[M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees

[Ashok Yerneni]

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