser/underwriter-supported > services)." To me that seems to include all free-to-air > broadcasts ... > You pay encoder/decoder fees for other services. > > All this seems to imply a one-to-one link between the decoder and the > service, which is not going to exist in this context of an open > standard where any player can play any content -- so I wonder > how this > is going to be detailed. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From P.Sergeant ukerna.ac.uk Fri Feb 8 10:12:38 2002 From: P.Sergeant ukerna.ac.uk (Paul Sergeant) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020208100001.01e20e50@arien.ukerna.ac.uk> Hello everyone, I have been lurking for a few days - trying to gauge the main issues regarding the MPEG-4 licensing announcements. And then my mail went straight to Jeff and not the group lol - well I want this to go to the list for consideration anyway... Some of you may be aware from other lists that I work for UKERNA - the company that manages the UK academic backbone on behalf of the JISC (Joint Informations System Committee) and the various eductional funding councils. We have a 2.5Gb/s core which is being upgraded to 10Gb/s this year. We have approximately 6 million users! I am currently working on a Project Initiation Document which details a pilot/demonstrator that will be using Kasenna MediaBase (Network Edition) as the core technology for the storage and distribution of 'controlled' academic/research content over the JANET network. We are working with content aggregators such as the BUFVC (British Universities Film & Video Council) to host and distribute content acquired and licensed on behalf of the UK research & academic community - with public funds, with the aim of making it available online as a potential national resource (if the demonstrator goes well of course). Initially we will be hosting around 200 hours of content. I *have* to supply streams in all formats (MPEG-1, MPEG-2, Windows Media, Quicktime, Real) and at assorted bitrates (up to and perhaps beyond 8mb/s), there are lots of different players/codecs/OS variations out there in academia (just like the rest of the world) Like most people in this industry - I would like to see some standards and inter-operation between the different components of streaming supply chain. In fact it would be ideal to be able to offer content in just one format (or small selection of standards based formats) that most people would be able to use - this would save a fortune in encoding/transcoding costs. We are nowhere near ready to launch a service yet - but if we do, we have no plans to charge for access to, or usage of the content so far. We may have to charge institutions a fee to join the Video Content Distribution Network (especially if edge devices or bandwidth upgrades are required). The original content providers will profit of course - they license the rights for up to 10 years, for not insubstantial sums of money. Oh yes - and we plan to use multicast also... I would like to do some SSM trials... so does anyone know where the MPEG-4 user tracking/authentication/billing system reside, and how will it work with Multicast? Is there such a proposed system or is it down to the operator of the streaming servers/network to monitor usage and offer payment? Best Regards Paul Sergeant At 00:11 07/02/2024 -0500, you wrote: >"Surely I'm not the only one who realizes >the enormity of Mr. Handy's MPEG-4 user-fee >workarounds. " > > > >How can you say that? I'm trying to get the most accurate and complete >info to hand to the brass here. I have to sell them. This means I have >to be sold myself. I need to know what we are up against cost-wise. >I'm not trying to weasel out of paying. > > > >This is a minor cost compared with implementation and deployment. It >means re-capturing, re-compressing, re-authoring and redeploying all >media. It???s not going to be easy or cheap. We would most likely pay >"use fees" through our streaming service provider anyway - Akamai. I >just want to know the black and white of all of our costs. I'd hardly >call my inquiries and suggestions "workarounds." You make it sound like >I'm hiding in the shadows waiting to pirate content. > > > >We have more than 100,000 students; so our "use fee" costs will have to >be considered as part of our overall costs. My questions have been >answered satisfactorily so far. The use fees would apply to our >students. After all, it is them who will be paying ultimately. >Overall, I think they would be happy to pay a little to get tons more >functionality. And it would save us lots of tech support calls. > >Jeff Handy ================================================== Paul Sergeant Content Delivery Architect UKERNA, Atlas Centre, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QS, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1235-822200 (Ext.385) DD: +44 (0) 1235-822385 Fax: +44 (0) 1235-822399 ================================================== From LHorn mpegla.com Fri Feb 8 07:33:47 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced Message-ID: Hi, Jordan. We welcome the feedback, as we work on the details. What is being discussed is based on the current state of information as reflected in the news release and subject to change. Also, as noted, the broadcast and cable environments are still under study. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Jordan Greenhall [mailto:jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 9:50 PM To: 'Rob Koenen'; craig@pcube.com; jmcclenny@sandstream.com; OpenDTV Mail List; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced All, As I read it, the use fee is based on actual hours watched, not hours broadcasted. Thus, the formula below would be modified: [Hours Watched / Subscriber / Month] X [total subscribers] * [$0.02] = usage fees. Then something like Nielsons would be used as a surrogate to determine hours watched by a subscriber. This is a (very little) bit more reasonable, as a stream of seinfeld would cost more than a stream of a brady bunch rerun. But, even then, it is commercially unreasonable. Take a look: 1. DVD with 120 minute movie. Revenue: $25. MPEG-4 license fee: $0.04. Fee as % of Revenue: .16% 2. A broadcast of that exact same movie with commercials. Revenue: $1 (48 30 second commercials at a $25 CPM). MPEG-4 license fee. $0.04. Fee as % of Revenue: 4% The cost of the MPEG-4 license scales with views, not revenue generated by views. This is like the bandwidth problem that has killed streaming media on the Internet. There are other odd effects as well. J From cwiltgen PacketVideo.COM Fri Feb 8 08:22:43 2002 From: cwiltgen PacketVideo.COM (Charles Wiltgen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. Message-ID: <72660A24B978D411BB8A00B0D03DFE01046677A2@misty.packetvideo.com> Paul, > ...does anyone know where the MPEG-4 user tracking/authentication/ > billing system reside... In our case, it lives on the carrier's pvServer. > ...and how will it work with Multicast? Did you mean billing? MPEG-4? Authentication? All of the above? :^) -- Charles Wiltgen Product Manager PacketVideo From LHorn mpegla.com Fri Feb 8 14:55:37 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Message-ID: Hi, David. I apologize that I have not responded sooner: 1) Yes - the files in this media would appear to be MPEG-4 Packaged Media and therefore, subject to the applicable royalty. 2) The pressing plant is using MPEG-4 and under the proposed license terms, would be responsible for paying the applicable MPEG-4 Packaged Medium royalty. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 1:35 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees I have questions about the packaged content fee. Say I am selling computers with help and intro files on the hard drive. Some of these files use MPEG-4 video short sequences. Are these files subject to the fee? Say I send some CDs to a pressing plant to be pressed. Is the pressing plant supposed to scan them looking for MP4 files which contain MPEG-4 video, and collect my packaged content fee? -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From P.Sergeant ukerna.ac.uk Mon Feb 11 11:01:57 2002 From: P.Sergeant ukerna.ac.uk (Paul Sergeant) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:53 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. In-Reply-To: <72660A24B978D411BB8A00B0D03DFE01046677A2@misty.packetvideo .com> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020211105144.00a542f0@arien.ukerna.ac.uk> Hello Charles, I did mean all of the above - but specifically for MPEG-4 side of things - I am wondering if there is going to be anything built into the MPEG-4 spec which will enable the usage tracking of a multicast 'single source - many viewers' style internet broadcasts of MPEG-4 encoded content, or whether that particular issue will be picked up by developers of streaming server software? Or indeed whether the network providers who host the streaming servers will be required to provision some solution along those lines? Regards Paul Sergeant At 08:22 08/02/2024 -0800, Charles Wiltgen wrote: >Paul, > > > ...does anyone know where the MPEG-4 user tracking/authentication/ > > billing system reside... > >In our case, it lives on the carrier's pvServer. > > > ...and how will it work with Multicast? > >Did you mean billing? MPEG-4? Authentication? All of the above? :^) > >-- >Charles Wiltgen >Product Manager >PacketVideo >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ================================================== Paul Sergeant Content Delivery Architect UKERNA, Atlas Centre, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QS, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1235-822200 (Ext.385) DD: +44 (0) 1235-822385 Fax: +44 (0) 1235-822399 ================================================== From singer apple.com Mon Feb 11 09:05:21 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 14:55 -0700 2/8/02, Larry Horn wrote: >Hi, David. > >I apologize that I have not responded sooner: > >1) Yes - the files in this media would appear to be MPEG-4 Packaged >Media and therefore, subject to the applicable royalty. ouch. >2) The pressing plant is using MPEG-4 and under the proposed >license terms, would be responsible for paying the applicable MPEG-4 >Packaged Medium royalty. double ouch. generally I send a master disk to a pressing plant and they copy it. they have no interest in the nature or technology of the content -- audio, computer, video CD, they don't care. this is, I suspect, impossibly onerous for them. > >Regards, >Larry Horn > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] >Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2024 1:35 PM >To: discuss@lists.m4if.org >Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > > >I have questions about the packaged content fee. > >Say I am selling computers with help and intro files on the hard >drive. Some of these files use MPEG-4 video short sequences. Are >these files subject to the fee? > >Say I send some CDs to a pressing plant to be pressed. Is the >pressing plant supposed to scan them looking for MP4 files which >contain MPEG-4 video, and collect my packaged content fee? >-- >David Singer >Apple Computer/QuickTime >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Mon Feb 11 10:07:38 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005d01c1b326$fd5bde30$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> O.K., Discuss-list, we've seen a pretty good bit of grousing about the licensing terms and no small amount of winceing as the details are coming clear. It is pretty obvious that the strengths of MPEG-4 (applicable to virtually any kind of multimedia, at any bitrate, via any medium) are also its weaknesses when it comes to licensing. A scheme that makes sense for a 2 hour movie on a $25 DVD is non-sense for 50 ten second clips on a promo CD-rom and equivalently difficult to square for 15Kbps wireless broadcasts. As I see it right now, the key problems are: 1. Lack of Synch between license fees and content monetization 2. Onerous and "novel" tracking requirements 3. Concern that burdening content with license fees will "short circuit" adoption of the standard (i.e., what if we held a standard and nobody came?) Now it also seems clear that the license terms are a work-in-progress and that MPEGLA is more than willing to review alternative or supplementary proposals. My query to the group - what are the proposed alternatives? J From ashok broadware.com Mon Feb 11 10:23:52 2002 From: ashok broadware.com (Ashok Yerneni) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees In-Reply-To: <005d01c1b326$fd5bde30$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: If I can add to this discussion, I think the "USE fee" is a Major ditterant to widespread adoption. We are a remote business management, distance learning company and we were hoping to use MPEG-4 low-bitrate streaming mode for streaming security camera feeds to all types of displays(cell-phones, PDA's, or even PC's with just a modem connection). Camera's typically are always on 24/7 and if we do the math, we have to pay $15/camera in royalties every month! That's just not cost-effective when you consider this over hundreds/thousands of cameras! I would rather pay higher upfront fee(maybe $10 to $20) for the encoder and leave the decoder at 25c. Another approach maybe application/industry-segment specific licensing?? regards, Ashok === Ashok Yerneni Ph: 408 342 2630 CTO & VP of Engineering, Fax: 408 342 2601 BroadWare Technologies, Inc ashok@broadware.com -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Jordan Greenhall Sent: Monday, February 11, 2024 10:08 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Larry Horn' Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees O.K., Discuss-list, we've seen a pretty good bit of grousing about the licensing terms and no small amount of winceing as the details are coming clear. It is pretty obvious that the strengths of MPEG-4 (applicable to virtually any kind of multimedia, at any bitrate, via any medium) are also its weaknesses when it comes to licensing. A scheme that makes sense for a 2 hour movie on a $25 DVD is non-sense for 50 ten second clips on a promo CD-rom and equivalently difficult to square for 15Kbps wireless broadcasts. As I see it right now, the key problems are: 1. Lack of Synch between license fees and content monetization 2. Onerous and "novel" tracking requirements 3. Concern that burdening content with license fees will "short circuit" adoption of the standard (i.e., what if we held a standard and nobody came?) Now it also seems clear that the license terms are a work-in-progress and that MPEGLA is more than willing to review alternative or supplementary proposals. My query to the group - what are the proposed alternatives? J _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ashok Yerneni.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 485 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020211/7d07dae4/AshokYerneni.bin From yuval envivio.com Mon Feb 11 10:53:39 2002 From: yuval envivio.com (Yuval Fisher) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees References: Message-ID: <3C681333.B5DBCF92@envivio.com> Dave, Larry, > >I apologize that I have not responded sooner: > > > >1) Yes - the files in this media would appear to be MPEG-4 Packaged > >Media and therefore, subject to the applicable royalty. > > ouch. It seems to me that no PC manufacturer would use MPEG-4 to provide the type of short sequences Dave describes, because there are alternative, free solutions available. But wouldn't that be the case irrespective of the details of the license ? That is, how does the specific form of the license affect whether someone would use MPEG-4 or not ? For example, if the fee was per encoder, it would still be a fee. There would still be alternative, free solutions, no ? > > >2) The pressing plant is using MPEG-4 and under the proposed > >license terms, would be responsible for paying the applicable MPEG-4 > >Packaged Medium royalty. > > double ouch. generally I send a master disk to a pressing plant and > they copy it. they have no interest in the nature or technology of > the content -- audio, computer, video CD, they don't care. this is, > I suspect, impossibly onerous for them. This is a case where licensing per encoder would alleviate the problem. The content creator would have paid the fee as part of the encoder cost, and there would be no extra burden on the replicator. This makes much more sense. How does this compare with MPEG-2 ? Currenly, CDs with some MPEG-2 are all MPEG-2 -- that's almost the only content on the (DVD) disk. This would work with MPEG-4, if it was never going to be used as (say) interactive help, short clips, etc.. So it seems that the current license terms discourage the use of MPEG-4 for sub-presentations that are part of a larger group consisting of media represented in various formats (e.g. HTML). In such presentations, replicators have to do very careful bookkeeping, which is probably impossible, since they did not create the content. Best, Yuval From yuval envivio.com Mon Feb 11 11:10:03 2002 From: yuval envivio.com (Yuval Fisher) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees References: Message-ID: <3C68170B.51A7EB98@envivio.com> > If I can add to this discussion, I think the "USE fee" is a Major > ditterant to widespread adoption. We are a remote business management, > distance learning company and we were hoping to use MPEG-4 low-bitrate > streaming mode for streaming security camera feeds to all types of > displays(cell-phones, PDA's, or even PC's with just a modem connection). > Camera's typically are always on 24/7 and if we do the math, we have to > pay $15/camera in royalties every month! That's just not cost-effective > when you consider this over hundreds/thousands of cameras! Yoiks! An excellent example of an emerging market that's completely choked by the terms as they are.. unless the terms for broadcast/cable, which were not part of the outline, will apply in your case as well. Since cable service providers can't afford $15/channel/month, I think it's clear that some other arrangement will have to be worked out for 24/7 operations with multiple channels. I also agree (with the implication) that the symmetry between the encoders and decoders only makes sense for one scenario: the teleconferencing market. What are the problems with (doing away with the streaming fees and) having encoder fees based on some kind of classification : 1) Live Encoder with < 10 viewers (basically teleconferencing) should be cheap to promote usage 2) Live Encoder with > 10 viewers: should scale with viewship 3) File encoders for personal use should be free to promote MPEG-4 usage. Ubiquity of decoders would help the license holders by promoting use of MPEG-4 in uses with license fees. 4) File encoders for re-distribution charge by duration. Well.. it's just a thought; I'm no lawyer. Best, Yuval From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Mon Feb 11 11:31:51 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees In-Reply-To: <3C68170B.51A7EB98@envivio.com> Message-ID: <00a301c1b332$c17dd330$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Feb 11 11:54:29 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918797C@exchange.epr.com> This is a good example for asking more questions. 1) is this use indeed subject to the use fee? 2) what if, for each camera - usually nobody watches even though the thing is always on - on average 3 people watch at any given moment? Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Ashok Yerneni [mailto:ashok@broadware.com] > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2024 10:24 > To: Jordan Greenhall; discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Larry Horn' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > > > If I can add to this discussion, I think the "USE fee" is a Major > ditterant to widespread adoption. We are a remote business management, > distance learning company and we were hoping to use MPEG-4 low-bitrate > streaming mode for streaming security camera feeds to all types of > displays(cell-phones, PDA's, or even PC's with just a modem > connection). > Camera's typically are always on 24/7 and if we do the math, > we have to > pay $15/camera in royalties every month! That's just not > cost-effective > when you consider this over hundreds/thousands of cameras! > > I would rather pay higher upfront fee(maybe $10 to $20) for > the encoder > and leave the decoder at 25c. > > Another approach maybe application/industry-segment specific > licensing?? > > regards, > > Ashok > === > Ashok Yerneni Ph: 408 342 2630 > CTO & VP of Engineering, Fax: 408 342 2601 > BroadWare Technologies, Inc ashok@broadware.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Jordan Greenhall > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2024 10:08 AM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Larry Horn' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > > > O.K., Discuss-list, we've seen a pretty good bit of grousing about the > licensing terms and no small amount of winceing as the details are > coming clear. It is pretty obvious that the strengths of MPEG-4 > (applicable to virtually any kind of multimedia, at any > bitrate, via any > medium) are also its weaknesses when it comes to licensing. A scheme > that makes sense for a 2 hour movie on a $25 DVD is non-sense > for 50 ten > second clips on a promo CD-rom and equivalently difficult to > square for > 15Kbps wireless broadcasts. > > As I see it right now, the key problems are: > > 1. Lack of Synch between license fees and content monetization > 2. Onerous and "novel" tracking requirements > 3. Concern that burdening content with license fees will > "short circuit" > adoption of the standard (i.e., what if we held a standard and nobody > came?) > > Now it also seems clear that the license terms are a work-in-progress > and that MPEGLA is more than willing to review alternative or > supplementary proposals. > > My query to the group - what are the proposed alternatives? > > J > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From ashok broadware.com Mon Feb 11 13:25:17 2002 From: ashok broadware.com (Ashok Yerneni) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918797C@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: This is very much a real scenario. Content is archived 24/7 and viewed intelligently though the use of meta-data tags. Most often there is 1 or 2 people viewing it, if any. regards, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2024 11:54 AM > To: 'Ashok Yerneni'; Jordan Greenhall; discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Larry > Horn' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > > > This is a good example for asking more questions. > > 1) is this use indeed subject to the use fee? > 2) what if, for each camera > - usually nobody watches even though the thing is always on > - on average 3 people watch at any given moment? > > Rob > > > From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Feb 11 13:58:09 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187988@exchange.epr.com> > 1) is this use indeed subject to the use fee? > 2) what if, for each camera > a. usually nobody watches even though the thing is always on > b. on average 3 people watch at any given moment? Just to avoid confusion: a. and b. are different scenarios! Thinking of this some more (I did an MPEG-4 surveillance project 5 years ago) what about: c. video is actually displayed continuously at 2 remote locations but only really viewed when an event is triggered, and otherwise largely ignored. Of course this is all assuming that the answer to 1) is 'yes'. Rob From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Mon Feb 11 14:14:16 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Accounting and Tracking In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187988@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <00bd01c1b349$7179b270$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> I know that the use fees represent a potentially *huge* revenue opportunity for the Pool. But I wonder if the licensors have fully considered the accounting and tracking nightmare. It is hard enough today to track MPEG-2 vendors. But for each technology vendor there are hundreds, even thousands, of content providers that are their customers. The vast majority of these customers are going to be mid-to-small and tracking their use to enforce fees will be nothing short of a nightmare. I can guarantee that we wont be able to do it. DivXNetworks will certainly pay encoder and decoder fees, but use fees will be up to the content provider or network operator. Which means that either MPEGLA is looking to bite off a lot, hasn't fully considered the logistical problem, or isn't thinking about enforcing use fees against these small and mid-sized content providers. This last is of most concern to me: 1. Most of the content that will make the standard valuable will be produced and disseminated by the small and mid sized operators or content providers. Non-enforced license fees will scare most of them without any benefit. If you aren't going to enforce it, don't charge it. 2. Targeting the major content providers / network operators is particularly scary. An AOL/TW or a Comcast who has potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at-stake on a $0.01 cent switch on "use fees" will be extraordinarily strongly motivated to avoid the standard and use something that is "free". Clearly if the majors don't use MPEG-4, the standard will be in trouble. My $0.02 per hour. J Query: does anyone know a) how much royalty revenue has been generated by MPEG-2; b) how much would/should be considered reasonable for MPEG-4? Use fees are a holy grail - but are they grasping for the brass ring when the requirement is "fair and reasonable". J From singer apple.com Mon Feb 11 16:04:50 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:55 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees In-Reply-To: <3C681333.B5DBCF92@envivio.com> References: <3C681333.B5DBCF92@envivio.com> Message-ID: At 10:53 -0800 2/11/02, Yuval Fisher wrote: >Dave, Larry, > >> >I apologize that I have not responded sooner: >> > >> >1) Yes - the files in this media would appear to be MPEG-4 Packaged >> >Media and therefore, subject to the applicable royalty. >> >> ouch. > >It seems to me that no PC manufacturer would use MPEG-4 to provide the >type of short sequences Dave describes, because there are alternative, >free solutions available. Perhaps not intentionally. But generally we don't expect our media authors to know the details of when it is and is not permissible to use a codec. The policing we'd have to do here would be horrendous -- checking every help file and so on. >But wouldn't that be the case irrespective of >the details of the license ? That is, how does the specific form of the >license affect whether someone would use MPEG-4 or not ? > >For example, if the fee was per encoder, it would still be a fee. There >would still be alternative, free solutions, no ? > > >> >> >2) The pressing plant is using MPEG-4 and under the proposed >> >license terms, would be responsible for paying the applicable MPEG-4 >> >Packaged Medium royalty. >> >> double ouch. generally I send a master disk to a pressing plant and >> they copy it. they have no interest in the nature or technology of >> the content -- audio, computer, video CD, they don't care. this is, >> I suspect, impossibly onerous for them. > >This is a case where licensing per encoder would alleviate the problem. >The content creator would have paid the fee as part of the encoder cost, >and there would be no extra burden on the replicator. This makes much >more sense. > >How does this compare with MPEG-2 ? Currenly, CDs with some MPEG-2 are >all MPEG-2 -- that's almost the only content on the (DVD) disk. This >would work with MPEG-4, if it was never going to be used as (say) >interactive help, short clips, etc.. > >So it seems that the current license terms discourage the use of MPEG-4 >for sub-presentations that are part of a larger group consisting of >media represented in various formats (e.g. HTML). In such presentations, >replicators have to do very careful bookkeeping, which is probably >impossible, since they did not create the content. > >Best, Yuval -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From amit.klir emblaze.com Tue Feb 12 13:45:36 2002 From: amit.klir emblaze.com (Amit Klir) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:55 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] mpeg 4 levels definition Message-ID: Hi , Suppose I would like to encode a video clip to MPEG4 simple profile format, level 1, with accurate bit rate of 64kbps . Then, after the encoding process, I get an average bit rate of 64000 + delta (1bit - 1Kbit) . That stream should be marked as level 1 ? (max 64kbit/s) or should I mark it with level 2 (128 kbit/s) ? Thanks, Amit ************************************************************************************************** The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any one or make copies. ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content ** ************************************************************************************************** From craig pcube.com Tue Feb 12 09:07:31 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:55 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Broadcasters may balk at 'use fee' for MPEG-4 video Message-ID: Broadcasters may balk at 'use fee' for MPEG-4 video February 12, 2024 12:00am Source: CMP Media Inc. ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TIMES: Paris - Details of the licensing structure for the MPEG-4 visual digital compression standard are prompting anxiety attacks among wired- and wireless-service providers, content owners, developers and users. At issue (see Feb. 4, page 2) is whether the licensing scheme's "use fee"-set at 2 cents per hour based on playback/normal running time for every stream, download or other use of MPEG-4 video-will trigger or hinder MPEG-4's broad adoption relative to proprietary streaming and downloading video compression technologies. Among the companies with proprietary schemes are RealNetworks, Microsoft Corp. and Apple Computer Inc. The global wireless industry, which has already committed to using MPEG-4 for third-generation handsets, is not expected to find the licensing terms objectionable. But large Internet service providers, cable/satellite operators and Webcasters will likely balk at the fee, sources warned. Under the licensing scheme, a service provider or content owner that disseminates MPEG-4 video data and receives remuneration for video services would be asked to pay the use fee, which would apply to pay-per-view, subscription, advertiser/underwriter-supported and similar services. The royalty would not be subject to a cap. Essential-patent holders to the MPEG-4 video technology say they have structured the licensing scheme to spread the royalty burden among many, thus keeping royalties per encoder and decoder low enough to encourage proliferation of MPEG-4 products. "We make no distinctions between wireless and wired services," said Larry Horn, vice president of licensing and business development at MPEG LA LLC, an independent agency that represents MPEG-4 video licensors. "Our goal is to stay in touch with the flow of commerce. "We don't intend to take money where money isn't, but patent holders want to get paid where money is made by service providers or content owners [based on delivery of MPEG-4 video]." Others, however, questioned whether the licensing terms are practical for all markets from wireless to broadcast. "We are very happy to finally see license holders announcing a license program," said Rob Koenen, president of the MPEG-4 Industry Forum. M4IF, representing more than 100 companies from various industries in North America, Europe and Asia, addresses MPEG-4 adoption issues, including interoperability and certification. "This is hard evidence that MPEG-4 is gathering momentum. It is great that 18 companies have reached this long-awaited consensus." But Koenen cautioned that M4IF received widely varied reactions to the licensing program, ranging from "It sounds reasonable" to "It will never work." He called the terms "generally realistic, as we don't expect everything to be free these days. We also think that this would particularly work well for mobile phones; U.S. 25-cent royalties per decoder and per encoder sound reasonable. But we are not sure in a couple of instances-one-to-many Webcasting or broadcasting, for example-whether the licensing terms are structured in a way to enable [those industries'] business models." An industry source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the use fee is intractable for the broadcast business model. "Imagine how much in royalties a cable company such as Comcast would have to pay, if the use fee is set at 2 cents per hour for its 8.4 million subscribers, for example, for every video stream compressed in MPEG-4 they deliver. You do the math." The Internet Streaming Media Alliance, which is seeking adoption of the MPEG-4 standard, met last week to discuss the implications for its members but did not respond to requests for comment by press time. Cable and satellite operators are not yet using MPEG-4 technology. They are said to be taking a hard look at the standard, since it would allow them a more efficient use of bandwidth as well as added capabilities in object-based interactivity. The wireless industry, meanwhile, is broadly expected to be amenable to the proposed terms. "We believe that the existence of a clear structure for licensing will dispel many of the misconceptions about MPEG-4 and pave the way for widespread adoption," said Joel Espelien, general counsel and vice president of strategic relationships for PacketVideo Corp., a leading MPEG-4-based technology provider for the wireless industry. Inherent value to user Although cost is always an issue, he said, PacketVideo believes the use fee is not significant for wireless devices. "Remember that video in the mobile context is quite different than watching television: The typical clip may be in the range of 30 seconds or less." Given a usage fee of 2 cents an hour, that works out to approximately 1/60 of 1 cent per clip. PacketVideo believes other cost components of delivering service, as well as the inherent value to the user, "far outweigh this amount," Espelien said. Asked if the new MPEG-4 video licensing structure is sufficiently competitive with other video compression and streaming formats, Espelien said, "The wireless industry has a long-term commitment to open standards and has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to pay license fees associated with specific standards. We do not believe MPEG-4 is any different. "This license fee is unlikely to cause the industry to go against both history and common sense and abandon standards in favor of proprietary formats controlled by a single vendor." There nonetheless appears to be confusion within the industry, including among some large players in the streaming-media market, about how the MPEG-4 licensing structure and patent-pooling scheme may work. One source, who asked not to be identified, said that if none of the MPEG-4 patents covers servers or streaming, the patent licenses might be unenforceable. "Conditioning the grant of a patent license upon payment of royalties on products which do not use the teaching of the patent amounts to patent misuse," he warned. But sources close to the MPEG-4 patent holders stated that such a view is based on faulty assumptions-first, that MPEG LA's license is the only one; second, that the patents somehow would not support payment of royalties and third, that the patents do not support infringement suits against unlicensed streaming users. There can be no misuse on the basis of MPEG LA's license, the sources said; it is voluntarily offered for the convenience of the market. "If MPEG-4 users would prefer to negotiate a different arrangement directly/bilaterally with the patent holders for coverage under their patents, they are free to do so," said one. Moreover, the sources argued that it is reasonable and appropriate to measure the value of the patents based on the duration of MPEG-4 streams in the context of this license agreement. Further, "the streaming of MPEG-4 streams directly or indirectly infringes the patents in the portfolio, and therefore, patent holders have the ability to bring suit against unlicensed users," said one source. Koenen said M4IF believes the terms presented by the MPEG LA warrant further clarification. "Those details will determine whether the program adequately supports existing services, such as mobile use, broadcasting, media distribution and Internet streaming, as well as radically new MPEG-4 services." M4IF has encouraged licensors to engage in open discussion with the rest of the MPEG-4 community. Koenen said he was "confident that licensors are ready to listen to the arguments before the licensing details are finalized." The open discussion list is at discuss@lists.m4if.org. http://www.eetimes.com/ Copyright c 2002 CMP Media LLC By Junko Yoshida <> << Copyright ?2002 CMP Media Inc. >> -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From jpt okstate.edu Tue Feb 12 10:33:16 2002 From: jpt okstate.edu (Johnson P Thomas/comsc/cas/Okstate) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:55 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] HELP! Message-ID: Does anyone know if there are any MPEG-4 Network simulators available? Johnson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020212/8a97efbb/attachment.html From kmarks apple.com Tue Feb 12 12:56:57 2002 From: kmarks apple.com (Kevin Marks) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:55 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple announces MPEG4 support in QT 6 - won't ship with current license In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0E310805-1FFB-11D6-A52D-00039348D666@apple.com> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/12qt6.html Apple Previews QuickTime 6 with MPEG-4 Release Awaits Changes to MPEG-4 License QUICKTIME LIVE, LOS ANGELES—February 12, 2002—Apple® today previewed QuickTime® 6, featuring full support for MPEG-4, the emerging standard for streaming high quality content to computers and other digital devices. QuickTime 6, along with Apple’s new QuickTime Streaming Server 4 and the new QuickTime Broadcaster (see related release “Apple Previews New QuickTime Broadcaster Software”), enables the first complete MPEG-4 based streaming media solution. Although the QuickTime 6 software is complete and ready for release, Apple is delaying its release until MPEG-4 video licensing terms are improved. The MPEG-4 licensing terms proposed by MPEG-LA (the largest group of MPEG-4 patent holders) includes royalty payments from companies, like Apple, who ship MPEG-4 codecs, as well as royalties from content providers who use MPEG-4 to stream video. Apple agrees with paying a reasonable royalty for including MPEG-4 codecs in QuickTime, but does not believe that MPEG-4 can be successful in the marketplace if content owners must also pay royalties in order to deliver their content using MPEG-4. “MPEG-4 is the best format for streaming media on the web, and QuickTime 6 is the first complete MPEG-4 solution,” said Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. “MPEG-4 is poised for great success once the licensing terms are modified to allow content providers to stream their content royalty-free.” QuickTime 6 provides a fully scalable, ISO compliant MPEG-4 solution for streaming media to the widest range of devices. Key features of QuickTime 6 include: * Apple-developed video codec for encoding and decoding MPEG-4 video content; * support for Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), the next generation audio format; * support for CELP, the MPEG-4 speech codec for reproduction of natural speech; * adherence to the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA) 1.0 specification; * MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 playback, ideal for content creators who wish to preview and share work throughout the production process; * Flash 5 support; * DVC Pro (PAL) support; * updated user interface with a new, easy-to-use “Favorites” interface and easier access to QuickTime content; and * skip protection enhancements. QuickTime is Apple’s industry-leading, standards-based software for developing, producing and delivering high quality audio and video over IP, wireless and broadband networks. Last year, 80 million users downloaded QuickTime Player via the Internet while tens of millions more copies were distributed via digital cameras, software titles and enhanced music CDs. As the platform of choice for content creators worldwide, QuickTime delivers the full media experience for thousands of unique titles of enhanced music CDs and software titles. Additionally, QuickTime ships on more than 150 digital camera models to provide consumers with the highest quality media playback experience. Apple also announced the immediate availability of QuickTime Streaming Server 4, Apple’s advanced open-source, standards-based streaming server, now with MPEG-4 and MP3 streaming capabilities.  QuickTime Streaming Server 4 does not require a MPEG-4 license and is therefore immediately available. QuickTime Streaming Server 4 features include: * full MPEG-4 support, allowing MPEG-4 content to be streamed live or on demand; * ability to serve MP3 files or playlists to standard MP3 players, such as iTunes™, QuickTime player or WinAmp; * enhancements to the web-based administration tool; and * quality of service and skip protection enhancements. QuickTime Streaming Server 4 is available as a free download at www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss. Apple is a co-founder of the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA), which is dedicated to the development of products and technologies that adhere to industry standards. QuickTime was chosen by the International Organization for Standards (ISO) as the file format for MPEG-4, providing the software with a deep level of compatibility with the standard.  From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Feb 12 12:58:38 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:55 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] mpeg 4 levels definition Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D590B1540@exchange.epr.com> This is a discussion for the technotes list, technotes@lists.m4if.org (You would break the L1 restriction which is 64K max, not average. You need to set the average at 64k-delta or get a better rate control algorithm. :-) Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Amit Klir [mailto:amit.klir@emblaze.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2024 3:46 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] mpeg 4 levels definition > > > Hi , > > Suppose I would like to encode a video clip to MPEG4 simple profile > format, level 1, with accurate bit rate of 64kbps . > Then, after the encoding process, I get an average bit rate > of 64000 + delta > (1bit - 1Kbit) . > That stream should be marked as level 1 ? (max 64kbit/s) or > should I mark it > with level 2 > (128 kbit/s) ? > > Thanks, > Amit > ************************************************************** > ************************************ > The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. > It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. > If you have received this email in error please notify the > system manager or the > sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any > one or make copies. > > ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and > malicious content ** > ************************************************************** > ************************************ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Feb 12 13:12:55 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:55 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Release of QuickTime 6 with MPEG-4 Awaits Changes to MPEG-4 Licen se Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D590B1543@exchange.epr.com> (sorry for duplications. the news seems important enough to send to Discussion and News lists.) Rob http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/12qt6.html Apple Previews QuickTime 6 with MPEG-4 Release Awaits Changes to MPEG-4 License QUICKTIME LIVE, LOS ANGELES—February 12, 2002—Apple® today previewed QuickTime® 6, featuring full support for MPEG-4, the emerging standard for streaming high quality content to computers and other digital devices. QuickTime 6, along with Apple’s new QuickTime Streaming Server 4 and the new QuickTime Broadcaster (see related release “Apple Previews New QuickTime Broadcaster Software”), enables the first complete MPEG-4 based streaming media solution. Although the QuickTime 6 software is complete and ready for release, Apple is delaying its release until MPEG-4 video licensing terms are improved. The MPEG-4 licensing terms proposed by MPEG-LA (the largest group of MPEG-4 patent holders) includes royalty payments from companies, like Apple, who ship MPEG-4 codecs, as well as royalties from content providers who use MPEG-4 to stream video. Apple agrees with paying a reasonable royalty for including MPEG-4 codecs in QuickTime, but does not believe that MPEG-4 can be successful in the marketplace if content owners must also pay royalties in order to deliver their content using MPEG-4. “MPEG-4 is the best format for streaming media on the web, and QuickTime 6 is the first complete MPEG-4 solution,” said Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. “MPEG-4 is poised for great success once the licensing terms are modified to allow content providers to stream their content royalty-free.” QuickTime 6 provides a fully scalable, ISO compliant MPEG-4 solution for streaming media to the widest range of devices. Key features of QuickTime 6 include: * Apple-developed video codec for encoding and decoding MPEG-4 video content; * support for Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), the next generation audio format; * support for CELP, the MPEG-4 speech codec for reproduction of natural speech; * adherence to the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA) 1.0 specification; * MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 playback, ideal for content creators who wish to preview and share work throughout the production process; * Flash 5 support; * DVC Pro (PAL) support; * updated user interface with a new, easy-to-use “Favorites” interface and easier access to QuickTime content; and * skip protection enhancements. QuickTime is Apple’s industry-leading, standards-based software for developing, producing and delivering high quality audio and video over IP, wireless and broadband networks. Last year, 80 million users downloaded QuickTime Player via the Internet while tens of millions more copies were distributed via digital cameras, software titles and enhanced music CDs. As the platform of choice for content creators worldwide, QuickTime delivers the full media experience for thousands of unique titles of enhanced music CDs and software titles. Additionally, QuickTime ships on more than 150 digital camera models to provide consumers with the highest quality media playback experience. Apple also announced the immediate availability of QuickTime Streaming Server 4, Apple’s advanced open-source, standards-based streaming server, now with MPEG-4 and MP3 streaming capabilities. QuickTime Streaming Server 4 does not require a MPEG-4 license and is therefore immediately available. QuickTime Streaming Server 4 features include: * full MPEG-4 support, allowing MPEG-4 content to be streamed live or on demand; * ability to serve MP3 files or playlists to standard MP3 players, such as iTunes™, QuickTime player or WinAmp; * enhancements to the web-based administration tool; and * quality of service and skip protection enhancements. QuickTime Streaming Server 4 is available as a free download at www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss. Apple is a co-founder of the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA), which is dedicated to the development of products and technologies that adhere to industry standards. QuickTime was chosen by the International Organization for Standards (ISO) as the file format for MPEG-4, providing the software with a deep level of compatibility with the standard. Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings. Press Contacts: Bill Evans Apple (408) 974-0610 bevans@apple.com Nicole Scott Edelman Worldwide (650) 429-2764 nicole.scott@edelman.com NOTE TO EDITORS: For additional information visit Apple's PR website ( www.apple.com/pr/), or call Apple's Media Helpline at (408) 974-2042. Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh, Mac, iTunes and QuickTime are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Apple. Other company and product names may be trademarks of their respective owners. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020212/f8d787b0/attachment.html From streaming castelmedia.com Tue Feb 12 22:28:36 2002 From: streaming castelmedia.com (Stef van der Ziel) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:55 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7957C68F-1FFF-11D6-879A-0003931D71EE@castelmedia.com> Hi lists, Besides the yes-or-no discussion, I see a few practical problems with implementing the 2 cents per hour licensing scheme for MPEG-4: - I can live with licensing on this basis (sure, it's more expensive than no fee but it's not a very expensive fee), *BUT ONLY under the condition that M4if provides me with accurate tracking and billing software that's easy to implement on any streaming box. You want me to handle tracking and billing? Give me all the tools I need. Don't make me pay/invest/develop or work overtime for handling your licensing fees. This software should not just track and bill for the sum of streams, but on a per-user basis (since any streaming server can be a shared server instead of having just one owner!) I need to be able to bill on a per client / per stream basis because even our clients (mostly AV / TV companies, events, corporates and universities) use their accounts for multiple clients. So this system has to be very flexible and be able to run on W2000, Linux and MacOS X since all major streaming servers which intend to support MPEG-4 run on these platforms. Is it up to the developer of this streaming server software (say Apple with QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server) to implement these tracking and billing features? IMO, M4if should ask a commercial company to invest and develop such tools. Let this company become a member of M4if so they can make a profit out of the fees. - How can M4if tell the difference between a regular (quicktime) stream and a (quicktime) stream with mpeg-4 content? - I understood that if the content is made available freely, that no fees will be charged? Is this true and if yes, how will M4if be able to tell the difference between paid and free content? - Clients don't like post-calculated billing: they want to pay a regular monthly fee so they can budgetize in front for the whole year. This implicates that a streaming hosting account (which also includes services for Real, QuickTime and Windows Media streaming) will be more expensive even if the client doesn't use MPEG-4 at all. I'm interested in M4if's opinion here. Stef FYI: Two years ago, I developed a streaming server platform called Jet-Stream which supports QuickTime, Real and Windows Media streaming from one single box. Jet-Stream has quickly gained popularity overhere in the Netherlands because it's easy for multiple users which all can stream in any supported format from their private single FTP account. We provide these hosting facilities ourselves and also sell these systems to larger clients so they can have all of their students or employees stream from internal accounts. I anticipate full support for MPEG-4 because Apple announced native support with DSS4/QTSS 4. P.S. I designed a very nice MPEG-4 logo some time ago. How do I jump on this licen$ing-owner$hip-wagon? ;-P From Peter.Haighton m4if.org Tue Feb 12 16:50:31 2002 From: Peter.Haighton m4if.org (Peter Haighton) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:55 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing In-Reply-To: <7957C68F-1FFF-11D6-879A-0003931D71EE@castelmedia.com> Message-ID: Stef, Before anyone replies to this email, I should clarify that it is not the MPEG-4 Industry Forum that has set the patents. The M4IF has nothing what so ever in setting patent licensing terms. For more information please see http://www.m4if.org/patents/clarify.php, which helps to describe this relationship. Peter -- Peter Haighton VideoSpheres Inc. 84 Hines Road Kanata, Ontario Canada, K2K 3G3 Tel: (613) 270-9646 x3022 Fax: (613) 271-9442 email: peterh@VideoSpheres.com See http://www.m4if.org for the latest on MPEG-4 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Stef van der Ziel Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2024 4:29 PM To: Streaming Media MPEG-4 Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com; QuickTime Streaming Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing Hi lists, Besides the yes-or-no discussion, I see a few practical problems with implementing the 2 cents per hour licensing scheme for MPEG-4: - I can live with licensing on this basis (sure, it's more expensive than no fee but it's not a very expensive fee), *BUT ONLY under the condition that M4if provides me with accurate tracking and billing software that's easy to implement on any streaming box. You want me to handle tracking and billing? Give me all the tools I need. Don't make me pay/invest/develop or work overtime for handling your licensing fees. This software should not just track and bill for the sum of streams, but on a per-user basis (since any streaming server can be a shared server instead of having just one owner!) I need to be able to bill on a per client / per stream basis because even our clients (mostly AV / TV companies, events, corporates and universities) use their accounts for multiple clients. So this system has to be very flexible and be able to run on W2000, Linux and MacOS X since all major streaming servers which intend to support MPEG-4 run on these platforms. Is it up to the developer of this streaming server software (say Apple with QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server) to implement these tracking and billing features? IMO, M4if should ask a commercial company to invest and develop such tools. Let this company become a member of M4if so they can make a profit out of the fees. - How can M4if tell the difference between a regular (quicktime) stream and a (quicktime) stream with mpeg-4 content? - I understood that if the content is made available freely, that no fees will be charged? Is this true and if yes, how will M4if be able to tell the difference between paid and free content? - Clients don't like post-calculated billing: they want to pay a regular monthly fee so they can budgetize in front for the whole year. This implicates that a streaming hosting account (which also includes services for Real, QuickTime and Windows Media streaming) will be more expensive even if the client doesn't use MPEG-4 at all. I'm interested in M4if's opinion here. Stef FYI: Two years ago, I developed a streaming server platform called Jet-Stream which supports QuickTime, Real and Windows Media streaming from one single box. Jet-Stream has quickly gained popularity overhere in the Netherlands because it's easy for multiple users which all can stream in any supported format from their private single FTP account. We provide these hosting facilities ourselves and also sell these systems to larger clients so they can have all of their students or employees stream from internal accounts. I anticipate full support for MPEG-4 because Apple announced native support with DSS4/QTSS 4. P.S. I designed a very nice MPEG-4 logo some time ago. How do I jump on this licen$ing-owner$hip-wagon? ;-P _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Feb 12 13:53:52 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [mpeg4] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591879C2@exchange.epr.com> Thanks Peter. According to its Statutes, M4IF cannot set licensing terms or demand anything of its members with respect to licensing - even if it wanted to. (which it does't) Acting as a focal point for discussions is a role we happily take on, though. Rob Koenen President, M4IF > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Haighton [mailto:Peter.Haighton@m4if.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2024 13:51 > To: Streaming Media MPEG-4 > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com; > QuickTime Streaming > Subject: [mpeg4] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing > > > Stef, > > Before anyone replies to this email, I should clarify that it > is not the > MPEG-4 Industry Forum that has set the patents. The M4IF has > nothing what > so ever in setting patent licensing terms. For more > information please see > http://www.m4if.org/patents/clarify.php, which helps to describe this > relationship. > > Peter > -- > Peter Haighton > VideoSpheres Inc. > 84 Hines Road > Kanata, Ontario > Canada, K2K 3G3 > Tel: (613) 270-9646 x3022 > Fax: (613) 271-9442 > email: peterh@VideoSpheres.com > > See http://www.m4if.org for the latest on MPEG-4 > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Stef van der Ziel > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2024 4:29 PM > To: Streaming Media MPEG-4 > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com; > QuickTime Streaming > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing > > > Hi lists, > > Besides the yes-or-no discussion, I see a few practical problems with > implementing the 2 cents per hour licensing scheme for MPEG-4: > > - I can live with licensing on this basis (sure, it's more expensive > than no fee but it's not a very expensive fee), *BUT ONLY under the > condition that M4if provides me with accurate tracking and billing > software that's easy to implement on any streaming box. You want me to > handle tracking and billing? Give me all the tools I need. > Don't make me > pay/invest/develop or work overtime for handling your licensing fees. > This software should not just track and bill for the sum of > streams, but > on a per-user basis (since any streaming server can be a shared server > instead of having just one owner!) I need to be able to bill on a per > client / per stream basis because even our clients (mostly AV / TV > companies, events, corporates and universities) use their accounts for > multiple clients. So this system has to be very flexible and > be able to > run on W2000, Linux and MacOS X since all major streaming > servers which > intend to support MPEG-4 run on these platforms. Is it up to the > developer of this streaming server software (say Apple with > QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server) to implement these tracking and > billing features? IMO, M4if should ask a commercial company to invest > and develop such tools. Let this company become a member of > M4if so they > can make a profit out of the fees. > > - How can M4if tell the difference between a regular > (quicktime) stream > and a (quicktime) stream with mpeg-4 content? > > - I understood that if the content is made available freely, that no > fees will be charged? Is this true and if yes, how will M4if > be able to > tell the difference between paid and free content? > > - Clients don't like post-calculated billing: they want to > pay a regular > monthly fee so they can budgetize in front for the whole year. This > implicates that a streaming hosting account (which also includes > services for Real, QuickTime and Windows Media streaming) will be more > expensive even if the client doesn't use MPEG-4 at all. I'm interested > in M4if's opinion here. > > Stef > > FYI: Two years ago, I developed a streaming server platform called > Jet-Stream which supports QuickTime, Real and Windows Media streaming > from one single box. Jet-Stream has quickly gained popularity overhere > in the Netherlands because it's easy for multiple users which all can > stream in any supported format from their private single FTP > account. We > provide these hosting facilities ourselves and also sell these systems > to larger clients so they can have all of their students or employees > stream from internal accounts. I anticipate full support for MPEG-4 > because Apple announced native support with DSS4/QTSS 4. > > P.S. I designed a very nice MPEG-4 logo some time ago. How > do I jump on > this licen$ing-owner$hip-wagon? ;-P > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > ******************************************************* > Looking for Production, Encoding, or Hosting services? Try > our RFP Tool! Choose the solution you need, answer the > questions, and your information will be submitted to > participating companies who will assess your media needs and > provide you with an estimate for services. > http://www.streamingmedia.com/rfp/ > ******************************************************* > > --- > You are currently subscribed to mpeg4 as: rkoenen@intertrust.com > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-mpeg4-49467N@community.streamingmedia.com > > --- > Please go to community.streamingmedia.com to manage your > subscriptions on any of the Streaming Media, Inc. discussion lists. > > If you have any other problems please send an email to > mail@streamingmedia.com > From streaming castelmedia.com Tue Feb 12 23:02:05 2002 From: streaming castelmedia.com (Stef van der Ziel) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <27050FF5-2004-11D6-879A-0003931D71EE@castelmedia.com> Oops, my bad. Still, I'm very interested in your opinions about these subjects. Stef P.S. I mentioned the "future announcement of QTSS4/DSS 4" but crossposted with the announcements themselves and am already installing QTSS4 :-) Peter Haighton heeft op dinsdag 12 februari 2002 om 22:50 het volgende geschreven: > Stef, > > Before anyone replies to this email, I should clarify that it is not the > MPEG-4 Industry Forum that has set the patents. The M4IF has nothing > what > so ever in setting patent licensing terms. For more information please > see > http://www.m4if.org/patents/clarify.php, which helps to describe this > relationship. > > Peter > -- > Peter Haighton > VideoSpheres Inc. > 84 Hines Road > Kanata, Ontario > Canada, K2K 3G3 > Tel: (613) 270-9646 x3022 > Fax: (613) 271-9442 > email: peterh@VideoSpheres.com > > See http://www.m4if.org for the latest on MPEG-4 > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Stef van der Ziel > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2024 4:29 PM > To: Streaming Media MPEG-4 > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com; > QuickTime Streaming > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing > > > Hi lists, > > Besides the yes-or-no discussion, I see a few practical problems with > implementing the 2 cents per hour licensing scheme for MPEG-4: > > - I can live with licensing on this basis (sure, it's more expensive > than no fee but it's not a very expensive fee), *BUT ONLY under the > condition that M4if provides me with accurate tracking and billing > software that's easy to implement on any streaming box. You want me to > handle tracking and billing? Give me all the tools I need. Don't make me > pay/invest/develop or work overtime for handling your licensing fees. > This software should not just track and bill for the sum of streams, but > on a per-user basis (since any streaming server can be a shared server > instead of having just one owner!) I need to be able to bill on a per > client / per stream basis because even our clients (mostly AV / TV > companies, events, corporates and universities) use their accounts for > multiple clients. So this system has to be very flexible and be able to > run on W2000, Linux and MacOS X since all major streaming servers which > intend to support MPEG-4 run on these platforms. Is it up to the > developer of this streaming server software (say Apple with > QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server) to implement these tracking and > billing features? IMO, M4if should ask a commercial company to invest > and develop such tools. Let this company become a member of M4if so they > can make a profit out of the fees. > > - How can M4if tell the difference between a regular (quicktime) stream > and a (quicktime) stream with mpeg-4 content? > > - I understood that if the content is made available freely, that no > fees will be charged? Is this true and if yes, how will M4if be able to > tell the difference between paid and free content? > > - Clients don't like post-calculated billing: they want to pay a regular > monthly fee so they can budgetize in front for the whole year. This > implicates that a streaming hosting account (which also includes > services for Real, QuickTime and Windows Media streaming) will be more > expensive even if the client doesn't use MPEG-4 at all. I'm interested > in M4if's opinion here. > > Stef > > FYI: Two years ago, I developed a streaming server platform called > Jet-Stream which supports QuickTime, Real and Windows Media streaming > from one single box. Jet-Stream has quickly gained popularity overhere > in the Netherlands because it's easy for multiple users which all can > stream in any supported format from their private single FTP account. We > provide these hosting facilities ourselves and also sell these systems > to larger clients so they can have all of their students or employees > stream from internal accounts. I anticipate full support for MPEG-4 > because Apple announced native support with DSS4/QTSS 4. > > P.S. I designed a very nice MPEG-4 logo some time ago. How do I jump > on > this licen$ing-owner$hip-wagon? ;-P > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > From ripley imoveinc.com Wed Feb 13 10:42:12 2002 From: ripley imoveinc.com (Dave Ripley) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] no license fees for demo viewers? Message-ID: Will there be licensing fees for viewers distributed for free for the purpose of viewing product demos? Since the licensing strategy is to "follow remuneration", and there is no remuneration in distributing a free viewer for viewing demos (i.e. a pre-sale activity), presumably there would be no viewer license fee nor any creation or streaming fee? Dave Ripley iMove, Inc. Portland, OR, US From Vinayagam.M lntinfotech.com Thu Feb 14 12:35:06 2002 From: Vinayagam.M lntinfotech.com (Vinayagam.M@lntinfotech.com) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] Release of QuickTime 6 with MPEG-4 Awaits Changes to MPEG-4 Licen se Message-ID: Hi, Any one is working on MPEG-4 Main Visual Profile?. I am having lots of issues to discuss on Codec. Regards, Vinayagam.M From LUABEYA aol.com Thu Feb 14 02:41:05 2002 From: LUABEYA aol.com (LUABEYA@aol.com) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] "USE FEE"! Message-ID: <186.354251e.299cc411@aol.com> MPEG-4, Content Royalties! Microsoft to win the Browser war, started giving away its Internet Explorer (for free). For MPEG-4 streaming technology to win over other streaming formats needs to be freely distributed to content creators. Please, let's use commonsense in this case so that money is not the barrier to the success of MPEG-4 streaming technology. Best Regards. From GregoryT convergent.com Thu Feb 14 12:25:37 2002 From: GregoryT convergent.com (Gregory, Trey) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] rampant speculation... Message-ID: <10FFCDF55BF5684A95D5380307F65D6126C195@atlmail.atl.Convergent.com> |From my understanding of the license (and this gets fun because we are |all speculating based on a press release - not an actual license!), the |below "security camera" example isn't quite correct. Quite right... When is a license proposal/draft due for release? - Trey ----------------------------- Trey Gregory Dir Product Development Convergent Media Systems mailto:trey@convergent.com ph 404.231.8453 From craig pcube.com Thu Feb 14 18:11:12 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Message-ID: Does anyone have any visibility into the dynamics of the MPEG-LA process which led to the current licensing terms? As long as we are speculating, it seems appropriate to consider the possibility that one or more of the IP rights holders in the visual patent pool may have reason(s) to want MPEG-4 to languish. It would be interesting to better understand how the dynamics work in the MPEG-LA process. I realize that MPEG-LA is a business, not an open public forum, but there is a great deal riding on this, and it might be helpful to better understand the dynamics so as to help expedite a profitable outcome for everyone. So here are a few questions and some rampant speculation. If anyone feels uncomfortable talking about any of this on the list, feel free to send me a private e-mail. As it appears that this saga has now entered the domain where companies are applying pressure in a very public manner, I might be inclined to use some journalistic pressure to help move things along. But good journalism requires facts, not speculation. Is MPEG-LA consensus driven like MPEG, or does any IP holder have veto power? How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? Do any of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 visual offer products that might compete in some way with MPEG-4, or products that will be enhanced by MPEG-4? ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. What are the prospects that 26L could be offered free of royalties, and how would this impact the prospects for MPEG-4 visual? Are there essential patents that overlap between MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and 26L? Feel free to add to the speculation... Naturally Enquiring minds want to know. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Feb 14 20:48:28 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187A14@exchange.epr.com> Craig, all, I don't see why it is our business to understand how the licensors (not "how MPEGLA") come to their decisions. It is our business to discuss if these decisions work in the market. Yes, ther is a great deal riding on this, but it rides on the terms themselves, not on the process that created them. This is in the same category as discussing which internal processes led Apple to come to its recent decision on MPEG-4 licensing, or which process led to Envivio's MPEG-4 pricing. > How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 > visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? That's easy. Compare http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html and http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html > ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a > new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on > information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties > to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. There exists a common desire by many parties to have MPEG-4 free of royalties, too. Draw your own conclusions. I would like to keep the discussion to understanding if the currently announced scheme works or not. To understand such, I would like to see concrete examples, especially for claims that it doesn't work. E.g., I recently heard someone claim that for a specific example with a short clip + advertisement, the royalty would be 90% of the profit margin. (Checking that one now). That's the kind of calculations I like to see. Best, Rob From jeffh bisk.com Fri Feb 15 09:49:31 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] "USE FEE"! Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A09376197@mail.corp.bisk.com> It still seems unclear to me. If we send out CDs and DVDs with MPEG-4 media, there is a one time charge per client for that media. So, does that also cover the streaming fees for the same content? Does this mean we can no longer offer hybrid media options to our students? Also, if we pay the streaming use fee for a given client; will we have to pay each time they watch the same media over streaming? This would make little sense since they can view the CDs time and time again. Surely, it's a one-time fee on a per client, per content basis. In other words, if we pay for the streams for a client for a given course, we shouldn't have to also pay for the CD or DVD media etc. So it would work like software. Once the client pays for it, the license for that item belongs to only them with no transfer of ownership. If I can prove to our streaming provider that we have paid through our duplicator; we should not be charged again. That sort of works like sales tax as well; doesn't it? 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 Vladimir.Levantovsky AgfaMonotype.com Fri Feb 15 11:02:36 2002 From: Vladimir.Levantovsky AgfaMonotype.com (Levantovsky, Vladimir) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Message-ID: Hello all, I believe the conclusion on whether the proposed scheme works or not will depend on making a determination on what the remuneration for the content is. I would like to present different scenarios (as I see them) for discussion: 1. Content is created to be sold "for profit" in multiple copies - DVDs, CDs, etc. Every copy sold will have generated revenue for the content creator and have MPEG royalty as a part of its cost structure - the scheme works fine! 2. A video rental store bought DVDs (and paid royalties as part of the price) and, in turn, generated revenues by renting the content on DVD for viewing - according to the current license, no additional royalties due and the scheme still works fine! 3. A cable company bought the same content and provided it for pay-per-view programming - analog broadcast will resemble the previous video rental (royalty free) business model. However, digital broadcast requires the content to be encoded and then distributed to many viewers - will royalty be due on the duration of the content (the scheme will work, but I don't believe it's the provision of the current license) or royalty will be due on "per viewer" basis - the scheme still may work because of the high profit margin, but it's no longer competitive with analog broadcast and video rentals in term of the cost structure. 4. A cable company broadcasts open channels. It does not resell the content and charges its customers for the service. Applying same logic from the previous scenario, analog broadcast programming is not subject to royalties but digital broadcast is, and royalties will become significant part of the profit margin. The proposed scheme will not work and even becomes a barrier for adoption of the MPEG4 technology in the market. 5. A company (business, educational institution, etc.) created a content for free distribution in multiple copies - DVDs, CDs - at their own expense! No royalties due and the scheme works! They also engaged another company (Web hosting service provider) to host the content for streaming and paid for the services - again, an additional expense for them. According to proposed scheme, the hosting company is now considered to receive remuneration for the distribution of MPEG4 content - a service they provide regardless of what the content is - and is obligated to pay royalties! (which is just an additional expense for content creator) - the scheme doesn't work and it's a show-stopper for MPEG4 adoption. Based on the analysis of these scenarios, it seems to me that a careful consideration should be given to the definition of "remuneration for the MPEG4 content" in order for the proposed royalty structure to work and not to be a burden for those who want to adopt MPEG4 standard. Thank you, Vladimir Levantovsky -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2024 11:48 PM To: 'Craig Birkmaier'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Craig, all, I don't see why it is our business to understand how the licensors (not "how MPEGLA") come to their decisions. It is our business to discuss if these decisions work in the market. Yes, ther is a great deal riding on this, but it rides on the terms themselves, not on the process that created them. This is in the same category as discussing which internal processes led Apple to come to its recent decision on MPEG-4 licensing, or which process led to Envivio's MPEG-4 pricing. > How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 > visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? That's easy. Compare http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html and http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html > ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a > new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on > information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties > to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. There exists a common desire by many parties to have MPEG-4 free of royalties, too. Draw your own conclusions. I would like to keep the discussion to understanding if the currently announced scheme works or not. To understand such, I would like to see concrete examples, especially for claims that it doesn't work. E.g., I recently heard someone claim that for a specific example with a short clip + advertisement, the royalty would be 90% of the profit margin. (Checking that one now). That's the kind of calculations I like to see. Best, Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From craig pcube.com Fri Feb 15 11:13:07 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187A14@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187A14@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: At 8:48 PM -0800 2/14/02, Rob Koenen wrote: >Craig, all, > >I don't see why it is our business to understand how the licensors >(not "how MPEGLA") come to their decisions. It is our business to >discuss if these decisions work in the market. I agree in general with this. I would venture to say, however, that the consensus I have seen - both in the discussions on this list and in private responses to the questions I have raised - is that the usaage fees are NOT workable in the marketplace. And some people are even questioning the encoder and decoder fees. The common thread is that it will be difficult for MPEG-4 to compete with royalty free products. >Yes, ther is a great deal riding on this, but it rides on the terms >themselves, not on the process that created them. >This is in the same category as discussing which internal processes >led Apple to come to its recent decision on MPEG-4 licensing, or >which process led to Envivio's MPEG-4 pricing. While I agree that we do not have the right to private information and discussions, I believe that it is important to understand the motivations behind the decisions made by MPEG-LA. It is one thing to seek fair compensation for ones intellectual property. It is quite another issue if rights holders are attempting to seek unrealistic compensation, motivated by the desire to protect other business interests. In fact, in some cases it is illegal. I am not trying to suggest that something illegal is taking place here, just pointing out that there may be motivations OTHER THAN the desire to maximize the royalties collected via a license such as this. If the license terms are being structured to disadvantage MPEG-4, then we have a serious problem, and our feedback may fall upon deaf ears. One must then decide how best to achieve the desired goal of fair and reasonable licensing terms, or determine that nothing can be done, and proceed with market development. > > How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 >> visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? > >That's easy. Compare >http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html >and http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html Thanks. > > ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a > > new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on >> information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties >> to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. > >There exists a common desire by many parties to have MPEG-4 free of >royalties, too. Draw your own conclusions. I am trying to keep an open mind, however, the evidence suggests that we have a problem. > >I would like to keep the discussion to understanding if the currently >announced scheme works or not. To understand such, I would like to see >concrete examples, especially for claims that it doesn't work. E.g., I >recently heard someone claim that for a specific example with a short >clip + advertisement, the royalty would be 90% of the profit margin. >(Checking that one now). That's the kind of calculations I like to see. I agree that it is important to provide a well documented case to MPEG-LA. A case that substantiates that the current licensing terms are either unworkable, or at the very least, will severely disadvantage MPEG-4 in the marketplace. I am not suggesting that M4IF do otherwise. My post was a not too thinly veiled attempt to gather information that may be useful in bringing pressure upon the MPEG-4 licensors, via other avenues, to give the technology a chance in the marketplace. Sadly, I have had too many private responses that confirm my suspicions. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Feb 15 09:28:22 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] no license fees for demo viewers? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187A21@exchange.epr.com> Dave, For decoders: I do not read in the terms that free decoders are exemempt from the 25cts. For content: my interpretation is that there is no immediate remuneration (as someone may decide not to buy after the demo) so there would be no use fee. Needs to be confirmed though. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Ripley [mailto:ripley@imoveinc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2024 10:42 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] no license fees for demo viewers? > > > Will there be licensing fees for viewers distributed for free for the > purpose of viewing product demos? Since the licensing strategy is to > "follow remuneration", and there is no remuneration in > distributing a free > viewer for viewing demos (i.e. a pre-sale activity), > presumably there would > be no viewer license fee nor any creation or streaming fee? > > Dave Ripley > iMove, Inc. > Portland, OR, US > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Fri Feb 15 10:02:41 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:56 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <024401c1b64a$f65a6940$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> Good analysis Vladimir, but don't forget the other variables. There are free alternatives in the marketplace. So its not good enough that the scheme is logically sound, it also has to be effective against free competition. Finally, don't forget the significant friction generated by forcing someone (a customer!) to change their billing / revenue / payment models. If a broadcaster has spent the past 20 years paying one-time fees for broadcast equipment and then been able to use them for free, it will not only take them by surprise to be presented with having to pay to use them for MPEG-4 -- but it will also necessitate significant changes to their internal accounting, billing, auditing, payment and other processes. J -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir Sent: Friday, February 15, 2024 8:03 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Hello all, I believe the conclusion on whether the proposed scheme works or not will depend on making a determination on what the remuneration for the content is. I would like to present different scenarios (as I see them) for discussion: 1. Content is created to be sold "for profit" in multiple copies - DVDs, CDs, etc. Every copy sold will have generated revenue for the content creator and have MPEG royalty as a part of its cost structure - the scheme works fine! 2. A video rental store bought DVDs (and paid royalties as part of the price) and, in turn, generated revenues by renting the content on DVD for viewing - according to the current license, no additional royalties due and the scheme still works fine! 3. A cable company bought the same content and provided it for pay-per-view programming - analog broadcast will resemble the previous video rental (royalty free) business model. However, digital broadcast requires the content to be encoded and then distributed to many viewers - will royalty be due on the duration of the content (the scheme will work, but I don't believe it's the provision of the current license) or royalty will be due on "per viewer" basis - the scheme still may work because of the high profit margin, but it's no longer competitive with analog broadcast and video rentals in term of the cost structure. 4. A cable company broadcasts open channels. It does not resell the content and charges its customers for the service. Applying same logic from the previous scenario, analog broadcast programming is not subject to royalties but digital broadcast is, and royalties will become significant part of the profit margin. The proposed scheme will not work and even becomes a barrier for adoption of the MPEG4 technology in the market. 5. A company (business, educational institution, etc.) created a content for free distribution in multiple copies - DVDs, CDs - at their own expense! No royalties due and the scheme works! They also engaged another company (Web hosting service provider) to host the content for streaming and paid for the services - again, an additional expense for them. According to proposed scheme, the hosting company is now considered to receive remuneration for the distribution of MPEG4 content - a service they provide regardless of what the content is - and is obligated to pay royalties! (which is just an additional expense for content creator) - the scheme doesn't work and it's a show-stopper for MPEG4 adoption. Based on the analysis of these scenarios, it seems to me that a careful consideration should be given to the definition of "remuneration for the MPEG4 content" in order for the proposed royalty structure to work and not to be a burden for those who want to adopt MPEG4 standard. Thank you, Vladimir Levantovsky -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2024 11:48 PM To: 'Craig Birkmaier'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Craig, all, I don't see why it is our business to understand how the licensors (not "how MPEGLA") come to their decisions. It is our business to discuss if these decisions work in the market. Yes, ther is a great deal riding on this, but it rides on the terms themselves, not on the process that created them. This is in the same category as discussing which internal processes led Apple to come to its recent decision on MPEG-4 licensing, or which process led to Envivio's MPEG-4 pricing. > How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 > visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? That's easy. Compare http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html and http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html > ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a > new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on > information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties > to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. There exists a common desire by many parties to have MPEG-4 free of royalties, too. Draw your own conclusions. I would like to keep the discussion to understanding if the currently announced scheme works or not. To understand such, I would like to see concrete examples, especially for claims that it doesn't work. E.g., I recently heard someone claim that for a specific example with a short clip + advertisement, the royalty would be 90% of the profit margin. (Checking that one now). That's the kind of calculations I like to see. Best, Rob _______________________________________________ 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 From LHorn mpegla.com Sun Feb 17 13:47:55 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:57 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] rampant speculation... Message-ID: Hello, Trey. You are correct that at this point all that has been issued is a press release. Details of the actual license agreement are being worked on, and everything is subject to change. I would not expect the actual license agreement to issue until several months from now. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Gregory, Trey [mailto:GregoryT@convergent.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2024 12:26 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] rampant speculation... |From my understanding of the license (and this gets fun because we are |all speculating based on a press release - not an actual license!), the |below "security camera" example isn't quite correct. Quite right... When is a license proposal/draft due for release? - Trey ----------------------------- Trey Gregory Dir Product Development Convergent Media Systems mailto:trey@convergent.com ph 404.231.8453 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From peterh videospheres.com Mon Feb 18 21:54:14 2002 From: peterh videospheres.com (Peter Haighton) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:57 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Summary of Discussion Message-ID: Hello Everyone, As the creator and moderator of the MPEG-4 Industry Forum email lists, it is time to provide a brief summary of the discussion so far. I hope this will refresh some memories, and inform those who recently joined this list. First some information about this list. The list was developed so that list subscribers could discuss non-technical issues related to MPEG-4. Issues of a technical nature can be discussed on a sister list known as technotes (technotes@lists.m4if.org). To subscribe to any of these public lists plus an additional one, see http://www.m4if.org/publiclistreg.html. This list has an archive of all emails sent to date and you can find the archive at http://lists.m4if.org/pipermail/discuss. The first hot topic on this list has been the MPEG-4 Patent royalty debate. Thoughts on the royalty payment scheme range from "The death of MPEG-4" to "This is acceptable", depending on the differing lines of business. First some history. In December 1999, the MPEG-4 Industry Forum (M4IF - http://www.m4if.org) was created. It's goal "To further the adoption of the MPEG-4 Standard, by establishing MPEG-4 as an accepted and widely used standard among application developers, service providers, content creators and end users." has been instrumental in bringing MPEG-4 to the world. As part of it's work, it has helped the holders of patents related to MPEG-4 to set up patent pools for the different parts of MPEG-4 (Systems, Visual, and Audio). Although the M4IF has helped in organizing the pools, it has not been party to any of the patent royalty discussions, and will not receive any royalties from the patents. The patent pools and the M4IF are separate organizations. Since the December '99 meeting, the patent pools have been established and royalty discussions have taken place. The first patent pool to release a description of the MPEG-4 patent prices is the "Visual Patent Holders Group" for the simple and core visual profiles. It currently has 18 members in the pool and is administered by MPEG LA (http://www.mpegla.com) which also administers some of the MPEG-2 patent pools. The press release was sent out on January 31,2002, and a copy can be found at http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html. The terms in the release are as follows: " ? US $0.25 per decoder (in hardware or software) for a license to make and sell and for personal use in receiving private video (i.e., not video for which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed), subject to a cap of $1,000,000 per year/per legal entity. ? US $0.25 per encoder (in hardware or software) for a license for personal use only to create private video data (i.e., not video for which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed), subject to a cap of $1,000,000 per year/per legal entity. ? US $0.00033/minute or portion (equivalent to US $0.02/hour) based on playback/normal running time for every stream, download or other use of MPEG-4 video data in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed (including without limitation pay-per-view, subscription and advertiser/underwriter-supported services). This royalty, to be paid by entities that disseminate the MPEG-4 video data, is not subject to a cap. (In the case of MPEG-4 video for which the number of uses cannot be directly determined (e.g., video supplied as part of a basic cable service or to a transmitter for broadcasting), a surrogate (e.g., standard industry audience measurement) is under consideration.) ? US $0.00033/minute or part (equivalent to US $0.02/hour) based on playback/normal running time of MPEG-4 video data encoded (for other than personal use) on each copy of packaged medium. This royalty, to be paid by the packaged medium replicator, is not subject to a cap. ? For one year from the start date of the license program, parties that sign the license (or a memorandum of intent to sign a license) will be forgiven their payment of royalties for all MPEG-4 Visual Simple and Core products during and before that one year period. ? The initial term of the License has not yet been finalized but when decided, will be subject to renewal on reasonable terms and conditions for the useful life of any patents in the Portfolio. " (extracted from the press release) It should be noted that this is only a press release, and the terms have not fully been drawn up yet. They are subject to change. Comments on the terms: Now that the press release is out, the discussions have begun. As only a press release has been issued and not the actual terms, there are a number of unknowns that need to be worked out, and all discussions have been about the terms in the press release. A brief sampling of comments shows that the encoder royalty of $0.25 is very reasonable, and few have any issues with paying this amount, particularly since it is much lower than current MPEG-2 royalties. The decoder cost of $0.25 is considered good for some, and bad for others. It is felt to be good for companies that use traditional business models such as hardware companies that can easily include the cost inside their device, e.g. cell phone developers. Companies that have typically given away decoders, for example streaming media feel that this is very hurtful to MPEG-4 since internet consumers have grown accustomed to receiving codecs for free. The fee of $0.00033/minute for streaming is considered the most objectionable by most licensees. It is also the least understood royalty. Again, the streaming companies feel that this will kill their business since many do not receive direct payments from the consumer (pay per view) but from advertising. It is also felt that it will be hard to calculate and pay these royalties since many of these companies have never been involved in royalty issues before and do not have the technology necessary. This is one area, it is felt, that will need improving before the licensing takes affect. Although there has been some comments on the $0.00033/minute for packaging of MPEG-4, it has not nearly been as contentious as the streaming. I hope this has provided everyone with a synopsis of the current MPEG-4 licensing schemes, and I hope the next summary will be much shorter. Peter -- Peter Haighton VideoSpheres Inc. 84 Hines Road Kanata, Ontario Canada, K2K 3G3 Tel: (613) 270-9646 x3022 Fax: (613) 271-9442 email: peterh@VideoSpheres.com email: peter.haighton@m4if.org See http://www.m4if.org for the latest on MPEG-4 From craig pcube.com Wed Feb 20 06:27:26 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:57 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] News: MPEG-4 GOES AGAINST SPIRIT OF SHARING THAT BUILT THE NET Message-ID: February 20, 2024 12:00am Source: Knight Ridder Business News The Boston Globe: Feb. 18--MPEG-4 GOES AGAINST SPIRIT OF SHARING THAT BUILT THE NET: Nothing's free, not even on the Internet. Everybody pays. Still, that leaves plenty of room for haggling over price. Consider the example of MPEG-4, the latest advance in video compression technology. Ever since the early 1990s, the Motion Picture Experts Group has rolled out a series of MPEG standards for making high-quality compressed copies of TV shows, movies, and music recordings. That favorite of digital music-swappers, MP3, is a sample of the group's handiwork. So is the digital video compression used on DVD players and direct-broadcast satellite dishes. The organization's newest development is MPEG-4. The idea here is a system that can work in everything from high-end digital broadcasting to low-speed Internet streaming. Supposedly, MPEG-4 will display decent quality video even on a wireless palmtop computer. It's just a matter of getting software makers to add the necessary MPEG-4 "codec" software to their video servers and playback programs. Perhaps the most attractive thing about MPEG-4 is that it's an "open standard." That's not the same as "open source" software such as Linux, which is available free of charge. In this case, an open standard merely means that any company willing to pay a royalty fee can build video software based on MPEG-4. That holds out the hope of finally giving the Internet a single digital media standard, instead of the various incompatible codecs created by Apple Computer Inc., Microsoft Corp., and RealNetworks Inc. Someday, just as you can view a Web site with any kind of browser, you may be able to view the same video with any media player. Creators of digital media won't need three different brands of compression software, and Internet providers that stream the videos won't need three different brands of server. MPEG-4 could become a video lingua franca, much like the HTML used to create Web pages. There's no charge for using HTML -- a major reason for its success. But even with royalties, MPEG-4 could be a hit. After all, MP3 software makers pay royalties, too, and their products are used by tens of millions. But the MP3 royalty payment is a one-shot fee. Not so with the proposed MPEG-4 fee. Imagine an Internet provider that sells a streaming video service. Customers come with their MPEG-4 videos and pay to have them pumped over the Web. This company expects to pay for MPEG-4 server software, just as it now pays for the software it uses to distribute RealAudio, Windows Media, or Apple Quick Time files. But MPEG LA, the company that manages the licensing of MPEG-4 technology, wants something more -- a per-minute fee for each data stream leaving the server. The fee works out to 2 cents per hour. That's $2,000 per hour for every 100,000 users, or $20,000 for a million users. The bill for a company like Cambridge-based Akamai Technologies, which runs streaming video servers worldwide, would run into the millions. And that doesn't count the cost of an automated monitoring system to calculate the amount of royalties owed to MPEG LA. To Phil Schiller, Apple Computer's worldwide product marketing honcho, the MPEG-4 royalty plan violates a basic rule of Internet business. People will pay once for a box of software, or once a month for some all-you-can-eat online service. But they hate to pay by the minute, no matter how cheap the rate. "Consumers don't want to buy things that way. Vendors ... don't want to provide it that way," Schiller says. Apple certainly doesn't. So this week, the company announced it was halting a plan to include MPEG-4 support in the next version of its Quick Time software. Until the price comes down, users will be limited to videos compatible with the existing Quick Time format. To resolve the impasse, Apple favors a flat fee applied to the software, with no additional usage fees. RealNetworks says it's also rethinking a plan announced in December to add MPEG-4 support to its products, due to the per-minute license fee. Microsoft, for now, remains above the fray, because the company hasn't committed to using the MPEG-4 standard. Larry Horn, MPEG LA's vice president of licensing, says his organization is open to negotiations. "Nothing has been cast in stone," he says. "You've got to find a balance in the marketplace that works." It's all vaguely depressing. There's nothing wrong with MPEG LA wanting to get paid for its labors. And, yet, think of all the other data protocols that make the Internet work -- TCP/IP, HTML, SMTP, the whole Scrabble set of wonders, all donated to the world without cost. If MPEG LA had gotten hold of these protocols, they'd have been encrusted with royalties and license fees and we'd probably have to pay a dime for every e-mail. In the MPEG-4 saga, we catch a glimpse of the mercenary future, when no good deed of Internet innovation goes unrewarded. From now on, everybody pays. ----- To see more of The Boston Globe, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.boston.com/globe (c) 2002, The Boston Globe. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. << Copyright ?2002 Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News >> From kgoldsholl oxygnet.com Wed Feb 20 15:27:53 2002 From: kgoldsholl oxygnet.com (Ken Goldsholl) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:57 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <012901c1ba66$3a593580$8901a8c0@KNG> When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must be available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a handful of titles. If content that is offered on free television is also included in a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour. This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the revenue. When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual property. But the same can be said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for by the user when they purchase the product. What is so special about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? There are no recurring payments to the developers of the technology utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other electronic device. The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down adoption of that device. An what about the other technology used in these products? MPEG4 is just a small part of the technology needed for the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020220/177c2052/attachment.html From ben interframemedia.com Wed Feb 20 15:53:43 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:57 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <012901c1ba66$3a593580$8901a8c0@KNG> Message-ID: Ken, Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we?re only talking about $16M/day assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day ? this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry. I don?t see the actual cost of the license fee being a problem, but the administration that it would require. I?m looking at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based on the realistic audience for my niche, I?d be looking at something under $30/year (1500 user-hours). As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I?m confident customer price sensitivity doesn?t exist at that point ? you wouldn?t lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn?t make or break a business (especially since your competition would have to pay it too). So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn?t the amount, but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very clear to implement. I?d hate to spend $900 of my time figuring out how to pay them $10. Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous definition of what content isn?t revenue producing? Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: > When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents > an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on demand service to > become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must be > available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a > handful of titles. If content that is offered on free television is also > included in a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage > fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect > of suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be reruns of old TV > series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour. This usage fee then > eats up a big portion of the revenue. > > When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even less > sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent holders to > develop the MPEG4 intellectual property. But the same can be said for > virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for by > the user when they purchase the product. What is so special about MPEG4 that > the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? There are no recurring > payments to the developers of the technology utilized in cars, computers, > audio systems, basically every other electronic device. > > The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread the > proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty > for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down adoption of that device. > An what about the other technology used in these products? MPEG4 is just a > small part of the technology needed for the digital video end-to-end solution. > Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020220/c9c184e1/attachment.html From yuval envivio.com Wed Feb 20 17:39:19 2002 From: yuval envivio.com (Yuval Fisher) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:57 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: Message-ID: <3C744FC7.433DC1A5@envivio.com> Ben, > Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the > license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of > MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we?re only talking about $16M/day > assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day ? > this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the > entertainment industry. That's $6 Billion a year. You think that's a rounding error ? Does this kind of return seem to be a reasonable factor on the investment made to create the technology ? By the way, I'm not sure your figures are based on anything. The terms for mass distribution of content were not specified in the press release from MPEGLA. Best, Yuval From kgoldsholl oxygnet.com Thu Feb 21 09:08:54 2002 From: kgoldsholl oxygnet.com (Ken Goldsholl) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:58 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: Message-ID: <001f01c1bafa$71663ac0$8901a8c0@KNG> Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4Ben, Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the consumer for this technology is $120! What other technology embedded in a low cost consumer electronic product costs that much? In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost of VOD servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), and with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs will also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for free on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will pay for this. Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its $7.95 for a whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value content that the subscriber watches 75 hours per month of. The MPEG tax could represent almost 20% of that cost. In the long run, content retailers will have incentive to switch to alternative formats that do not impose an hourly fee to use. I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but it could ned up costing someone alot of money. If a system is all MPEG4 (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then the subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is on. If a viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the license fees could run almost $15/month. Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5. There won't be too many $25 STBs around. If someone does come up with a low cost product that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can negotiate a different deal. Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Waggoner To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2024 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ken, Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we're only talking about $16M/day assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day - this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry. I don't see the actual cost of the license fee being a problem, but the administration that it would require. I'm looking at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based on the realistic audience for my niche, I'd be looking at something under $30/year (1500 user-hours). As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I'm confident customer price sensitivity doesn't exist at that point - you wouldn't lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn't make or break a business (especially since your competition would have to pay it too). So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn't the amount, but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very clear to implement. I'd hate to spend $900 of my time figuring out how to pay them $10. Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous definition of what content isn't revenue producing? Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must be available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a handful of titles. If content that is offered on free television is also included in a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour. This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the revenue. When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual property. But the same can be said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for by the user when they purchase the product. What is so special about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? There are no recurring payments to the developers of the technology utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other electronic device. The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down adoption of that device. An what about the other technology used in these products? MPEG4 is just a small part of the technology needed for the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020221/18b29233/attachment.html From fevzi tivo.com Thu Feb 21 09:26:35 2002 From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:58 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: <001f01c1bafa$71663ac0$8901a8c0@KNG> Message-ID: <3C752DCB.3010005@tivo.com> Hi folks, I am a new subscriber to this list. I find this discussion very interesting. I must admit I am not as familiar with it. One question came to me while I was reading this thread. What if the user records a movie (or any other video/audio content) but does not watch it, ends up deleting it? This is a very common occurance with PVRs. Another point is that the PVRs are not always integrated with a Set Top Box so if the STB is used to monitor what the user is watching the user would be charged for something their PVR recorded but they ended up erasing it. Regards, Fevzi. Ken Goldsholl wrote: > Ben, > > > > Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the > consumer for this technology is $120! What other technology embedded > in a low cost consumer electronic product costs that much? > > > > In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost > of VOD servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), > and with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs > will also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for > free on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will > pay for this. Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its > $7.95 for a whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value > content that the subscriber watches 75 hours per month of. The MPEG > tax could represent almost 20% of that cost. In the long run, content > retailers will have incentive to switch to alternative formats that do > not impose an hourly fee to use. > > > > I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but > it could ned up costing someone alot of money. If a system is all > MPEG4 (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then > the subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is on. > If a viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the license fees could > run almost $15/month. > > > > Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is > unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be > greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5. There won't be > too many $25 STBs around. If someone does come up with a low cost > product that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can > negotiate a different deal. > > > > Ken > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Ben Waggoner > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2024 3:53 PM > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 > > > Ken, > > Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the > license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of > MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we're only talking about $16M/day > assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day - > this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the > entertainment industry. > > I don't see the actual cost of the license fee being a > problem, but the administration that it would require. I'm looking > at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based > on the realistic audience for my niche, I'd be looking at > something under $30/year (1500 user-hours). > > As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I'm > confident customer price sensitivity doesn't exist at that point - > you wouldn't lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, > so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but > certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server > amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee > really wouldn't make or break a business (especially since your > competition would have to pay it too). > > So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn't the amount, > but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the > terms very clear to implement. I'd hate to spend $900 of my time > figuring out how to pay them $10. > > Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to > use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous > definition of what content isn't revenue producing? > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: > > When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature > film, two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, > for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more > content than recently released movies must be available on the > system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a > handful of titles. If content that is offered on free > television is also included in a service like subscription > video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a > service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of > suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be > reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents > per hour. This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the > revenue. > > When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal > makes even less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made > by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual > property. But the same can be said for virtually all other > kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for by the > user when they purchase the product. What is so special about > MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? > There are no recurring payments to the developers of the > technology utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, > basically every other electronic device. > > The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to > spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly > dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box > will not slow down adoption of that device. An what about the > other technology used in these products? MPEG4 is just a > small part of the technology needed for the digital video > end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020221/cf15c720/attachment.html From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Feb 21 10:14:37 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:58 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B61@exchange.epr.com> Discuss list, I tried to find some data that shows how realistic the use fees are in cases where remuneration is indirect, e.g., with advertisement-supported content. The only example I could find so far comes from a JP Morgan Report (Initiating Coverage of Real Networks, JP Morgan, San Fransisco, CA, 18 October 2001, page 15, table 7) The assumption is doing a 5 mintute song supported by a 30 sec. ad at 44 kbps. Let's assume 'song' means 'MPEG-4 clip. The numbers are then as follows: ---------------- begin quote --------------------- File duration (seconds) 330 x Encoding rate (Kbps) 44 = File size (Kb) 14,520 /8 bits (bytes) 1815 Total file delivered (MB) 1.815 Delivery cost/MB ($) 0.01 Cost to deliver one song and one ad ($) 0.01815 Ad revenue/song* ($) 0.02 Gross profit/song $0.002 Gross margin 9.25% Source: JPMorgan estimates. Note: Calculations are rounded. Assumes $20 cost per thousand impressions (CPM). ---------------- end quote ---------------------- So far the report's example. Let's now add the MPEG use fees: MPEG Visual use fees ($) 0.00183 MPEG Audio use fees ($) PM MPEG Systems use fees (4) PM By some coincidence, the use fee is here virtually equal to the gross margin, assuming that MPEG-4 Systems and MPEG-4 Audio come without use fee. (I do not consider this a reasonable assumption by the way. If we assume the Visual use fee is reasonable, we also need to assume that some use fees are equally resonable for access to the licenses needed to use the other parts of MPEG-4.) If the figures in the example are accurate (I'd love to hear comments) then the example shows that MPEG-4 is not an option, and one would need to look at alternative solutions for this business model. Of course the example also shows that ad supported content is difficult to being with, but that is not the issue here - people are doing it, and MPEG-4 should provide them with a reasonable solution. More such examples are very welcome. Best, Rob Koenen From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Feb 21 10:21:25 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:58 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B62@exchange.epr.com> While I share the concerns over broadcast and all one-to-many use cases, we need to be a bit cautious here. There have been multiple remarks to the effect that: * the model for broadcast still needs to be worked out * according to current thinking, it would be based on statistical measures not actual usage. So there is no need for logging of actual hours viewed. Also be careful with talking about the 'cost to the consumer' as the consumer. the consumer is not asked to pay use fees. 'The cost per consumer' is more accurate (Yes, of course, in the end it is likely that the consumer pays something anyway.) Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ken Goldsholl [mailto:kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 9:09 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ben, Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the consumer for this technology is $120! What other technology embedded in a low cost consumer electronic product costs that much? In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost of VOD servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), and with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs will also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for free on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will pay for this. Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its $7.95 for a whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value content that the subscriber watches 75 hours per month of. The MPEG tax could represent almost 20% of that cost. In the long run, content retailers will have incentive to switch to alternative formats that do not impose an hourly fee to use. I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but it could ned up costing someone alot of money. If a system is all MPEG4 (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then the subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is on. If a viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the license fees could run almost $15/month. Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5. There won't be too many $25 STBs around. If someone does come up with a low cost product that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can negotiate a different deal. Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Waggoner To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2024 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ken, Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we're only talking about $16M/day assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day - this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry. I don't see the actual cost of the license fee being a problem, but the administration that it would require. I'm looking at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based on the realistic audience for my niche, I'd be looking at something under $30/year (1500 user-hours). As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I'm confident customer price sensitivity doesn't exist at that point - you wouldn't lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn't make or break a business (especially since your competition would have to pay it too). So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn't the amount, but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very clear to implement. I'd hate to spend $900 of my time figuring out how to pay them $10. Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous definition of what content isn't revenue producing? Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must be available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a handful of titles. If content that is offered on free television is also included in a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour. This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the revenue. When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual property. But the same can be said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for by the user when they purchase the product. What is so special about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? There are no recurring payments to the developers of the technology utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other electronic device. The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down adoption of that device. An what about the other technology used in these products? MPEG4 is just a small part of the technology needed for the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020221/cae248a0/attachment.html From kgoldsholl oxygnet.com Thu Feb 21 10:33:27 2002 From: kgoldsholl oxygnet.com (Ken Goldsholl) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:58 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B62@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <004b01c1bb06$42c1f590$8901a8c0@KNG> Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4You are absolutely correct in stating that the model needs to be worked out. Since use of MPEG4 over broadband is virtually non-existent, it is hard to predict how the services will evolve, which is one reason why all potential service models need to be considered. Whether it is the cost to the consumer or the cost to the service provider is irrelevant. It affects the cost of operating the service, and that is important to the service provider, who will make the ultimate decision about what system to deploy. If subscriber equipment is amortized over three years, and we add $30/yr in licensing costs to the cost of the equipment, we would effectively be increasing the cost of the STB by 30-50%. subscriber equipment is probably the biggest capital expense when deploying new technology, so it really isn't in the noise. Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Koenen To: 'Ken Goldsholl' ; discuss@lists.m4if.org Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 10:21 AM Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 While I share the concerns over broadcast and all one-to-many use cases, we need to be a bit cautious here. There have been multiple remarks to the effect that: * the model for broadcast still needs to be worked out * according to current thinking, it would be based on statistical measures not actual usage. So there is no need for logging of actual hours viewed. Also be careful with talking about the 'cost to the consumer' as the consumer. the consumer is not asked to pay use fees. 'The cost per consumer' is more accurate (Yes, of course, in the end it is likely that the consumer pays something anyway.) Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ken Goldsholl [mailto:kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 9:09 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ben, Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the consumer for this technology is $120! What other technology embedded in a low cost consumer electronic product costs that much? In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost of VOD servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), and with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs will also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for free on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will pay for this. Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its $7.95 for a whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value content that the subscriber watches 75 hours per month of. The MPEG tax could represent almost 20% of that cost. In the long run, content retailers will have incentive to switch to alternative formats that do not impose an hourly fee to use. I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but it could ned up costing someone alot of money. If a system is all MPEG4 (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then the subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is on. If a viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the license fees could run almost $15/month. Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5. There won't be too many $25 STBs around. If someone does come up with a low cost product that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can negotiate a different deal. Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Waggoner To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2024 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ken, Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we're only talking about $16M/day assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day - this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry. I don't see the actual cost of the license fee being a problem, but the administration that it would require. I'm looking at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based on the realistic audience for my niche, I'd be looking at something under $30/year (1500 user-hours). As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I'm confident customer price sensitivity doesn't exist at that point - you wouldn't lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn't make or break a business (especially since your competition would have to pay it too). So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn't the amount, but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very clear to implement. I'd hate to spend $900 of my time figuring out how to pay them $10. Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous definition of what content isn't revenue producing? Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must be available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a handful of titles. If content that is offered on free television is also included in a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour. This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the revenue. When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual property. But the same can be said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for by the user when they purchase the product. What is so special about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? There are no recurring payments to the developers of the technology utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other electronic device. The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down adoption of that device. An what about the other technology used in these products? MPEG4 is just a small part of the technology needed for the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020221/c9e9dbec/attachment.html From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Feb 21 10:49:17 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:59 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B64@exchange.epr.com> Sure Ken - which is why I stated that the user will pay anyway ... I just wanted to correct the potential misconception (likely not yours, but it is out there) that royalties will be collected from end-users. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ken Goldsholl [mailto:kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 10:33 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 You are absolutely correct in stating that the model needs to be worked out. Since use of MPEG4 over broadband is virtually non-existent, it is hard to predict how the services will evolve, which is one reason why all potential service models need to be considered. Whether it is the cost to the consumer or the cost to the service provider is irrelevant. It affects the cost of operating the service, and that is important to the service provider, who will make the ultimate decision about what system to deploy. If subscriber equipment is amortized over three years, and we add $30/yr in licensing costs to the cost of the equipment, we would effectively be increasing the cost of the STB by 30-50%. subscriber equipment is probably the biggest capital expense when deploying new technology, so it really isn't in the noise. Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Koenen To: 'Ken Goldsholl' ; discuss@lists.m4if.org Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 10:21 AM Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 While I share the concerns over broadcast and all one-to-many use cases, we need to be a bit cautious here. There have been multiple remarks to the effect that: * the model for broadcast still needs to be worked out * according to current thinking, it would be based on statistical measures not actual usage. So there is no need for logging of actual hours viewed. Also be careful with talking about the 'cost to the consumer' as the consumer. the consumer is not asked to pay use fees. 'The cost per consumer' is more accurate (Yes, of course, in the end it is likely that the consumer pays something anyway.) Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ken Goldsholl [mailto:kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 9:09 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ben, Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the consumer for this technology is $120! What other technology embedded in a low cost consumer electronic product costs that much? In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost of VOD servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), and with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs will also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for free on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will pay for this. Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its $7.95 for a whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value content that the subscriber watches 75 hours per month of. The MPEG tax could represent almost 20% of that cost. In the long run, content retailers will have incentive to switch to alternative formats that do not impose an hourly fee to use. I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but it could ned up costing someone alot of money. If a system is all MPEG4 (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then the subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is on. If a viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the license fees could run almost $15/month. Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5. There won't be too many $25 STBs around. If someone does come up with a low cost product that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can negotiate a different deal. Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Waggoner To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2024 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ken, Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we're only talking about $16M/day assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day - this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry. I don't see the actual cost of the license fee being a problem, but the administration that it would require. I'm looking at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based on the realistic audience for my niche, I'd be looking at something under $30/year (1500 user-hours). As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I'm confident customer price sensitivity doesn't exist at that point - you wouldn't lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn't make or break a business (especially since your competition would have to pay it too). So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn't the amount, but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very clear to implement. I'd hate to spend $900 of my time figuring out how to pay them $10. Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous definition of what content isn't revenue producing? Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must be available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a handful of titles. If content that is offered on free television is also included in a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour. This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the revenue. When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual property. But the same can be said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for by the user when they purchase the product. What is so special about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? There are no recurring payments to the developers of the technology utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other electronic device. The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down adoption of that device. An what about the other technology used in these products? MPEG4 is just a small part of the technology needed for the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020221/e2bc70e1/attachment.html From ben interframemedia.com Thu Feb 21 15:05:11 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:59 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <001f01c1bafa$71663ac0$8901a8c0@KNG> Message-ID: Ken, The question is whether or not content providers get more than $0.02/hour out of using MPEG-4 instead of alternative technologies. Take, for example, digital cable and satellite companies. If MPEG-4 allows them to double their number of channels, it'll let them add a lot of revenue, by increasing the number of channels and pay-per-view orders they get. If it allows them to save money in set top boxes by using commodity chips, that can also add up quickly ($30/year is less than the real cost of modern digital STBs). If MPEG-4 can't provide that kind of value, it isn't going to work one way or the other. Also, content providers are going to make sure they aren't charged for all the time the box is on, through some mechanism or another (e.g., not counting any content viewed if the remote control hasn't been used in two hours). Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/21/02 9:08 AM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: > Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the consumer > for this technology is $120! What other technology embedded in a low cost > consumer electronic product costs that much? > > In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost of VOD > servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), and with servers > located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs will also be free. If > 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for free on broadcast tv, there > will be a limit to how much people will pay for this. Maybe its five cents or > ten cents per show, maybe its $7.95 for a whole month of reruns, talk shows, > and other low value content that the subscriber watches 75 hours per month of. > The MPEG tax could represent almost 20% of that cost. In the long run, > content retailers will have incentive to switch to alternative formats that do > not impose an hourly fee to use. > > I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but it could > ned up costing someone alot of money. If a system is all MPEG4 (the STB > probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then the subscriber mgmt > system just has to log the hours the STB is on. If a viewer keeps their STB > on all the time, the license fees could run almost $15/month. > > Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is > unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be greatly > affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5. There won't be too many $25 STBs > around. If someone does come up with a low cost product that utilizes MPEG4 > (like a cell phone), then they can negotiate a different deal. From kgoldsholl oxygnet.com Thu Feb 21 15:45:14 2002 From: kgoldsholl oxygnet.com (Ken Goldsholl) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:59 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: Message-ID: <002601c1bb31$cf552560$8901a8c0@KNG> Ben, The $30/yr over 3 years is $90, which would be more than half the cost of IP STBs in a year or two. I expect them to be under $200 sometime this year, and you know how the prices of electronics products keeps going down. MPEG4 can increase the capacity of cable and other broadband networks, but so do other technologies that are paid for when the equipment is purchased. I still haven't heard the rationale for just one particular technology deserving a recurring revenue stream for its use. The microprocessor in my computer probably consumed billions of dollars in development costs, as did alot of the software I use, but I still only pay once for the continued use of all these products. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Waggoner" To: Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 > Ken, > > The question is whether or not content providers get more than > $0.02/hour out of using MPEG-4 instead of alternative technologies. > > Take, for example, digital cable and satellite companies. If MPEG-4 > allows them to double their number of channels, it'll let them add a lot of > revenue, by increasing the number of channels and pay-per-view orders they > get. If it allows them to save money in set top boxes by using commodity > chips, that can also add up quickly ($30/year is less than the real cost of > modern digital STBs). > > If MPEG-4 can't provide that kind of value, it isn't going to work one > way or the other. > > Also, content providers are going to make sure they aren't charged for > all the time the box is on, through some mechanism or another (e.g., not > counting any content viewed if the remote control hasn't been used in two > hours). > > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From JMcClenny sandstream.com Fri Feb 22 00:00:36 2002 From: JMcClenny sandstream.com (McClenny, John Doc) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:59 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] >> Ken, > > The question is whether or not content providers get more than > $0.02/hour out of using MPEG-4 instead of alternative technologies. > > Take, for example, digital cable and satellite companies. > If MPEG-4 > allows them to double their number of channels, it'll let > them add a lot of revenue, by increasing the number of channels and > pay-per-view orders they get. MPEG-4 in the cable/satellite world must justify not just the cost per hour, but the cost of replacing the existing MPEG-2 STBs. The cable guys aren't bandwidth depleted like the satellite people are and have a larger installed base. On the other hand, they are more capable of trying experiments in limited geographical areas than DBS. If the Echostar/DirecTV merger happens, MPEG-4 would have a brief window of opportunity as the existing STBs will be junked to support the new merged service. MSOs/DBS people can live with one time capital charges that get depreciated across a long time period. Hourly charges directly impact cash flow and are a bad thing that will keep many people from seriously considering MPEG-4. Only in the bandwidth constrained DSL world will paying to get the maximum video quality in a 1 mbps stream make economic sense because there are not viable alternatives. It is not obvious if there is DSL providers could compete against existing TV sources. > If it allows them to save money in set top boxes by > using commodity > chips, that can also add up quickly ($30/year is less than > the real cost of modern digital STBs). > If MPEG-4 can't provide that kind of value, it isn't > going to work one > way or the other. Yep. Won't even be in the game to be evaluated. Will MPEG-4 be relegated to places where lower cost alternatives exist? Where are those places? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020222/bbeaf196/attachment.html From ben interframemedia.com Thu Feb 21 16:15:58 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:59 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <002601c1bb31$cf552560$8901a8c0@KNG> Message-ID: Ken, Again, the real issue is the cost of the technology over its life - except for the (substantial) administrative costs, it doesn't matter whether the costs are up front in more expensive chips, or through license fees later. I'd bet that content providers were to pay $100 per customer over 5 years, they'd rather pay $0 up front and $20 a year instead of having to pay $100 extra for a box and then nothing after that. Of course, if another technology can offer a lower net cost with MPEG-4's advantages, than MPEG-4 is going to be in serious trouble. At $0.02/hour, I'm confident it'll beat MPEG-2 for virtually all uses. Windows Media is likely to be the most viable competitor there as a technology. I'm not sure what the different costs are there - Windows Media servers are certainly quite a lot more expensive. On the whole, I'd prefer to eliminate the usage free in exchange for a higher encoder fee. This would be much easier to administer, and would put the costs where customers are used to paying them. $1 or even $5 per encoder would work fine with the majority of the current encoder tool market. I'm just trying to get people to discriminate between "MPEG-4 is too expensive to license" versus "MPEG-4 licenses will be too difficult to administer." In many cases, I think the MPEG-4 total costs aren't bad, it's just they're distributed in a painful way for many audiences. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/21/02 3:45 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: > The $30/yr over 3 years is $90, which would be more than half the cost of IP > STBs in a year or two. I expect them to be under $200 sometime this year, > and you know how the prices of electronics products keeps going down. > > MPEG4 can increase the capacity of cable and other broadband networks, but > so do other technologies that are paid for when the equipment is purchased. > I still haven't heard the rationale for just one particular technology > deserving a recurring revenue stream for its use. The microprocessor in my > computer probably consumed billions of dollars in development costs, as did > alot of the software I use, but I still only pay once for the continued use > of all these products. From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Feb 21 16:18:23 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:59 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Talkin' Smack: License To Stream Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B92@exchange.epr.com> An opion on licensing here: http://www.digitalmediadesigner.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/02_feb/ editorials/smack87.htm (remove line breaks before clicking or copy/paste) Note that not every criticism below is based on the naked facts. Keeping track of exact amounts of users is not expected to be a requirement and streaming of content in relation with which three is no remuneration is not subject to a use fee. That said, I still wonder whether a webcast of a company's quarterly earmings is in the 'no remuneration' category (perhaps only if the company is not turning a profit? ;-) Rob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020221/723c0512/attachment.html From ben interframemedia.com Thu Feb 21 16:25:46 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:59 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: on 2/21/02 4:00 PM, McClenny, John Doc at JMcClenny@sandstream.com wrote: > MPEG-4 in the cable/satellite world must justify not just the cost per hour, > but the cost of replacing the existing MPEG-2 STBs. The cable guys aren't > bandwidth depleted like the satellite people are and have a larger installed > base. On the other hand, they are more capable of trying experiments in > limited geographical areas than DBS. If the Echostar/DirecTV merger happens, > MPEG-4 would have a brief window of opportunity as the existing STBs will be > junked to support the new merged service. While cable is somewhat less constrained, there still are substantial revenue opportunities for them in freeing up bandwidth, in increasing the number of channels, and freeing up channels for use with the increasingly oversubscribed cable modems. It is my belief that those additional revenue opportunities are substantially greater than the $0.02/hour. Doesn't take that much of an increased cable modem subscription rate to make up for that. > MSOs/DBS people can live with one time capital charges that get depreciated > across a long time period. Hourly charges directly impact cash flow and are a > bad thing that will keep many people from seriously considering MPEG-4. Is it the size of the fee, or the fact of the fee? Those are very different issues. My contention is that the size of the fee doesn't matter to most of those making these arguments. How many think it would be acceptable if it was $0.01/hour instead? How many people think that $0.02 works, but $0.04 wouldn't? > Only in the bandwidth constrained DSL world will paying to get the maximum > video quality in a 1 mbps stream make economic sense because there are not > viable alternatives. It is not obvious if there is DSL providers could > compete against existing TV sources. > >> If it allows them to save money in set top boxes by >> using commodity >> chips, that can also add up quickly ($30/year is less than >> the real cost of modern digital STBs). > > >> If MPEG-4 can't provide that kind of value, it isn't >> going to work one >> way or the other. > > Yep. Won't even be in the game to be evaluated. > > Will MPEG-4 be relegated to places where lower cost alternatives exist? Where > are those places? Well, MPEG-4 is unlikely to displace QuickTime, Windows Media, and RealVideo for computer-based playback, at least based on the current ISMA profiles. New, better ones are in the works. Also, there are further MPEG-4 video codecs coming down the pike, and in some cases with different members of the patent pool. All we have now is the pricing for Simple Visual, which ISN'T the profile I'd go for if I was looking to replace my whole system. I'd be aiming for H.26L derived profiles, which will offer MUCH better compression, and aren't that far away at this point. I doubt we'll see any Simple STBs. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Feb 21 17:22:41 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:59 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B9D@exchange.epr.com> There are significant advantages to providing services based on open standards. Technology does not need to be free. As a matter of fact, it never is, although the cost *structure* may vary. Right now, and in this discussion thread, there are two basic questions at stake: 1) Given the extra possibilities (say, over MPEG-2), is the cost of the MPEG-4 license reasonable? (Ben's point) 2) Does the cost allow solutions to be deployed that are competitive with alternative -proprietary- technologies that may also provide these extra possibilities? (Ken's point) For MPEG-4 to succeed in any given market, both Ben's and Ken's questions need a 'yes' answer for that market. The challenge is making the license terms such that they are reasonable in *all* markets. The challenge is further that there are proprietary solutions, that may not always be as complete as MPEG-4, but do certainly provide solutions in specific situations and markets. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Goldsholl [mailto:kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 15:45 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 > > > Ben, > > The $30/yr over 3 years is $90, which would be more than half > the cost of IP > STBs in a year or two. I expect them to be under $200 > sometime this year, > and you know how the prices of electronics products keeps going down. > > MPEG4 can increase the capacity of cable and other broadband > networks, but > so do other technologies that are paid for when the equipment > is purchased. > I still haven't heard the rationale for just one particular technology > deserving a recurring revenue stream for its use. The > microprocessor in my > computer probably consumed billions of dollars in development > costs, as did > alot of the software I use, but I still only pay once for the > continued use > of all these products. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ben Waggoner" > To: > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 3:05 PM > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 > > > > Ken, > > > > The question is whether or not content providers get more than > > $0.02/hour out of using MPEG-4 instead of alternative technologies. > > > > Take, for example, digital cable and satellite > companies. If MPEG-4 > > allows them to double their number of channels, it'll let > them add a lot > of > > revenue, by increasing the number of channels and > pay-per-view orders they > > get. If it allows them to save money in set top boxes by > using commodity > > chips, that can also add up quickly ($30/year is less than > the real cost > of > > modern digital STBs). > > > > If MPEG-4 can't provide that kind of value, it isn't > going to work one > > way or the other. > > > > Also, content providers are going to make sure they > aren't charged for > > all the time the box is on, through some mechanism or > another (e.g., not > > counting any content viewed if the remote control hasn't > been used in two > > hours). > > > > > > Ben Waggoner > > Interframe Media > > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Feb 21 17:26:15 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:00 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: Talkin' Smack: License To Stream Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B9F@exchange.epr.com> Some spam filters apparently didn't like me using the word n-ak- ed below. Now replaced by ****** Sigh. -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2024 16:18 To: M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: Talkin' Smack: License To Stream An opion on licensing here: http://www.digitalmediadesigner.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/02_feb/ editorials/smack87.htm (remove line breaks before clicking or copy/paste) Note that not every criticism below is based on the ***** facts. Keeping track of exact amounts of users is not expected to be a requirement and streaming of content in relation with which three is no remuneration is not subject to a use fee. That said, I still wonder whether a webcast of a company's quarterly earmings is in the 'no remuneration' category (perhaps only if the company is not turning a profit? ;-) Rob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020221/aaab0432/attachment.html From mjacklin geneva-link.ch Fri Feb 22 12:04:26 2002 From: mjacklin geneva-link.ch (Martin Jacklin) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:00 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] EuroLinux Alliance: Patent Tax Threatens the Freedom of Movie Picture Artists in Europe Message-ID: This just came in. I don't have an opinion I can share at this point, for a multiplicity of reasons (chiefly my MPEG-4 learning curve!). Perhaps folks from this organization, and maybe even my good friend Christian Vanderborght would like to join this discussion. -----Original Message----- From: christian vanderborght [mailto:christian.vander@canalweb.net] Sent: 22 February 2024 10:21 To: info@europeanstreaming.com Subject: flash Info - europeanstreaming.com MPEG LA to Charge for MPEG4 Streaming in Europe Patent Tax Threatens the Freedom of Movie Picture Artists in Europe EuroLinux Alliance For immediate Release Paris, Munich, Amsterdam - 2024-02-20 - EuroLinux has been informed by Larry Horn, Vice President for Licensing at the MPEG association, that "the patents that will constitute the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License support the charging of royalties on the use of MPEG-4 Visual streams in Europe" and that a license should be available within several months. MPEG LA is a group of large corporations which control the MPEG standards through a large patent portfolio. MPEG LA includes notceably Canon, Inc., Fujitsu, General Instrument Corp., GE Technology Development, Inc., Hitachi, Ltd., KDDI Corporation, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, Philips, Samsung, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Scientific Atlanta, Sony, Toshiba, and Victor Company of Japan, Limited. [1] MPEG LA strategy consists in charging all possible uses of MPEG4 technologies wordwide and to block the diffusion of independently developped innovations in the field of video software technology. In particular, MPEG LA is charging 0.02 USD per hour of compressed MPEG4, which is actually more than the copyright royalties most movie writers receive. The MPEG LA strategy leads to levying a tax on all cultural goods and is a typical example of the way patents on Internet standards are a tool for private taxing of all economic activities. MPEG LA is not the only group of companies trying to patent common Internet standards and create new forms of taxes managed by private interests. Organisations such as the W3C or the IETF, under the influence of large IT companies, are also starting to accept patents on Internet standards. "Patents on Internet standards have absolutely no economic justification since the economic value of a standard is related to the number of its users, not to the R&D spent to develop the standard or its technical quality." says Bernard Lang, Directeur de Recherche at INRIA. "Also, Internet standards are extremely cheap to develop. Corporate Members of the EuroLinux Alliance have for example developped innovative fractal based digital video software in less than 3 months." However, and although all economic studies show that software patents harm software innovation [3, 4, 6, 7, 8], software patents on Internet standards are likely to be legalised by the European Commission according to current informations on the proposed directive [9]. It would give control to a few large corporations on the whole digital culture and threaten European cultural diversity. The MPEG LA Email to EuroLinux Subject: RE: Submit Your Question to MPEGLA Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2024 10:54:29 -0700 From: "Larry Horn" To: XXXX Hello, XXXX. Thanks for your question. The patents that will constitute the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License support the charging of royalties on the use of MPEG-4 Visual streams in Europe. Details of the actual license agreement are still being worked out, however, and a license may not be available for several more months. Regards, Larry Horn Vice President, Licensing References [0] Apple Delays QuickTime 6 Over Proposed MPEG-4 Licenses - http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/13/041234&mode=thread [1] MPEG-LA - http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html [2] European Software Patent Horror Gallery - http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/pikta/mupli/index.en.html [3] What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Samuel Kortum, Josh Lerner. Research Policy 28. 1999. Elesevier [4] Abstraction oriented property of software and its relation to patentability. Tetsuo Tamai. Information and Software Technology. 1998. Elsevier. [5] Juridical Coup at the European Patent Office - http://petition.eurolinux.org/pr/pr14.html [6] Software Patentability with Compensatory Regulation: a Cost Evaluation. Jean Paul Smets and Hartmut Pilch. Upgrade February 2002 http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/pleji/ http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/issues/2001/6/up2-6Smets.pdf [7] Fraunhofer Study about the Economic Effects of Software Patents. Micro and Macroeconomic Implications of the Patentability of Software Innovations. German Federal Ministry Economics and Technology. November 2001. http://www.bmwi.de/Homepage/Politikfelder/Technologiepolitik/Technologiepoli tik.jsp#softwarepatentstudie http://www.bmwi.de/Homepage/download/technologie/Softwarepatentstudie_E.pdf [8] Stimulating competition and innovation in the information society. Conseil G?n?ral des Mines. September 2000. - http://www.pro-innovation.org [9] Collusion Discovered between BSA and European Commission - http://petition.eurolinux.org/pr/pr18.html About EuroLinux - www.EuroLinux.org The EuroLinux Alliance for a Free Information Infrastructure is an open coalition of commercial companies and non-profit associations united to promote and protect a vigourous European Software Culture based on Open Standards, Open Competition, Linux and Open Source Software. Companies, members or supporters of EuroLinux develop or sell software under free, semi-free and non-free licenses for operating systems such as Linux, MacOS or Windows. The EuroLinux Alliance launched on 2023-06-15 an electronic petition to protect software innovation in Europe. The EuroLinux petition has received so far massive support from more than 100.000 European citizens, 2000 corporate managers and 300 companies. Press Contacts France & Europe: Jean-Paul Smets +33-6 62 05 76 14 Germany & Europe: Hartmut Pilch +49-89 127 89 608 Denmark and Northern Europe: Anne ?stergaard Belgium: Nicolas Pettiaux Netherlands: Luuk van Dijk Permanent URL for this PR http://petition.EuroLinux.org/pr/pr18.html Legalese Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other trademarks and copyrights are owned by their respective companies. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020222/33468455/attachment.html From christian.vander canalweb.net Fri Feb 22 14:13:23 2002 From: christian.vander canalweb.net (christian vanderborght) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:01 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: EuroLinux Alliance: Patent Tax Threatens the Freedom of Movie Picture Artists in Europe References: Message-ID: <008a01c1bba2$b50dc880$0914a8c0@paris1.canalwebeurope.com> ISMA consortium and other industrials are looking a lot about the MPEG4 format mostly for wireless and STbox ( type MHP) If you read this info coming from LINUX netwotk these industrials want to get a fee of 0.02 USD when every user will play a mpeg4 file on any plat-form using mpeg4 format. It will change the business models of ISP and users if these rules is accepted. for the moment the situation is not clarified about the fee of the content delivery ( no rules really concrete about the financial ressources of the content providers. Maybe we can use this opportunity to apply the same kind of rules for any content file crossing the network!!! get my some feedback. vander ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Jacklin To: M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Cc: christian.vander@canalweb.net Sent: Friday, February 22, 2024 12:04 PM Subject: EuroLinux Alliance: Patent Tax Threatens the Freedom of Movie Picture Artists in Europe This just came in. I don't have an opinion I can share at this point, for a multiplicity of reasons (chiefly my MPEG-4 learning curve!). Perhaps folks from this organization, and maybe even my good friend Christian Vanderborght would like to join this discussion. -----Original Message----- From: christian vanderborght [mailto:christian.vander@canalweb.net] Sent: 22 February 2024 10:21 To: info@europeanstreaming.com Subject: flash Info - europeanstreaming.com MPEG LA to Charge for MPEG4 Streaming in Europe Patent Tax Threatens the Freedom of Movie Picture Artists in Europe EuroLinux Alliance For immediate Release Paris, Munich, Amsterdam - 2024-02-20 - EuroLinux has been informed by Larry Horn, Vice President for Licensing at the MPEG association, that "the patents that will constitute the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License support the charging of royalties on the use of MPEG-4 Visual streams in Europe" and that a license should be available within several months. MPEG LA is a group of large corporations which control the MPEG standards through a large patent portfolio. MPEG LA includes notceably Canon, Inc., Fujitsu, General Instrument Corp., GE Technology Development, Inc., Hitachi, Ltd., KDDI Corporation, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, Philips, Samsung, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Scientific Atlanta, Sony, Toshiba, and Victor Company of Japan, Limited. [1] MPEG LA strategy consists in charging all possible uses of MPEG4 technologies wordwide and to block the diffusion of independently developped innovations in the field of video software technology. In particular, MPEG LA is charging 0.02 USD per hour of compressed MPEG4, which is actually more than the copyright royalties most movie writers receive. The MPEG LA strategy leads to levying a tax on all cultural goods and is a typical example of the way patents on Internet standards are a tool for private taxing of all economic activities. MPEG LA is not the only group of companies trying to patent common Internet standards and create new forms of taxes managed by private interests. Organisations such as the W3C or the IETF, under the influence of large IT companies, are also starting to accept patents on Internet standards. "Patents on Internet standards have absolutely no economic justification since the economic value of a standard is related to the number of its users, not to the R&D spent to develop the standard or its technical quality." says Bernard Lang, Directeur de Recherche at INRIA. "Also, Internet standards are extremely cheap to develop. Corporate Members of the EuroLinux Alliance have for example developped innovative fractal based digital video software in less than 3 months." However, and although all economic studies show that software patents harm software innovation [3, 4, 6, 7, 8], software patents on Internet standards are likely to be legalised by the European Commission according to current informations on the proposed directive [9]. It would give control to a few large corporations on the whole digital culture and threaten European cultural diversity. The MPEG LA Email to EuroLinux Subject: RE: Submit Your Question to MPEGLA Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2024 10:54:29 -0700 From: "Larry Horn" To: XXXX Hello, XXXX. Thanks for your question. The patents that will constitute the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License support the charging of royalties on the use of MPEG-4 Visual streams in Europe. Details of the actual license agreement are still being worked out, however, and a license may not be available for several more months. Regards, Larry Horn Vice President, Licensing References [0] Apple Delays QuickTime 6 Over Proposed MPEG-4 Licenses - http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/13/041234&mode=thread [1] MPEG-LA - http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html [2] European Software Patent Horror Gallery - http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/pikta/mupli/index.en.html [3] What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Samuel Kortum, Josh Lerner. Research Policy 28. 1999. Elesevier [4] Abstraction oriented property of software and its relation to patentability. Tetsuo Tamai. Information and Software Technology. 1998. Elsevier. [5] Juridical Coup at the European Patent Office - http://petition.eurolinux.org/pr/pr14.html [6] Software Patentability with Compensatory Regulation: a Cost Evaluation. Jean Paul Smets and Hartmut Pilch. Upgrade February 2002 http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/pleji/ http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/issues/2001/6/up2-6Smets.pdf [7] Fraunhofer Study about the Economic Effects of Software Patents. Micro and Macroeconomic Implications of the Patentability of Software Innovations. German Federal Ministry Economics and Technology. November 2001. http://www.bmwi.de/Homepage/Politikfelder/Technologiepolitik/Technologiepoli tik.jsp#softwarepatentstudie http://www.bmwi.de/Homepage/download/technologie/Softwarepatentstudie_E.pdf [8] Stimulating competition and innovation in the information society. Conseil G?n?ral des Mines. September 2000. - http://www.pro-innovation.org [9] Collusion Discovered between BSA and European Commission - http://petition.eurolinux.org/pr/pr18.html About EuroLinux - www.EuroLinux.org The EuroLinux Alliance for a Free Information Infrastructure is an open coalition of commercial companies and non-profit associations united to promote and protect a vigourous European Software Culture based on Open Standards, Open Competition, Linux and Open Source Software. Companies, members or supporters of EuroLinux develop or sell software under free, semi-free and non-free licenses for operating systems such as Linux, MacOS or Windows. The EuroLinux Alliance launched on 2023-06-15 an electronic petition to protect software innovation in Europe. The EuroLinux petition has received so far massive support from more than 100.000 European citizens, 2000 corporate managers and 300 companies. Press Contacts France & Europe: Jean-Paul Smets +33-6 62 05 76 14 Germany & Europe: Hartmut Pilch +49-89 127 89 608 Denmark and Northern Europe: Anne ?stergaard Belgium: Nicolas Pettiaux Netherlands: Luuk van Dijk Permanent URL for this PR http://petition.EuroLinux.org/pr/pr18.html Legalese Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other trademarks and copyrights are owned by their respective companies. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020222/631e3cfa/attachment.html From craig pcube.com Fri Feb 22 08:35:57 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:01 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B9D@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B9D@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: At 5:22 PM -0800 2/21/02, Rob Koenen wrote: >Right now, and in this discussion thread, there are two basic questions at >stake: >1) Given the extra possibilities (say, over MPEG-2), is the cost of the >MPEG-4 > license reasonable? (Ben's point) Not certain if Ben's comments were interpreted correctly, as I marked his message for follow-up. But I agree with the way Rob has broken it down here. When looking at migration from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, as might be the case for Echostar if the merger goes through, the analysis is slightly different than the second scenario. You can do nothing, continuing to leverage your investment in MPEG-2. The issues become the cost of replacing the existing infrastructure versus the benefits realized via that conversion. Clearly, the usage fee (if it is applied to DBS and other broadcast infrastructures) is a show stopper. MPEG-2 wins hands down as the incremental revenues will largely be consumed by the royalties. And it is worth considering that if the merger fails, there may be a greater incentive to move to a more efficient codec, as they will continue to face severe bandwidth constraints. >2) Does the cost allow solutions to be deployed that are competitive with > alternative -proprietary- technologies that may also provide these > extra possibilities? (Ken's point) This is the point that I wanted to respond to Ben about. The more appropriate comparison is between the cost/benefits of MPEG-4 versus alternatives that provide similar levels of coding efficiency. As Rob points out, nothing is free, but large companies like Microsoft may make the decision to do some "cost shifting" for competitive reasons. Or any company may simply create a licensing structure that is more cost effective than what MPEG-4 is offering. And there is the very real possibility that someone can develop a new codec technology that avoids infringement on the the essential MPEG-2 patents, and thus avoid paying the "MPEG-2 tax." >For MPEG-4 to succeed in any given market, both Ben's and Ken's questions >need >a 'yes' answer for that market. Absolutely agreed! > >The challenge is making the license terms such that they are reasonable in >*all* markets. The challenge is further that there are proprietary >solutions, >that may not always be as complete as MPEG-4, but do certainly provide >solutions >in specific situations and markets. Again, Rob is right on the mark. MPEG-4 faces many deployment challenges. It does not represent an "in-kind" replacement for existing audio and video compression technologies. The tactic of offering ONLY the visual license first is an intentional distraction, aimed at forcing implementors to make direct comparisons with MPEG-2 (per #1 above). MPEG-4 represents a completely different philosophy about the delivery of digital media content, opening the door to a wide range of new business models that may change the way digital media is consumed. These possibilities include: 1. Localization of media and optimization for different viewing environments. 2. Personalization of media and user directed navigation and interaction. 3. Useful tools for scalability across devices with a wide range of performance and display capabilities. 4. Major improvements in compression efficiency based on the object coding and composition model. Such a fundamental shift in philosophy invites another avenue of analysis. You must now consider the total costs of implementation for the entire standard and the infrastructure to support it. And you must consider the start up costs versus future revenue streams that this shift enables. Bottom line, it will require considerable upfront investment to bring about the fundamental shifts that MPEG-4 embodies. This has been understood by the companies behind Real Player, Media Player, and QuickTime, and by the companies that have driven the Internet revolution in general. The ability to rapidly proliferate a new technology via royalty free components lies at the very heart of this revolution. The payoff comes from the growth of new industries. Unfortunatley we are being held hostage by those who seek to block, delay and eventually control this new medium. The reasonable compromise would be to create fair and reasonable licensing terms for the entire MPEG-4 standard, with a moratorium on imposition of these fees so that the technology can become established. The payback from this approach would be much greater, assuming that there is agreement on fair and reasonable terms, and the triggers (either time or installed base) to end the moratorium. The concept of a moratorium is already in play...the term is simply too short to be meaningful. Another approach would be to collect the per unit encoder/decoder royalties as proposed, and to use the funds collected to promote the MPEG-4 standard until it is established. Perhaps some form of partnership between MPEG-LA and M4IF? -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From jeffh bisk.com Fri Feb 22 09:22:18 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:01 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3F5@mail.corp.bisk.com> > For MPEG-4 to succeed in any given market, both Ben's and > Ken's questions need > a 'yes' answer for that market. Addressed to the MPEG-LA in particular. Very true. And the claim that the licensors want license fees to be "shared fairly by a variety of industry participants" sounds like hogwash to me. If costs are being shared fairly, they are being shared evenly. How can you share the costs evenly when the brunt of the costs are obviously skewed toward distribution only? I still don't get it. License issues were enough of a hassle with MPEG-2. Why not adopt the same scheme? That seems to be the most honest approach to date. We know it works well with little room for corruption. "X" is what you pay no questions asked. No budgetary problems, no monitoring or measuring problems. It would all be much simpler FOR the industry. Sharing fairly is just that. It's not right to punish the distribution sector just to subsidize the costs of technology use. The costs of distribution are already incredibly high. If the aim really is to get wide adoption of the standard; then let's freakin' do it! I can't be the only one tired of all the waffling. We want to get on with the business of making cutting-edge content based on this standard. So, tell the licensors to get off their duffs and bang out a license agreement that will allow them to roll this thing out pronto. The sooner they finalize a suitable agreement, the sooner they'll start getting paid. This is hardly the economic climate for hesitation. All, IMO of course.(which seems to be an overwhelming consensus. Jeff Handy From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Fri Feb 22 15:23:37 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Fri Feb 22 15:31:55 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Fri Feb 22 15:48:38 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative From craig pcube.com Fri Feb 22 11:04:41 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 3:31 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: > >> And there is the very real possibility that someone can develop a new >> codec technology that avoids infringement on the the essential MPEG-2 >> patents, and thus avoid paying the "MPEG-2 tax." >Please tell us how you would proceed to achieve this :-) >cu, >O. You begin by closely examining the IP behind core technologies from two perspectives: 1. Legacy patents and prior art - in particular look at a time window where these legacy patents would move into the public domain within the time window for finalization of 26L. Assuming two years, given the typical MPEG-2 process, this would suggest that you could use any IP patented earlier than say 1985. Likewise, there could be some value in examining prior art that might cast doubt on patented techniques developed after 1984. 2. Look at the flood of patents that were created in the 1990-1993 time frame that are essential to MPEG-2. Try to avoid infringing them with 26L. A few areas with which I have a little MPEG experience ( not all related to IP issues): Do not include any tools for the coding of interlace in the core 26L standard. If the folks with all of the IP for coding interlace insist on having these tools, segregate them into an INTERLACE profile and let them create a separate license for their use. Consider extended color gamuts for higher quality profiles. This should include support for 10 bit or greater luminance representations and full bandwidth color channels. I'm not sure if this relates to any IP issues with 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, but it is very important if we want to deliver high quality content to displays that routinely work in the RBG color space. Avoid any attempts to define formats or PROFILES that are optimized for existing formats. Choose logical performance levels WITHOUT huge gaps like the one that exists between MPEG-2 MP@ML and MP@HL. Take the time to fully document what conformance to the standard requires, especially with respect to maximization of utility of a performance level. For example, you are NOT conformant if you create a downstream specification that imposes format restrictions on a 26L profile - and thus are not entitled to claim that you are using the 26L standard. Don't forget conformance testing, especially for reserved extensions. If an implementation is broken by the use of a conformant extension then the right to claim conformance with 26L should be revoked. And there is one simple way to proceed if you are serious about a royalty free standard: Impose a requirement that any essential IP be offered on a royalty free basis. Unfortunately I don't know if this is possible under ISO or ITU rules. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Fri Feb 22 17:27:02 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative From craig pcube.com Fri Feb 22 11:47:20 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 5:27 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: >Hi Craig, all, > >1- Who will pay for that ? What you propose if FAR from being free. >It needs as well lot of time. I would suggest that a number of companies have done the research already. YOu might be surprised what you would learn if you asked. >2- Without the "good" patented tech. what quality will you reach ? >What you gain in the patent fee, you loose it in the bandwidth cost >:-) Again, if you ask, you may just find that some of the patents issued in the '90s are not as essential as you think. The problem is that many of the JVT members are going to do everything in their power to make certain that the MPEG-2 essential patents ARE used.; they have no motivation to examine alternatives, or to reach consensus on an alternative approach. > >3- If one patent is found after the "free standard" is deployed, how >do you handle it ? Good question. I would think that the current MPEG-2 provisions that require the identification of IP while the standard is being created would apply. And in the eventuality that an outside party stepped forward after the fact, they would be in an inferior position to a large group of companies that are trying to further entrench their IP in derivative standards. Typically these patent bandits can be paid off. >4- and ... > >Good luck :-) > > > And there is one simple way to proceed if you are serious about a >> royalty free standard: >> Impose a requirement that any essential IP be offered on a royalty >> free basis. Unfortunately I don't know if this is possible under ISO >> or ITU rules. >Unfortunatly I don't think it is. > This comes as no surprise. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From kmarks apple.com Fri Feb 22 01:13:32 2002 From: kmarks apple.com (Kevin Marks) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B61@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <719266E4-2774-11D6-BEF6-00039348D666@apple.com> In other news today, the CARP said that any webcaster streaming songs would have to pay $0.0014 per song to the record label. (It is also hedged around with complex conditions that seem designed to nullify any advantages that the web has over FM radio for the listener, so this can be regarded as the absolute minimum royalty fee, audio only, no video involved). Adding this to the MPEG-4 license and our putative broadcaster is now losing money on every song, even if he alternates songs and adverts. On Thursday, February 21, 2002, at 10:14 AM, Rob Koenen wrote: > Discuss list, > > I tried to find some data that shows how realistic the use > fees are in cases where remuneration is indirect, e.g., with > advertisement-supported content. The only example I could find > so far comes from a JP Morgan Report (Initiating Coverage of > Real Networks, JP Morgan, San Fransisco, CA, 18 October 2001, > page 15, table 7) > > The assumption is doing a 5 mintute song supported by > a 30 sec. ad at 44 kbps. Let's assume 'song' means > 'MPEG-4 clip. The numbers are then as follows: > > ---------------- begin quote --------------------- > File duration (seconds) 330 > x > Encoding rate (Kbps) 44 > = File size (Kb) 14,520 > /8 bits (bytes) 1815 > Total file delivered (MB) 1.815 > Delivery cost/MB ($) 0.01 > Cost to deliver one song and > one ad ($) 0.01815 > Ad revenue/song* ($) 0.02 > Gross profit/song $0.002 > Gross margin 9.25% > > Source: JPMorgan estimates. > Note: Calculations are rounded. > Assumes $20 cost per thousand impressions (CPM). > ---------------- end quote ---------------------- > > So far the report's example. > > Let's now add the MPEG use fees: > > MPEG Visual use fees ($) 0.00183 > MPEG Audio use fees ($) PM > MPEG Systems use fees (4) PM > > By some coincidence, the use fee is here virtually equal to the > gross margin, assuming that MPEG-4 Systems and MPEG-4 Audio come > without use fee. (I do not consider this a reasonable assumption > by the way. If we assume the Visual use fee is reasonable, we also > need to assume that some use fees are equally resonable for access > to the licenses needed to use the other parts of MPEG-4.) > > If the figures in the example are accurate (I'd love to hear comments) > then the example shows that MPEG-4 is not an option, and one would > need to look at alternative solutions for this business model. > > Of course the example also shows that ad supported content is > difficult to being with, but that is not the issue here - people are > doing it, and MPEG-4 should provide them with a reasonable solution. From ben interframemedia.com Fri Feb 22 10:17:05 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: on 2/22/02 6:31 AM, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN at olivier.avaro@rd.francetelecom.com wrote: >> And there is the very real possibility that someone can develop a new >> codec technology that avoids infringement on the the essential MPEG-2 >> patents, and thus avoid paying the "MPEG-2 tax." > Please tell us how you would proceed to achieve this :-) On2 has already proposed their open-source VP3 codec for this. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding From ben interframemedia.com Fri Feb 22 10:20:14 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: on 2/22/02 6:23 AM, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN at olivier.avaro@rd.francetelecom.com wrote: >> Take, for example, digital cable and satellite companies. >> If MPEG-4 >> allows them to double their number of channels, it'll let >> them add a lot of >> revenue, by increasing the number of channels and >> pay-per-view orders they >> get. > > Interesting. I just heard the contrary : compression, by augmenting the offer > while the demand remains almost constant will reduce their revenue by almost > the same value of the compression gain :-) It will reduce their revenue per channel by dilution, but will increase their total revenue, by offering more total services. The way my Dish package works is I get 100 channels for $X and 150 for $Y. They'd be able to add a 300 channel option for $Z. I'd probably buy it - even though I might not watch any more TV, I'd get a better chance of watching what I want when I want. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding From craig pcube.com Fri Feb 22 13:49:12 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:02 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:20 AM -0800 2/22/02, Ben Waggoner wrote: > The way my Dish package works is I get 100 channels for $X and 150 for >$Y. They'd be able to add a 300 channel option for $Z. I'd probably buy it >- even though I might not watch any more TV, I'd get a better chance of >watching what I want when I want. The larger issue for the U.S. DBS operators is carriage of local broadcast stations. Currently they are only able to reach the top 30-35 markets. If the planned merger goes through they promise to cover the top 100 markets. They are not saying how, but my guess is that they will replace the existing set-tops so that they can add a more efficient codec. If the merger does not go through they will be under even more pressure to add support for a more efficient codec, however, they will not have the immediate problem of dealing with the lack of interoperability between the two systems. The other factor that is critical is the use of PVRs as a bandwidth multiplier technique. This will allow them to utilize off hour bandwidth far more efficiently. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Fri Feb 22 22:28:30 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/HDM) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:03 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c1bbe7$e10671e0$fd436a20@rd.francetelecom.fr> > >1- Who will pay for that ? What you propose if FAR from being free. > >It needs as well lot of time. > > I would suggest that a number of companies have done the research > already. YOu might be surprised what you would learn if you asked. The research is only part of the work. But if you think you can make a business out of this, please go for it ! > >2- Without the "good" patented tech. what quality will you reach ? > >What you gain in the patent fee, you loose it in the bandwidth cost > >:-) > Again, if you ask, you may just find that some of the patents issued > in the '90s are not as essential as you think. The problem is that > many of the JVT members are going to do everything in their power to > make certain that the MPEG-2 essential patents ARE used.; they have > no motivation to examine alternatives, or to reach consensus on an > alternative approach. So what ? You don't think that the new stuff has not been patented as well ? > >3- If one patent is found after the "free standard" is deployed, how > >do you handle it ? > Good question. I would think that the current MPEG-2 provisions that > require the identification of IP while the standard is being created > would apply. And in the eventuality that an outside party stepped > forward after the fact, they would be in an inferior position to a > large group of companies that are trying to further entrench their IP > in derivative standards. > Typically these patent bandits can be paid off. "bandits" ? We leave in a world where ownership of intellectual creation is recognized as a right (and in your country even more than others so you should be aware of that). Do you ask as well for content companies to give their content free ? No, there is no still free lunch in this world. That's life (but we can still quote "Imagine" as Leonardo did in the last MPEG plenary ;-) And I am very suspicious when some people ask to give for free what they don't own (OK, I am starting rampant-speculating as well). cu, O. From craig pcube.com Fri Feb 22 18:32:02 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:03 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <001b01c1bbe7$e10671e0$fd436a20@rd.francetelecom.fr> References: <001b01c1bbe7$e10671e0$fd436a20@rd.francetelecom.fr> Message-ID: At 10:28 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/HDM wrote: > > Again, if you ask, you may just find that some of the patents issued >> in the '90s are not as essential as you think. The problem is that >> many of the JVT members are going to do everything in their power to >> make certain that the MPEG-2 essential patents ARE used.; they have >> no motivation to examine alternatives, or to reach consensus on an >> alternative approach. >So what ? You don't think that the new stuff has not been patented as well ? Two points: 1. You may find that some of the essential technology for motion compensated prediction is about the enter the public domain. So the trick is to avoid using techniques that were patented in the early '90s that are just reaching their "half-life." 2. Clearly 26L is likely to include a variety of new coding techniques that have been patented in recent years. So it comes back to the issue of how the companies that control these patents want to be compensated. Are they likely to follow the lead of those who have come up with the current MPEG-4 visual license proposal, or the lead of the marketplace, which is taking the very low cost or royalty free approach. You and many others have invested a great deal of time and your employer's resources in MPEG-4. It would be a pity to see this investment diminished because the business model under which you are operating has become outdated. >"bandits" ? We leave in a world where ownership of intellectual creation is >recognized as a right (and in your country even more than others so you >should be aware of that). Do you ask as well for content companies to give >their content free ? No, there is no still free lunch in this world. That's >life (but we can still quote "Imagine" as Leonardo did in the last MPEG >plenary ;-) What is happening in my country is the primary reason I used the term "bandits." The original intent of patent law and copyright has been subverted to the interests of lawyers and powerful multi-national corporations who are looking for perpetual cash flows rather than making money the old fashioned way...by earning it. I have no problem with fairly compensating inventors for their work. I have major problems when Intellectual Property is used to block innovation or to compensate those who are in the business of buying patents and using them to profit from the legal system rather than the marketplace. As a developer of standards that have the potential to have enormous positive economic impact on emerging markets, you must shoulder some responsibility for due diligence when IP is incorporated into the standards you are creating. When a standards process is co-opted to serve the business interests of participants the value of the standards that result is diminished. And it is important to recognize marketplace realities. Incredible wealth has been created in recent decades by creating open markets where technology is "free" to evolve, driven by innovation rather than the decisions of executives and lawyers who are seeking to protect lucrative franchises. One can make well reasoned arguments that the current practices associated with the traditional approach to intellectual property are outmoded. Rather than stimulating creativity and innovation the traditional approach often stifles it. When a new technology - like MPEG-4 - flourishes in the marketplace, it can be argued that everyone makes more money than when a few companies decide to seek compensation levels for their IP, which in turn causes the technology to flounder. > >And I am very suspicious when some people ask to give for free what they >don't own >(OK, I am starting rampant-speculating as well). This is certainly a fair concern. But I would humbly suggest that this is not a case of asking people to give something away for free, but rather to share in the greater wealth that is created by proliferating the technology. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From craig pcube.com Sat Feb 23 08:30:32 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:03 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Moving from MPEG-4 on to VP5? Message-ID: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-843565.html Moving from MPEG-4 on to VP5? By Gwendolyn Mariano Special to ZDNet News February 22, 2002, 1:25 PM PT Video-compression provider On2 Technologies is taking aim at MPEG-4, releasing an update of its own technology, known as VP5, as companies wrangle over proposed licensing fees for the emerging digital video standard. New York-based On2 said VP5 is up to a 50 percent improvement over its VP4 technology, which supports RealNetworks' RealPlayer and RealSystem iQ to enable consumers to view digital video. The company said VP5 is designed to handle real-time compression of live TV broadcasts, including sports and action footage. For instance, if viewers were to watch an ice skater on a PC, the new codec would eliminate any white splotches on the screen as well as any shadowing, or ghost-like images, the company said. Codecs are pieces of software that are used to compress large video files into smaller ones so that they can be sent over the Web, wireless devices, set-top boxes and electronic gaming devices. "The timing (of VP5) is significant because codecs keep getting better," said Ross Rubin, senior analyst at Jupiter Media Metrix. VP5 "may well be the best one out there, partly because it's the newest one. But I don't necessarily think it's sustainable. It's just important to be competitive...(and) we've got to ensure that the video gets the amount of bandwidth it needs all the time for a good video experience." The launch of VP5 comes as media companies are weighing a controversial licensing plan for MPEG-4, a digital media format that is being positioned as a new industry standard. Under the plan, put forward by MPEG LA, licensees would pay 25 cents each for MPEG-4 products such as decoders and encoders, with fees capped at $1 million a year for each licensee. It also suggests charging a per-minute use fee with no cap, equivalent to 2 cents for each hour encoded. Tech heavyweight Apple Computer, a major MPEG-4 backer, quickly rejected the proposed licensing terms, previewing but refusing to release new QuickTime products that support the standard until a new deal is reached. In addition, the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA), a standards body, is asking MPEG LA to open the proposed licensing plan to industry review and discussion. The ISMA is concerned that the royalty model MPEG LA has outlined will not foster the development of MPEG-4. On2 also opposed the new licensing plan and sent a letter to the ISMA, proposing to make its codec an alternative to MPEG-4 and promising to make it available at no charge. Last year, On2 released an open-source version of its VP3.2 video-compression technology. Rubin said On2 is not the first company to make claims that its codec is close to true broadcast quality. He said Microsoft, for instance, has claimed that its latest codec will be able to deliver near DVD-quality in a minimal broadband capacity. He added that the quality of service available to provide these streams is the key ingredient because "once you achieve a certain amount of Internet congestion, you have to degrade the signal or it becomes choppy." Still, On2 is wagering that VP5 will let people watch true broadcast-quality videos. The company said VP5 is more efficient and delivers higher quality at lower bit rates than MPEG-2, MPEG-4, Real 8, Windows Media 8 and Apple QuickTime 5. On2 said the download and streaming versions of VP5 are available through the RealPlayer at its Web site. "Other codecs make an adaptation--they actually change the video and then compress it so it doesn't look the same," said On2 CEO Douglas McIntyre. "We don't do anything to the original...(VP5) gives back full resolution to the quality of the original stuff." From craig pcube.com Sat Feb 23 09:55:05 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:03 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Perfect Control Message-ID: Lawrence Lessig is on a roll... Not to be confused with "Let's Roll," the famous words of Todd Beamer, just before he and fellow passengers fought to retake control of Flight 93, hijacked by terrorists on Spetember 11. The Todd M. Beamer Foundation now seeks to trademark "Let's Roll" to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to raise money for the charity. Let's Roll provides a classic example of how "ideas" quickly promulgate through a "free" society. The term became a rallying cry for our nation, used in speeches by President Bush and a popular song by Neil Young. Now a "charitable" group seeks to "control" it's use to raise money. Lessig might well be considered to be a crusader for the freedom of ideas. An advocate for creativity and innovation, fighting against those who seek "perfect control," by co-opting the very technologies that threaten the ever increasing control over content that Congress has granted to powerful constituents over the past century. Lessig and his colleagues won a surprising victory this week, as the Supreme Court agreed to hear a copyright case filed by Lessig, challenging the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. One could well imagine the elation of Lessig and his colleagues after hearing of this victory. After decades of setbacks - 11 Congressional extensions of copyright terms in the past 40 years - those who interpret the Constitution requirement that copyrights have a "limited term" literally, finally see a window of opportunity...Let's Roll! Lessig has written a book entitled, "The Future of Ideas," in which he examines the conflict between the Constitutional intent to move the creative work of authors and inventors into the public domain quickly, and the desire of Intellectual Property owners to have "perfect control" over their creations. An excerpt from the book has been published with the author's permission by The American Spectator, and is currently published on the web at Gilder.com. IT is lengthy, but well worth the read for those of use who are concerned about the future of digital media, DTV, MPEG-4 et al. I have not asked permission to reproduce the excerpt here. Somehow I don't think that Gilder, the American Spectator or Lawrence Lessig will mind. As a result of reading this I am going to buy Lessig's book. This excerpt is focused primarily on the current debate about copyrights, however, Lessig makes several point that are universally true about the current battles for "perfect control" that are highly relevant to the discussions on the OpenDTV and MPEG4IF lists. And at the end, he connects his remarks to the issue of patents as well. If you don;t have time to read the entire piece, please read the following three paragraphs... "But the Internet itself is also changing. Features of the architecture-both legal and technical-that originally created this environment of free creativity are now being altered. They are being changed in ways that will re-introduce the very barriers that the Internet originally removed. "There are strong reasons why many are trying to rebuild these constraints: They will enable these existing and powerful interests to protect themselves from the competitive threat the Internet represents. The old, in other words, is bending the Net to protect itself against the new." . . . "The urgency in the field of patents is even greater. Here again, patents are not per se evil; they are evil only if they do no social good. They do no social good if they benefit certain companies at the expense of innovation generally. And as many have argued convincingly, that's just what many patents today do." Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs http://gilder.com/AmericanSpectatorArticles/Lessig/Control.htm Control & Creativity The future of ideas is in the balance By Lawrence Lessig The Internet puts two futures in front of us, the one we seem to be taking and the one we could. The one we seem to be taking is easy to describe. Take the Net, mix it with the fanciest TV, add a simple way to buy things, and that's pretty much it. Though I don't (yet) believe this view of America Online, it is the most cynical image of Time Warner's marriage to AOL: the forging of an estate of large-scale networks with power over users to an estate dedicated to almost perfect control over content, through intellectual property and other government-granted exclusive rights. The promise of many-to-many communication that defined the early Internet will be replaced by a reality of many, many ways to buy things and many, many ways to select among what is offered. What gets offered will be just what fits within the current model of the concentrated systems of distribution. Cable television on speed, addicting a much more manageable, malleable and sellable public. The future that we could have is much harder to describe. It is harder because the very premise of the Internet is that no one can predict how it will develop. The architects who crafted the first protocols of the Net had no sense of a world where grandparents would use computers to keep in touch with their grandkids. They had no idea of a technology where every song imaginable is available within thirty seconds' reach. The World Wide Web was the fantasy of a few MIT computer scientists. The perpetual tracking of preferences that allows a computer in Washington state to suggest an artist I might like because of a book I just purchased was an idea that no one had made famous before the Internet made it real. Yet there are elements of this future that we can fairly imagine. They are the consequences of falling costs, and hence falling barriers to creativity. The most dramatic are the changes in the costs of distribution; but just as important are the changes in the costs of production. Both are the consequence of going digital: Digital technologies create and replicate reality much more efficiently than non-digital technology does. This will mean a world of change. Skip ahead to just a few years from now and think about the new potential for creativity. The cost of filmmaking is a fraction of what it was just a decade ago. The same is true for the production of music or any digital art. Digital tools dramatically extend the horizon of opportunity for those who could create something new. And not just for those who would create something "totally new," if such an idea were even possible. Think about the ads from Apple Computer urging that "consumers" do more than simply consume: Rip, mix, burn. After all, it's your music. Apple, of course, wants to sell computers. Yet their ad touches an ideal that runs very deep in our history. For the technology that they (and of course others) sell could enable this generation to do with our culture what generations have done from the very beginning of human society: to take what is our culture; to "rip" it-meaning to copy it; to "mix" it-meaning to re-form it however the user wants; and finally, and most important, to "burn" it-to publish it in a way that others can see and hear. We now have the potential to expand the reach of this creativity to an extraordinary range of culture and commerce. Technology could enable a whole generation to create-remixed films, new forms of music, digital art, a new kind of storytelling, writing, a new technology for poetry, criticism, political activism-and then, through the infrastructure of the Internet, share that creativity with others. The future that I am describing is as important to commerce as to any other field of creativity. Though most distinguish innovation from creativity, or creativity from commerce, I do not. The network that I am describing enables both forms of creativity. It would leave the network open to the widest range of commercial innovation; it would keep the barriers to this creativity as low as possible. Already we can see something of this potential. The open and neutral platform of the Internet has spurred hundreds of companies to develop new ways for individuals to interact. Public debate is enabled, by removing perhaps the most significant cost of human interaction-synchronicity. I can add to your conversation tonight; you can follow it up tomorrow; someone else, the day after. The technology will only get better. And contrary to the technology-doomsayers, this is a potential for making human life more, not less, human. But just at the cusp of this future, at the same time that we are being pushed to the world where anyone can "rip, mix [and] burn," a countermovement is raging all around. To ordinary people, this slogan from Apple seems benign enough; to the lawyers who prosecute the laws of copyright, the very idea that the music on "your" CD is "your music" is absurd. "Read the license," they're likely to demand. "Read the law," they'll say, piling on. This culture that you sing to yourself, or that swims all around you, this music that you pay for many times over-when you hear it on commercial radio, when you buy the CD, when you pay a surplus at a large restaurant so that they can play the same music on their speakers, when you purchase a movie ticket where the song is the theme-this music is not yours. You have no "rights" to rip it, or to mix it, or especially to burn it. You may have, the lawyers will insist, permission to do these things. But don't confuse Hollywood's grace with your rights. These parts of our culture, these lawyers will tell you, are the property of the few. The law of copyright makes it so, even though the law of copyright was never meant to create any such power. Indeed, the best evidence of this conflict is again Apple itself. For the very same machines that Apple sells to "rip, mix [and] burn" music are programmed to make it impossible for ordinary users to "rip, mix [and] burn" Hollywood's movies. Try to "rip, mix [and] burn" Disney's 102 Dalmatians and it's your computer that will get ripped, not the content. Software, or code, protects this content, and Apple's machine protects this code. This struggle is just a token of a much broader battle, for the model that governs film is slowly being pushed to every other kind of content. The changes we will see affect every front of human creativity. They affect commercial as well as noncommercial, the arts as well as the sciences. They are as much about growth and jobs as they are about music and film. And how we decide these questions will determine much about the kind of society we will become. It will determine what the "free" means in our self-congratulatory claim that we are now, and will always be, a "free society." It is best described as a constitutional question: It is about the fundamental values that define this society and whether we will allow those values to change. Are we, in the digital age, to be a free society? And what precisely would that idea mean? FREE SPEECH? FREE BEER? Every society has resources that are free and resources that are controlled. Free resources are those available for the taking. Controlled resources are those for which the permission of someone is needed before the resource can be used. Einstein's theory of relativity is a free resource. You can take it and use it without the permission of anyone. Einstein's last residence in Princeton, New Jersey, is a controlled resource. To sleep at 112 Mercer Street requires the permission of the Institute for Advanced Study. Over the past hundred years, much of the heat in political argument has been about which system for controlling resources-the state or the market-works best. That war is over. For most resources, most of the time, the market trumps the state. This, however, is a new century; our questions will be different. The issue for us will not be which system of exclusive control-the government or the market-should govern a given resource, but whether that resource should be controlled or free. So deep is the rhetoric of control within our culture that whenever one says a resource is "free," most believe that a price is being quoted-free, that is, as in zero cost. But "free" has a much more fundamental meaning-in French, libre rather than gratis, or for us non-French speakers, and as the philosopher of our age and founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, puts it, "free, not in the sense of free beer, but free in the sense of free speech." A resource is "free" if 1) one can use it without the permission of anyone else; or 2) the permission one needs is granted neutrally. So understood, the question for our generation will be not whether the market or the state should control a resource, but whether that resource should remain free. This is not a new question, though we've been well trained to ignore it. Free resources have always been central to innovation, creativity and democracy. The roads are free in the sense I mean; they give value to the businesses around them. Central Park is free in the sense I mean; it gives value to the city that it centers. A jazz musician draws freely upon the chord sequence of a popular song to create a new improvisation, which, if popular, will itself be used by others. Scientists plotting an orbit of a spacecraft draw freely upon the equations developed by Kepler and Newton and modified by Einstein. Inventor Mitch Kapor drew freely upon the idea of a spreadsheet-VisiCalc-to build the first killer application for the IBM PC-Lotus 1-2-3. In all of these cases, the availability of a resource that remains outside of the exclusive control of someone else-whether a government or a private individual-has been central to progress in science and the arts. It will also be central to progress in the future. Free resources have nothing to do with communism. (The Soviet Union was not a place with either free speech or free beer.) Neither are the resources that I am talking about the product of altruism. I am not arguing that there is "such a thing as a free lunch." There is no manna from heaven. Resources cost money to produce. They must be paid for if they are to be produced. But how a resource is produced says nothing about how access to that resource is granted. Production is different from consumption. And while the ordinary and sensible rule for most goods is the "pay me this for that" model of the local convenience store, a second's reflection reveals that there is a wide range of resources that we make available in a completely different way. The choice is not between all or none. Obviously many resources must be controlled if they are to be produced or sustained. I should have the right to control access to my house and my car. You shouldn't be allowed to rifle through my desk. Microsoft should have the right to control access to its source code. Hollywood should have the right to charge admission to its movies. If one couldn't control access to these resources, or resources called "mine," one would have little incentive to work to produce these resources, including those called mine. But likewise, and obviously, many resources should be free. The right to criticize a government official is a resource that is not, and should not be, controlled. I shouldn't need the permission of the Einstein estate before I test his theory against newly discovered data. These resources and others gain value by being kept free rather than controlled. A mature society realizes that value by protecting such resources from both private and public control. No modern phenomenon better demonstrates the importance of free resources to innovation and creativity than the Internet. To those who argue that control is necessary if innovation is to occur, and that more control will yield more innovation, the Internet is the simplest and most direct reply. For the defining feature of the Internet is that it leaves resources free. The Internet has provided for much of the world the greatest demonstration of the power of freedom-and its lesson is one we must learn if its benefits are to be preserved. From craig pcube.com Sat Feb 23 11:29:21 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:03 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 5:27 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: > > And there is one simple way to proceed if you are serious about a >> royalty free standard: >> Impose a requirement that any essential IP be offered on a royalty >> free basis. Unfortunately I don't know if this is possible under ISO > > or ITU rules. > >Unfortunatly I don't think it is. Perhaps you are mistaken about this. Please direct your attention to: ToR Joint Video Team.doc Terms of Reference for a Joint Project between ITU-T Q.6/SG16 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG11 for the Development of new Video Coding Recommendation and International Standard Sorry, but I do not know the MPEG document number or the server location(s) where it can be found. In particular look at table 2 within the Patent Disclosure Form in Annex 3: >Disclosure information - Submitting Organization/Person (choose one box) > > 2.0 The submitter is not aware of having any granted, >pending, or planned patents associated with the technical content of >the Recommendation | Standard or Contribution. > >or, > >The submitter (Patent Holder) has granted, pending, or planned >patents associated with the technical content of the Recommendation >| Standard or Contribution. In which case, > > 2.1 The Patent Holder is prepared to grant - on the basis of >reciprocity for the above Recommendation | Standard - a free license >to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, >non-discriminatory basis to manufacture, use and/or sell >implementations of the above Recommendation | Standard. > > 2.2. The Patent Holder is prepared to grant - on the basis of >reciprocity for the above Recommendation | Standard - a license to >an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, >non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions to >manufacture, use and/ or sell implementations of the above >Recommendation | Standard. > > Such negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are >performed outside the ITU | ISO/IEC. > > 2.2.1 The same as box 2.2 above, but in addition the Patent >Holder is prepared to grant a "royalty-free" license to anyone on >condition that all other patent holders do the same. > > 2.3. The Patent Holder is unwilling to grant licenses >according to the provisions of either 2.1, 2.2, or 2.2.1 above. In >this case, the following information must be provided as part of >this declaration: >- patent registration/application number; >- an indication of which portions of the Recommendation | Standard >are affected. >- a description of the patent claims covering the Recommendation | Standard. Apparently, you have all the information needed to determine the contributors intent with respect to any patents required for implementation of the 26L standard. What's more, the mechanism is clearly in place to allow participants to contribute their IPR on a royalty free basis, by checking box 2.1 or 2.1.1 (provisional on all patent holders doing the same). I am curious Olivier. You wrote: >We leave in a world where ownership of intellectual creation is >recognized as a right (and in your country even more than others so you >should be aware of that). Do you ask as well for content companies to give >their content free ? No, there is no still free lunch in this world. That's >life (but we can still quote "Imagine" as Leonardo did in the last MPEG >plenary ;-) I ask for a level playing field, and for the opportunity for all interested parties to share in the success of a communal effort to provide consumers with the many benefits of standardization. I do not ask for free content, but if it is provided freely in the context of one business model I do not accept restrictions on my rights under a different set of circumstances: The article by Lawrence Lessig that I posted earlier contains a very clear description of what I am talking about: >We live in a world with "free" content, and this freedom is not an >imperfection. We listen to the radio without paying for the songs we >hear; we hear friends humming tunes that they have not licensed. We >refer to plots in movies to tell jokes without the permission of the >director. We read books to our children borrowed from a library >without any payment for performance rights to the original copyright >holder. The fact that content at any particular time is free tells >us nothing about whether using that content is "theft." Similarly, >an argument for increasing control by content owners needs more than >"they didn't pay for this use" to back up the argument. It is hypocrisy for the music industry to use the "free" distribution and sharing of music via radio broadcasting to promote the sales of their products, then deny those who seek to build a similar business on the Internet the right to license their products on a non-discriminatory basis. And it is hypocrisy for patent holders to create licensing terms for derivative products that disadvantage those derivatives relative to other products that incorporate the same IPR. Leonardo has asked the participants in MPEG to "Imagine" what they could do by following a different path to a common goal - the successful proliferation of the products of your efforts. This makes me wonder if he played John Lennon's song at the plenary, and if so, whether he paid the requisite usage fee? -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From yuval envivio.com Sat Feb 23 22:25:00 2002 From: yuval envivio.com (Yuval Fisher) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:03 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: <001b01c1bbe7$e10671e0$fd436a20@rd.francetelecom.fr> Message-ID: <3C78873C.3C0E7C44@envivio.com> Craig Birkmaier wrote: > What is happening in my country is the primary reason I used the term > "bandits." The original intent of patent law and copyright has been > subverted to the interests of lawyers and powerful multi-national > corporations who are looking for perpetual cash flows rather than > making money the old fashioned way...by earning it. In my opinion, "powerful multi-national corporations" have just as much right to return on their investment as the garage inventor. The transistor, FORTRAN, and a multituteof other innovations have come from "powerful multi-natioal corporations," and they earned their license fees. Best, Yuval From craig pcube.com Sun Feb 24 09:20:04 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <3C78873C.3C0E7C44@envivio.com> References: <001b01c1bbe7$e10671e0$fd436a20@rd.francetelecom.fr> <3C78873C.3C0E7C44@envivio.com> Message-ID: At 10:25 PM -0800 2/23/02, Yuval Fisher wrote: >In my opinion, "powerful multi-national corporations" have just as much >right to return on their investment as the garage inventor. The >transistor, FORTRAN, and a multituteof other innovations have come from >"powerful multi-natioal corporations," and they earned their license >fees. Let me be a bit more clear. I agree that anyone has a right to profit from their inventions, including big corporations that have large and expensive research labs. I would suggest that the inventions you cited provide good examples of the original intent of patent law. The companies involved worked hard to proliferate these technologies and licensing terms were established that encouraged the proliferation of the technologies. I have also been using a rather broad brush in these discussions, covering all forms of intellectual property including copyrights, not just patents. IMHO copyrights are being abused to a greater extent than patents today, but I grow very concerned when I see patents being used to create revenue models that parallel copyright, especially as it relates to the distribution of content - e.g. the current MPEG-4 visual usage fee proposal. U.S. Copyright law has been "updated" 11 times in the past 40 years; each time the terms of copyright have been extended, leading to what amount to perpetual cash flows for the big media corporations. This does not stimulate research or creative effort; it does just the opposite. The big record labels are milking their archives and spending less each year developing new acts. And now, these acts have simply become "works for hire." The people doing the creative work have a secondary interest to the corporations they are "creating for." Much the same can be said about the patents issued to big corporations. My name is on several patents, but I will never see a dime in royalties from any of them. Corporations direct their employees to do their bidding, and now seek patents on anything that might stick. And when they get lucky, they often behave like bandits. The current litigation between Brittish Telecom and Prodigy is an excellent example. BT thinks they have a choke-hold patent on hyperlinking; but they have never done anything significant in the marketplace with the underlying IP. Patents are supposed to encourage the proliferation of technology. They should not be used to restrict access to a technology, or to protect the marketplace interests of the IPR holder(s), although this has happened frequently in the past century. All of that being said, it is also clear that we are entering a new era with respect to Intellectual Property rights and their management. The Internet is the most potent technology every created for the rapid proliferation and sharing of information, including digital media content. It threatens many traditional business models, while at the same time, creating new opportunities for entrenched interests to extend their control over the consumption of content. Once again, MPEG-4 usage fees are a prime example. We are a a crossroads. On one hand, consumers are fed up with efforts by the big media conglomerates to "tax" every use of the content that they have PAID FOR. But this does not seem to be intimidating these companies and the industries that provide the support infrastructure. Every day we see more law suits, more legislative proposals, and more overt efforts to gain "perfect control" over the distribution of content. In response to the traditional ways of doing business we have seen some very powerful new concepts emerge, riding the personal computing and Internet waves. We have seen huge industries and vast wealth created through the rapid proliferation of inventions. When royalties are charged, they pale in significance to the value of the commerce that is enabled. We now see the open source movement - a communal effort to promote the rapid evolution of software based products. And we see the greatly expanded use of Defensive Publishing of inventions, to avoid being held hostage by patent pirates in the future. This would ALL be academic, if not for the battles that are taking place RIGHT NOW in MPEG. We are witnessing the misuse of patents on a grand scale, and overt efforts to control and protect the interests of these patent holders. During my years of involvement in MPEG, I did not win much favor when I would point out how the MPEG-2 process was co-opted to the interests of large companies that control most of the markets for professional video production gear, and the consumer electronic products used to consume video content. My warnings that these companies would use their market power and Intelectual Property to disadvantage MPEG-4 were often greeted with disbelief. I take no comfort in knowing that I was right. We are now seeing the next round in this battle for control playing out in the work of the JVT. I'll end this rant with a simple question. IF the concept of developing a royalty free standard is so disconnected from reality, can you explain why it is featured so prominently in the rules of engagement for the JVT? -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From cvo7651 yahoo.com Sun Feb 24 11:16:50 2002 From: cvo7651 yahoo.com (Charles Vo) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] VP3.2 Message-ID: <001801c1bd57$0d464d00$18a0d00a@oemcomputer> What is the general opinion of VP3.2 in the MPEG development community? Is it a viable alternative? I believe it is free of royalties and licensing fees. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020224/1248c18e/attachment.html From ben interframemedia.com Sun Feb 24 10:52:14 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] VP3.2 In-Reply-To: <001801c1bd57$0d464d00$18a0d00a@oemcomputer> Message-ID: Charles, It?s only a video codec, which means it only handles a very small part of what MPEG-4 can do. Thus, it doesn?t give any audio, systems, or streaming support. The codec itself is a great CD-ROM/progressive download option for QuickTime and AVI. It lacks a native packetizer, so isn?t well suited for RTSP streaming. I don?t see it as a viable alternative, although it could be a component of one. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/24/02 9:16 AM, Charles Vo at cvo7651@yahoo.com wrote: > What is the general opinion of VP3.2 in the MPEG development community? Is it > a viable alternative? I believe it is free of royalties and licensing fees. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020224/82c6f585/attachment.html From alex eleftheriadis.com Sun Feb 24 17:01:10 2002 From: alex eleftheriadis.com (Alexandros Eleftheriadis) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <200202241700.g1OH0ukE025471@mx3.magma.ca> Message-ID: <001f01c1bd7e$c4ef2360$1b01a8c0@hidjaz> : Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2024 09:20:04 -0500 : To: Yuval Fisher : From: Craig Birkmaier : Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 : Cc: olivier.avaro@rd.francetelecom.com, discuss@lists.m4if.org [...] : Patents are supposed to encourage the proliferation of technology. : They should not be used to restrict access to a technology, or to : protect the marketplace interests of the IPR holder(s), although this : has happened frequently in the past century. [...] (As a long-time MPEG-4 co-conspirator of yesteryear, I've been following these discussions with great interest!) Craig, a small correction -- the purpose of patent law (at least in the US) is to 1) make the technology public, and 2) protect the rights of the inventor for a set number of years so that he can profit from it. The first objective ensures that the technology will not be hidden away as a trade secret, and will thus help others learn from it and, hopefully, even allow them to create something better in the future. The second objective ensures that the marketplace interests of the IPR holder *are* protected. Any patent lawyer should be able to confirm that. The MPEG picture is different from individual inventions though. MPEG essentially bestows value to a particular technology by adoption into the standard, in return for fair and non-discriminatory licensing. However, the value is bestowed *before* the terms of the licensing are established. That leaves the license holders free to come up with whatever they thing is fair and non-discriminatory. (This, btw, includes things that can kill the standard in favor of other IPR.) MPEG-2 IPR generates a lot of revenue and may have made people believe that this is easily repeatable. Not only that: the licensing terms appear to be inspired by pre-2000 revenue sharing dreams rather than market realities... The JVT effort is commendable and a very interesting experiment. In the absense of that, in the future the business terms should maybe be established alongside the technology. That may ensure that 'realistic' becomes part of 'fair' and 'non-discriminatory' :-) -- Alex Eleftheriadis eleft@ee.columbia.edu (212) 854-8670 From craig pcube.com Sun Feb 24 23:16:56 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <001f01c1bd7e$c4ef2360$1b01a8c0@hidjaz> References: <001f01c1bd7e$c4ef2360$1b01a8c0@hidjaz> Message-ID: At 5:01 PM -0500 2/24/02, Alexandros Eleftheriadis wrote: >(As a long-time MPEG-4 co-conspirator of yesteryear, I've been following >these discussions with great interest!) > >Craig, a small correction -- the purpose of patent law (at least in the >US) is to 1) make the technology public, and 2) protect the rights of >the inventor for a set number of years so that he can profit from it. >The first objective ensures that the technology will not be hidden away >as a trade secret, and will thus help others learn from it and, >hopefully, even allow them to create something better in the future. The >second objective ensures that the marketplace interests of the IPR >holder *are* protected. Any patent lawyer should be able to confirm >that. I agree completely with this assessment. I think that I was not as clear as I should have been in my statement about patents. : Patents are supposed to encourage the proliferation of technology. : They should not be used to restrict access to a technology, or to : protect the marketplace interests of the IPR holder(s), although this : has happened frequently in the past century. We agree about the proliferation issue. When I said restrict access I was referring to companies who refuse to license their technology. This is clearly not the intent of patent law; but there are numerous examples of companies that have done this; e.g. Polaroid. The term marketplace interests can be applied in many ways. Clearly the IPR holder is protected during the patent term by the government granted monopoly, which makes it possible to seek compensation in return for use of the patented IP. But the IPR holder is NOT protected from the ability of a licensee to use the IP to build a better product, taking market share away from the IPR holder. And in my opinion, the grant of a patent does not give the right to the IPR holder to seek license terms that are discriminatory to derivative products. Unfortunately, it is a very expensive process to prove that IP is being used in a discriminatory fashion. The current litigation between Echostar and Gemstar, regarding electronic program guides, is an interesting example. For the case that we are discussing - MPEG-4 visual - it might be interesting to do a bit of analysis. As most of the patents and patent holders for MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 visual are the same, one could look at the license terms for each and ask the question, are the terms being asked for MPEG-4 visual discriminatory when compared with MPEG-2? Unfortunately we don't have an apples vrs apples comparison. There are differences in the essential patent pools, and there are other elements of MPEG-2 that are included in that patent pool, like the IP related to MPEG-2 transport. It would clearly be a very expensive and time consuming process to challenge the proposed MPEG-4 visual license using such an argument. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the usage fee is viewed as an attempt to expand the reach of the patents involved to an entirely new realm..."a tax on content." >The MPEG picture is different from individual inventions though. MPEG >essentially bestows value to a particular technology by adoption into >the standard, in return for fair and non-discriminatory licensing. >However, the value is bestowed *before* the terms of the licensing are >established. That leaves the license holders free to come up with >whatever they thing is fair and non-discriminatory. (This, btw, includes >things that can kill the standard in favor of other IPR.) > >MPEG-2 IPR generates a lot of revenue and may have made people believe >that this is easily repeatable. Not only that: the licensing terms >appear to be inspired by pre-2000 revenue sharing dreams rather than >market realities... Well put! > >The JVT effort is commendable and a very interesting experiment. In the >absense of that, in the future the business terms should maybe be >established alongside the technology. That may ensure that 'realistic' >becomes part of 'fair' and 'non-discriminatory' :-) Let us hope that the experiment proves to be a step in the direction of emerging realities. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From craig pcube.com Mon Feb 25 08:48:33 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] News: Gov't IP hearings to cover chip, software patents Message-ID: http://www.eet.com/sys/news/OEG20020221S0066 Gov't IP hearings to cover chip, software patents By George Leopold EE Times February 22, 2024 (5:54 a.m. EST) WASHINGTON - Government regulators will hold four days of public hearings next week at the University of California, Berkeley, on a range of intellectual-property (IP) issues, including hardware, software and semiconductor patents. The hearings, sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department's antitrust division, are part of an effort to reexamine the growing tensions between intellectual-property rights and competitive technology markets. They will begin Monday (Feb. 25). A key impetus for the hearings, U.S. officials said, is the proliferation of patent filings and awards over the last decade. Many observers worry that patent proliferation is stifling competition in electronics, biotechnology and other economically critical industries. A Feb. 27 hearing will cover software patents and the Internet. Along with a handful of patent experts from academia and law firms, the panel includes industry executives from Borland Software Corp., Amazon.com and Divx Networks Inc. A Feb. 28 panel on hardware and semiconductor patents includes executives from Cisco Systems, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Micron Technology and Texas Instruments. The IP hearings have prompted industry concerns that the government may be preparing to rewrite its guidelines on intellectual property. In the past, the Justice Department has issued favorable opinions on licensing issues like patent pooling. Government officials said the concerns were unfounded. "There is no hidden agenda to these hearings," said Federal Trade Commission chief Timothy Muris. From kgoldsholl oxygnet.com Tue Feb 26 00:12:44 2002 From: kgoldsholl oxygnet.com (Ken Goldsholl) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: Message-ID: <000b01c1be9d$61842e40$6901a8c0@Playroom> Under the proposed licensing scheme, there won't be any hourly usage fees for decoding MPEG4 content stored on DVD. So if an MPEG4 movie is first downloaded to a storage device, and then viewed some time after the download, just as a user would a DVD, would there be an hourly usage fee? How would this be monitored and controlled? Who would be responsible for making sure the consumer paid the fee? Why would it be treated any differently than a DVD? If a data file is being transferred from one disk drive to another, yet not viewed, why would any patents be infringed? The intellectual property is only being utilized when the file is decoded. Transferring files from one server to another does not involve decoding, so why would the transport of a file incur an hourly usage fee? So are the IP holders who are proposing an hourly scheme implying that the MPEG4 technology is the only technology used in creating content, transporting it efficiently to the viewer, and then displaying it, that is worthy of an hourly usage fee? Or are they expecting that other technology asset owners will implement the same scheme, whereby you don't actually own the right to use any technology-based products that you buy? If this trend catches on, will I have to pay for each minute my flat panel display is on? what about Intel? Will they want hourly fees for using the computer (maybe they'll charge by the instructions, as it could be sitting idle alot)? Ken Goldsholl From fevzi tivo.com Tue Feb 26 15:27:03 2002 From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: Fwd: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for MPEG4] Message-ID: <3C7C19C7.5040302@tivo.com> I meant to send the reply to the list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2024 12:11:53 -0800 From: Fevzi Karavelioglu To: Ken Goldsholl Good question. I asked a smiliar question from a DVR perfpective where a content may be recorded but not viewed, or it can be viewed many times and sometimes a back up copy may be made onto a conventional VCR. If flat panel display is on but nobody is in the room who should be charged for the use? I am not sure about this trend will catch on to this extent, not without some technological advancement that will accurately determine the real use. Fevzi Karavelioglu. Tivo Inc. Alviso CA Ken Goldsholl wrote: >Under the proposed licensing scheme, there won't be any hourly usage fees >for decoding MPEG4 content stored on DVD. So if an MPEG4 movie is first >downloaded to a storage device, and then viewed some time after the >download, just as a user would a DVD, would there be an hourly usage fee? >How would this be monitored and controlled? Who would be responsible for >making sure the consumer paid the fee? Why would it be treated any >differently than a DVD? If a data file is being transferred from one disk >drive to another, yet not viewed, why would any patents be infringed? The >intellectual property is only being utilized when the file is decoded. >Transferring files from one server to another does not involve decoding, so >why would the transport of a file incur an hourly usage fee? > >So are the IP holders who are proposing an hourly scheme implying that the >MPEG4 technology is the only technology used in creating content, >transporting it efficiently to the viewer, and then displaying it, that is >worthy of an hourly usage fee? Or are they expecting that other technology >asset owners will implement the same scheme, whereby you don't actually own >the right to use any technology-based products that you buy? If this trend >catches on, will I have to pay for each minute my flat panel display is on? >what about Intel? Will they want hourly fees for using the computer (maybe >they'll charge by the instructions, as it could be sitting idle alot)? > >Ken Goldsholl > > > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From mjacklin geneva-link.ch Thu Feb 28 12:42:48 2002 From: mjacklin geneva-link.ch (Martin Jacklin) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: Competition hots up from On2 Message-ID: Note the following paragraph: "The launch of VP5 comes as media companies are weighing a controversial licencing plan for MPEG-4. Under the plan, licencees would pay $0.25 (E0.29) cents each for MPEG-4 products such as decoders and encoders, with fees capped at $1m (E1.15m) a year for each licence. Also suggesting charging a per-minute use fee with no cap, equivalent to $0.02 (E0.03) cents for each hour encoded." http://www.europemedia.net/shownews.asp?ArticleID=8671 On2's VP5 jostles for position 25/02/2024 On2 Technologies, a US video-compression provider, has released VP5 in a provocative move designed to counter rival digital media format MPEG-4's positioning as a new industry standard. The company outlined the VP5's codecs enhancement over its VP4 technology, which supports RealNetworks' RealPlayer and RealSystem iQ enabling digital video viewing. On2 claims VP5 technology is more efficient and delivers higher quality at lower bit rates than MPEG-2, MPEG-4, Real 8, Windows Media 8 and Apple QuickTime 5. ?The timing (of VP5) is significant because codecs keep getting better," said Ross Rubin, senior analyst at Jupiter Media Metrix. VP5 ?may well be the best one out there, partly because it's the newest one. But I don't necessarily think it's sustainable. It's just important to be competitive...(and) we've got to ensure that the video gets the amount of bandwidth it needs all the time for a good video experience.? VP5 technology is designed to facilitate real-time compression of live TV broadcasts. On2's development in codecs software, which are pieces of software used to compress large video files into smaller ones so that they can be sent over the internet, wireless devices, set-top boxes and electronic gaming devices, is heralded as providing true-broadcast quality. The launch of VP5 comes as media companies are weighing a controversial licencing plan for MPEG-4. Under the plan, licencees would pay $0.25 (E0.29) cents each for MPEG-4 products such as decoders and encoders, with fees capped at $1m (E1.15m) a year for each licence. Also suggesting charging a per-minute use fee with no cap, equivalent to $0.02 (E0.03) cents for each hour encoded. Duncan Alexander Kerr is currently Editor for TV Meets the Web. He studied at the University of Edinburgh where he obtained an Honorary MA in History & Philosophy. Since graduating in 2000, he has worked in publishing in California and as a researcher with the Southwestern Company. On returning from the US, he then worked in politics for Menzies Campbell QC MP, Liberal Democrat Party. Furthermore, he underwent editorial training with PMA in London and subsequently worked on the editorial team of Utility Week & Utility Europe. /\/\artin Jacklin Hypermedium +41 21 808 7770 tel +41 21 808 7771 fax +41 79 291 1882 gsm Chemin des Clos Allaman Switzerland standards, strategy, marketing, writing _______________________________________________ M4IF Marketing Group list Publicity@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/publicity From John.Riise NetAdtack.com Sat Feb 23 10:05:19 2002 From: John.Riise NetAdtack.com (John Riise) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:17 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 implementations and MPEG-J Message-ID: 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/20020223/ce24bd9e/attachment.html