[M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees

[Yuval Fisher]

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