From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Jul 2 15:18:52 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] WEMP Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5B9B@exchange.epr.com> Dear Jeff, > Can anyone fill us in on late announcements or any impressive details > from the show? WEMP4 was interesting, but maybe not for the shocking announcements. You already got a answer from Jose Alvear about SigmaDesign's new tools, some of which can be freely downloaded. The tutorials were very well visited and I believe also appreciated. They made it abundantly clear that MPEG-4 is much more than a video coding algorithm. The presentations will be made available here: http://www.m4if.org/wemp2002/downloads.php There were some good things to see on the show, including a surprising number of authoring tools for scene description and creating interactive graphics. More generally, things seem to be heating up. Below are some links that recently got added to the M4IF website, www.m4if.org Best, Rob Hot News Download Free Eval Kit of dicas' MPEG-4 Consumer Codec [dicas, 02 July 02] Download SigmaDesigns' Advanced Simple Video Codec [SigmaDesigns, 26 June 02] STMicroelectronics joins MPEG-4 Industry Forum [M4IF, 26 June 02] WEMP4 2002 was held in San Jose CA June 25-27, download the tutorials here MPEG-4 in the News More At Last - A Hardware Decoder For MPEG-4 [Tom's HW Guide, 21 June 02] Apple delivers on rack server promise [ZDNet, 01 July 02] Motorola prepares to battle XScale [ZDNet, 01 July 02] ATI joins Palm OS Ready Program [infoSync, 27 June 02] MPEG-4 Press Releases More dicas launches first fully MPEG-4-compliant consumer video codec [dicas, 02 July 02] All-In-One Chip for Solid-State Camcorders: MPEG-4 Video, AAC Audio, 4-Megapixel DSC [Divio, 27 June 02] dicas and Popwire partnering on MPEG-4 [dicas, 28 June 02] Kasenna MPEG-4 Server powers VOD for Sony in world's first IP v.6 end-to-end trial [Kasenna, 26 June 02] Sigma Makes Standard MPEG-4 Video CODEC Available [SigmaDesigns, 26 June 02] Mentergy Releases TrainNet 5.0, an Open, Broadband Distance Learning Platform [Mentergy, 26 June 02] Wellspring Media and DivXNetworks Partner For Online Video-on-Demand Service [DivXNetworks, 25 June 02] > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Handy [ mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2023 18:58 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] WEMP > > > Can anyone fill us in on late announcements or any impressive details > from the show? > > > Jeff Handy - Sr. 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020702/5b5b55a7/attachment.html From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Jul 15 15:44:24 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D0F@exchange.epr.com> This message that I just received from MPEG LA is important enough to forward straight to the list. The long-awaited MPEG-4 Visual licensing terms are here! Not only are they for MPEG-4 Visual Simple and Core, but also for other profiles (although unclear to me which at this point) Also this announcement covers MPEG-4 Systems! As well, the release seems to imply that the license would apply to H.263 baseline. There seem to be some major changes, but I am still studying. Give me an hour or so. Best, Rob -----Original Message----- From: Michelle Peters [mailto:MPeters@mpegla.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 14:21 To: rob@intertrust.com Cc: Larry Horn Subject: MPEG-4 Press Release Rob, Attached please find a PDF file of a press release that we have just sent to Business Wire. Larry wanted to make sure that you have a copy. Thanks, Michelle <> Michelle Peters Assistant to the VP, Licensing MPEG LA, LLC 35 Wisconsin Circle, Suite 520 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 tel. 301-986-6660 fax 301-986-8575 mpeters@mpegla.com www.mpegla.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M4PressRls 15July02.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 140914 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020715/198967b2/M4PressRls15July02.exe From mikael sevenier.com Mon Jul 15 17:02:31 2002 From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D0F@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <009b01c22c53$b4acdad0$0301a8c0@bilbo> Thanks Rob for forwarding these long-awaited terms! However, what happens to companies that provide a freely downloadable player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? Thanks, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: news-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:news-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Rob Koenen > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 2:44 PM > To: M4IF news (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! > Importance: High > > > This message that I just received from MPEG LA is > important enough to forward straight to the list. > > The long-awaited MPEG-4 Visual licensing terms are here! > > Not only are they for MPEG-4 Visual Simple and Core, but also > for other profiles (although unclear to me which at this point) > > Also this announcement covers MPEG-4 Systems! > > As well, the release seems to imply that the license would > apply to H.263 baseline. > > There seem to be some major changes, but I am still studying. > Give me an hour or so. > > Best, > Rob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michelle Peters [mailto:MPeters@mpegla.com] > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 14:21 > To: rob@intertrust.com > Cc: Larry Horn > Subject: MPEG-4 Press Release > > > Rob, > > Attached please find a PDF file of a press release that we > have just sent to Business Wire. Larry wanted to make sure > that you have a copy. > > Thanks, > Michelle > > <> > > Michelle Peters > Assistant to the VP, Licensing > MPEG LA, LLC > 35 Wisconsin Circle, Suite 520 > Chevy Chase, MD 20815 > tel. 301-986-6660 > fax 301-986-8575 > mpeters@mpegla.com > www.mpegla.com > > > From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Jul 15 17:07:23 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D1F@exchange.epr.com> Good to see the discussion start. Let's take it to the discuss list from the next mail on. Let's also note that I am not the originator of this news, only the passer-on. > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely downloadable > player? > If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for video and > $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance business, you may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio if you *are* in the surveillance business). These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you must be thinking Big. Rob From mikael sevenier.com Mon Jul 15 17:42:36 2002 From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D1F@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <009e01c22c59$4e76df80$0301a8c0@bilbo> > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > downloadable > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance > business, you > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you > must be thinking Big. These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for few days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a 30-day money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) Mike From sm dicas.de Tue Jul 16 08:22:08 2002 From: sm dicas.de (Moeritz, Sebastian) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D1F@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <00df01c22c91$1e676d90$3a0607d5@London> This news is excellent for the whole MPEG-4 community -- plus, of course, the news from Apple. Although it took some time, we now do have a licensing scheme one can work with. To the day, four months ago, I posted this to the list .... "Let's face it -- the licensing issues will be resolved and a mutually acceptable solution will be found, because it is the interest and desire of all concerned. Period." Let's look forward to seeing MPEG-4 successfully used in a much broader way than today and further deployed in a variety of exciting products and services. Kind regards. Sebastian Moeritz CEO, dicas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Koenen" To: "'Mikael Bourges-Sevenier'" ; "Rob Koenen" ; "'M4IF news (E-mail)'" ; "'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'" Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2023 12:07 AM Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! > Good to see the discussion start. > > Let's take it to the discuss list from the next mail on. > > Let's also note that I am not the originator of this news, only the > passer-on. > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely downloadable > > player? > > If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for video and > > $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance business, you > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first 50,000 systems > for free. But given the fact that you only mention the caps and not the > per en/de-coder royalties, you must be thinking Big. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jeffh bisk.com Tue Jul 16 10:12:19 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A093767B7@mail.corp.bisk.com> It's the moment we've all been waiting for! I'm pretty excited. Now, let's see some cool new MPEG-4 tools! Jeff Handy - Sr. 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 wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed Jul 17 11:00:56 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! In-Reply-To: <009e01c22c59$4e76df80$0301a8c0@bilbo> Message-ID: This license's terms are much better... Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop the $1M (well, maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and pay-off the license for the year and then give away millions and millions of encoders/decoders... for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well - this term could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 days and then discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system easily.... This is going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 codec expire - I wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is it "downloads" of MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it is the former... Here's a question I had... A line in the press release: "Current cable television, direct satellite television and over-the-air broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address its broadcast to a specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 for the right to manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party providing content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded MPEG-4 Visual information." OK - so let me get this straight... If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK, fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV or Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to that box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so does that mean that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay for each sub in a system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and dozens)) dollars for this package? Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not so sure it will make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These particular economics would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such set-top devices via broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous delivery-infrastructure. But I digress... ++Bill wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael > Bourges-Sevenier > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)' > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > > downloadable > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance > > business, you > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio > > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you > > must be thinking Big. > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for few > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a 30-day > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > From fevzi tivo.com Wed Jul 17 12:23:27 2002 From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! References: Message-ID: <3D35B61F.42FA5BB5@tivo.com> >OK - so let me get this straight... > >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK, >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV or >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to that >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are added and removed all the time. How would you monitor/manage this? In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will cost extra 50 cents since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder. If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due to $1.25 per channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4. Fevzi. "William J. Fulco" wrote: > This license's terms are much better... > > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop the $1M (well, > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and pay-off the license for > the year and then give away millions and millions of encoders/decoders... > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well - this term > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 days and then > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system easily.... This is > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 codec expire - I > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is it "downloads" of > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it is the former... > > Here's a question I had... > > A line in the press release: > > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and over-the-air > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address its broadcast to a > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 for the right to > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party providing > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded MPEG-4 Visual > information." > > OK - so let me get this straight... > > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK, > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV or > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to that > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so does that mean > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay for each sub in a > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and dozens)) dollars > for this package? > > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not so sure it will > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These particular economics > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such set-top devices via > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous > delivery-infrastructure. > > But I digress... > > ++Bill > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael > > Bourges-Sevenier > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)' > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > > > downloadable > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance > > > business, you > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you > > > must be thinking Big. > > > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for few > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a 30-day > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) > > > > Mike > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 MTayer aerocast.com Wed Jul 17 12:58:54 2002 From: MTayer aerocast.com (Marc Tayer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice nsing Announced!! Message-ID: While clarifications will be required on this and other issues, my interpretation is that the answer to the question posed below is "no." There was a key parenthetical omitted from the question: "the party having the unique relationship of providing content service to the subscriber (e.g., cable television system or direct satellite provider) will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right..." My interpretation of this language is that the PACKAGER/AGGREGATOR of the content (e.g., DirecTV for DBS or Cox for cable) would pay the $1.25 per subscriber paid-up license. So, for a DBS operator with 10 million subscribers, each having MPEG-4 decode capability, the DBS operator would pay a $12.5 million one time fee, IRRESPECTIVE of how many individual content providers are part of the package(s) offered to the subscriber(s). Assuming this interpretation is correct, what about "churn?" In other words, if a system operator has 10 million digital subscribers at a point in time, a year later perhaps 2 million or even 5 million of these specific subscribers will have disconnected. Does the system operator get to use this paid up license fee for a new subscriber, i.e., is it based on "net" (non-specific) subscribers? Or is it based on "gross" (and specific) subscribers? -----Original Message----- From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23 AM To: William J. Fulco Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)' Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! >OK - so let me get this straight... > >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK, >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV or >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to that >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are added and removed all the time. How would you monitor/manage this? In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will cost extra 50 cents since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder. If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due to $1.25 per channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4. Fevzi. "William J. Fulco" wrote: > This license's terms are much better... > > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop the $1M (well, > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and pay-off the license for > the year and then give away millions and millions of encoders/decoders... > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well - this term > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 days and then > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system easily.... This is > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 codec expire - I > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is it "downloads" of > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it is the former... > > Here's a question I had... > > A line in the press release: > > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and over-the-air > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address its broadcast to a > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 for the right to > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party providing > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded MPEG-4 Visual > information." > > OK - so let me get this straight... > > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK, > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV or > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to that > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so does that mean > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay for each sub in a > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and dozens)) dollars > for this package? > > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not so sure it will > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These particular economics > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such set-top devices via > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous > delivery-infrastructure. > > But I digress... > > ++Bill > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael > > Bourges-Sevenier > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)' > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > > > downloadable > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance > > > business, you > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you > > > must be thinking Big. > > > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for few > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a 30-day > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) > > > > Mike > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Jul 17 12:57:38 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice nsing Announced!! Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3352@exchange.epr.com> Good questions indeed. From what I have seen encoder and decoder together *may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes). I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the lion's mouth. Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again be a good thing. It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same set top box is used to access services for multiple service providers - a stated goal for MPEG-21. The license seems to only reckon with the (currently dominant) model in which there is a one-to-one relation btween set top and service provider. Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest, could benefit from having a FAQ. Rob ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list, it will make sure we don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and the News list was set-up for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks for your consideration. > -----Original Message----- > From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23 > To: William J. Fulco > Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail)' > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > Licensing Announced!! > > > >OK - so let me get this straight... > > > >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay > $0.25 - OK, > >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > package on DirecTV or > >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > distribute to that > >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must > pay $250 to > >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > they'vet gone > >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are > added and removed > all the time. How would you monitor/manage this? > > In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will > cost extra 50 cents > since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder. > > If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due > to $1.25 per > channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4. > > Fevzi. > > "William J. Fulco" wrote: > > > This license's terms are much better... > > > > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop > the $1M (well, > > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and > pay-off the license for > > the year and then give away millions and millions of > encoders/decoders... > > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well > - this term > > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 > days and then > > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system > easily.... This is > > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 > codec expire - I > > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is > it "downloads" of > > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it > is the former... > > > > Here's a question I had... > > > > A line in the press release: > > > > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and > over-the-air > > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address > its broadcast to a > > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 > for the right to > > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party > providing > > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of > $1.25 for the > > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded > MPEG-4 Visual > > information." > > > > OK - so let me get this straight... > > > > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they > pay $0.25 - OK, > > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > package on DirecTV or > > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > distribute to that > > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) > must pay $250 to > > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > they'vet gone > > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > > > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so > does that mean > > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay > for each sub in a > > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of > > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and > dozens)) dollars > > for this package? > > > > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not > so sure it will > > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These > particular economics > > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such > set-top devices via > > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous > > delivery-infrastructure. > > > > But I digress... > > > > ++Bill > > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael > > > Bourges-Sevenier > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM > > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion > List (E-mail)' > > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > > > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > > > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > > > > downloadable > > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the > $1M/y cap for > > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > > > > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance > > > > business, you > > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even > like audio > > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > > > > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first > > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only > > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you > > > > must be thinking Big. > > > > > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can > easily reach > > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often > installed for few > > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is > there a 30-day > > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed Jul 17 13:17:04 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marc, That is a much more reasonable interpretation of how it "should" work. In addition to the churn issue, there is an issue of what exactly is "a content package" - I have for instance 4 or 5 "packages" on my DirecTV - basic, HBO/Sho, Sports etc etc.. if there is just a right to distribute anyone's content to a single decoder the answer is simple and reasonable however, by that token, shouldn't then each web-site have to pay a $1.25 fee to MPEG-LA for the right to send content to a subscriber (vs. the $0.25/sub over 50K subs, cap at $1M that the license says?)... If I were TW/AOL, I'd cost less to deliver via broadband vs. Sat/Cable) In a converged world - where I have a broadband-connected TiVo and my programming can arrive over the Sat, cable or via the modem - the economics of distribution for the producers of content is going to get very complicated. ++Bill William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 Cell --------------------------------- Logic: When you absolutely, positively have to refute every fallacy in the room. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Tayer [mailto:MTayer@aerocast.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:59 AM > To: 'Fevzi Karavelioglu'; William J. Fulco > Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail)' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > Licensing Announced!! > > > While clarifications will be required on this and other issues, my > interpretation is that the answer to the question posed below is "no." > > There was a key parenthetical omitted from the question: > "the party having the unique relationship of providing content service to > the subscriber (e.g., cable television system or direct satellite > provider) > will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right..." > > My interpretation of this language is that the PACKAGER/AGGREGATOR of the > content (e.g., DirecTV for DBS or Cox for cable) would pay the $1.25 per > subscriber paid-up license. So, for a DBS operator with 10 million > subscribers, each having MPEG-4 decode capability, the DBS operator would > pay a $12.5 million one time fee, IRRESPECTIVE of how many individual > content providers are part of the package(s) offered to the subscriber(s). > > Assuming this interpretation is correct, what about "churn?" In > other words, > if a system operator has 10 million digital subscribers at a > point in time, > a year later perhaps 2 million or even 5 million of these specific > subscribers will have disconnected. Does the system operator get > to use this > paid up license fee for a new subscriber, i.e., is it based on "net" > (non-specific) subscribers? Or is it based on "gross" (and specific) > subscribers? From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Wed Jul 17 13:30:06 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! Message-ID: <92800BEF04DB704192951C1A407CD91D46DA05@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> The way I read it, the MSO would pay $1.25 for each sub, regardless of the number of channels. So this would be $24M - which is still nothing like chicken-feed, but is certainly better than $2.5B. What gets a bit more problematic is Internet video - where each "channel" like HBO, ESPN, etc., could have their own dedicated sub. The MPEG-4 license would not be aggregated across multiple channels as per the above - but would be charged on a "per channel" basis - which could lead to billions of dollars of fees shared by the 200 channels. J -----Original Message----- From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23 AM To: William J. Fulco Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)' Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! >OK - so let me get this straight... > >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - >OK, fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on >DirecTV or Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to >that box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay >$250 to MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and >they'vet gone MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA >$2.5Billion? Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are added and removed all the time. How would you monitor/manage this? In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will cost extra 50 cents since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder. If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due to $1.25 per channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4. Fevzi. "William J. Fulco" wrote: > This license's terms are much better... > > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop the $1M > (well, maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and pay-off > the license for the year and then give away millions and millions of > encoders/decoders... for the little garage-shop codec-implementation > house, well - this term could be problematic... you're right about the > "use for 3 days and then discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that > on my system easily.... This is going to be a tough one. I guess you > could make your MPEG-4 codec expire - I wonder how that is going to > play to the licensing guys? Is it "downloads" of MPEG-4 codecs or is > it "being used" codecs - I suspect it is the former... > > Here's a question I had... > > A line in the press release: > > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and > over-the-air broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address > its broadcast to a specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of > $0.25 for the right to manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder > and the party providing content service to the subscriber will pay a > royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and > use encoded MPEG-4 Visual information." > > OK - so let me get this straight... > > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - > OK, fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on > DirecTV or Digital cable does this mean that every one of those > channel content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > distribute to that box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is > likely?) must pay $250 to MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by > that time (and they'vet gone MPEG-4), does that mean they (or > somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so does that > mean that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay for each > sub in a system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens > of movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and > dozens)) dollars for this package? > > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not so sure it > will make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These particular > economics would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such > set-top devices via broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not > previous delivery-infrastructure. > > But I digress... > > ++Bill > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael > > Bourges-Sevenier > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List > > (E-mail)' > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > > > downloadable > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap > > > > for video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance business, > > > you may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like > > > audio if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first 50,000 > > > systems for free. But given the fact that you only mention the > > > caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you must be thinking > > > Big. > > > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for > > few days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a > > 30-day money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) > > > > Mike > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Jul 17 14:52:26 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice nsing Announced!! Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B335D@exchange.epr.com> > In a converged world - where I have a broadband-connected TiVo and my > programming can arrive over the Sat, cable or via the modem - the economics > of distribution for the producers of content is going to get very > complicated. Right. That's why I have called this version 1 of the license. As time evolves, refinements and clarifications will be required, and we will need V.2. I am glad we now have v.1 out there. WIth MPEG-4 being free for 1.5 years (at least for people who sign up this year) there is some leeway. Rob From fevzi tivo.com Wed Jul 17 18:14:01 2002 From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3352@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <3D360849.BB46259F@tivo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020717/f2b1a0fd/attachment.html From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Wed Jul 17 18:28:22 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:33 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! Message-ID: <92800BEF04DB704192951C1A407CD91D1A59D8@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> I'll place some bets: 1. The cost is $0.50 for encoder and decoder, but the fee goes to the chip manufacturer, passed through to the box. 2. There will be *no* distribution / subs fee charged to the PVR at all. This will either be from the broadcaster or the MSO 3. The $1.25 is aggregate per sub, not per channel in an MSO/Satellite/Broadcast model Tivo makes out well. Total fees are $0.50 for PVR down from $2.50 for MPEG-2. So you save money out the door and that is before the savings for smaller storage needs. J -----Original Message----- From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 5:14 PM To: Rob Koenen Cc: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'; Larry Horn (E-mail) Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! >From what I have seen encoder and decoder together >*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but >I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although >the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes). Hmm so it is not clear yet I guess. I was reading an article on the CED daily, it states: In the cable television, direct satellite television and over-the-air broadcast areas, manufacturers will pay 25 cents for the right to manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder. Content providers will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right to use the decoder and use encoded MPEG-4 visual information. So that prompted me think that for some PVRs it may cost 50 cents. per box. What do the manufacture refer to here? The box manufacturer or the encoder/decoder chip manufacturer? I guess both? >I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be >end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the >lion's mouth. Yes very true. >Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when >they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been >paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again >be a good thing. PVRs can record content and users can erase them without ever watching them. What if a user only watches the first 15 minutes then earses it from the disk? Should they (or whoever) pay the full prize? So yes I agree it would make more sense if the royalties are absorbed elsewhere as opposed to the end user. Fevzi. Rob Koenen wrote: Good questions indeed. From what I have seen encoder and decoder together *may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes). I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the lion's mouth. Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again be a good thing. It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same set top box is used to access services for multiple service providers - a stated goal for MPEG-21. The license seems to only reckon with the (currently dominant) model in which there is a one-to-one relation btween set top and service provider. Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest, could benefit from having a FAQ. Rob ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list, it will make sure we don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and the News list was set-up for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks for your consideration. > -----Original Message----- > From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23 > To: William J. Fulco > Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail)' > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > Licensing Announced!! > > > >OK - so let me get this straight... > > > >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay > $0.25 - OK, > >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > package on DirecTV or > >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > distribute to that > >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must > pay $250 to > >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > they'vet gone > >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are > added and removed > all the time. How would you monitor/manage this? > > In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will > cost extra 50 cents > since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder. > > If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due > to $1.25 per > channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4. > > Fevzi. > > "William J. Fulco" wrote: > > > This license's terms are much better... > > > > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop > the $1M (well, > > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and > pay-off the license for > > the year and then give away millions and millions of > encoders/decoders... > > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well > - this term > > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 > days and then > > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system > easily.... This is > > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 > codec expire - I > > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is > it "downloads" of > > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it > is the former... > > > > Here's a question I had... > > > > A line in the press release: > > > > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and > over-the-air > > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address > its broadcast to a > > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 > for the right to > > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party > providing > > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of > $1.25 for the > > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded > MPEG-4 Visual > > information." > > > > OK - so let me get this straight... > > > > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they > pay $0.25 - OK, > > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > package on DirecTV or > > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > distribute to that > > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) > must pay $250 to > > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > they'vet gone > > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > > > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so > does that mean > > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay > for each sub in a > > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of > > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and > dozens)) dollars > > for this package? > > > > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not > so sure it will > > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These > particular economics > > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such > set-top devices via > > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous > > delivery-infrastructure. > > > > But I digress... > > > > ++Bill > > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael > > > Bourges-Sevenier > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM > > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion > List (E-mail)' > > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > > > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > > > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > > > > downloadable > > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the > $1M/y cap for > > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > > > > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance > > > > business, you > > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even > like audio > > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > > > > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first > > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only > > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you > > > > must be thinking Big. > > > > > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can > easily reach > > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often > installed for few > > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is > there a 30-day > > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020717/17ee2cc6/attachment.html From rob.koenen m4if.org Wed Jul 17 19:08:08 2002 From: rob.koenen m4if.org (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:33 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! In-Reply-To: <3D360849.BB46259F@tivo.com> Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59256497@exchange.epr.com> Fevzi, Let's all work from the source, so that we don't work on interpretations form interpretations (although CED is very close to the source): http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html I would like to note that collecting royalties from end-users was never the intention as I understand it, and I cannot imagine that having changed. Best, rob DISCLAIMER: I am interpreting the language from the release, and even though I have discussed many MPEG-4 licensing issues whith many people at many occasions, I may be wrong. I am not a licensor, nor an agent for any of them. I represent my members, an interesting collection of licensees, licensors and users otherwise, with the common goal of seeing MPEG-4 succeed. -----Original Message----- From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 17:14 To: Rob Koenen Cc: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'; Larry Horn (E-mail) Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! >From what I have seen encoder and decoder together >*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but >I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although >the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes). Hmm so it is not clear yet I guess. I was reading an article on the CED daily, it states: In the cable television, direct satellite television and over-the-air broadcast areas, manufacturers will pay 25 cents for the right to manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder. Content providers will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right to use the decoder and use encoded MPEG-4 visual information. So that prompted me think that for some PVRs it may cost 50 cents. per box. What do the manufacture refer to here? The box manufacturer or the encoder/decoder chip manufacturer? I guess both? >I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be >end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the >lion's mouth. Yes very true. >Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when >they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been >paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again >be a good thing. PVRs can record content and users can erase them without ever watching them. What if a user only watches the first 15 minutes then earses it from the disk? Should they (or whoever) pay the full prize? So yes I agree it would make more sense if the royalties are absorbed elsewhere as opposed to the end user. Fevzi. Rob Koenen wrote: Good questions indeed. From what I have seen encoder and decoder together *may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes). I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the lion's mouth. Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again be a good thing. It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same set top box is used to access services for multiple service providers - a stated goal for MPEG-21. The license seems to only reckon with the (currently dominant) model in which there is a one-to-one relation btween set top and service provider. Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest, could benefit from having a FAQ. Rob ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list, it will make sure we don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and the News list was set-up for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks for your consideration. > -----Original Message----- > From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23 > To: William J. Fulco > Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail)' > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > Licensing Announced!! > > > >OK - so let me get this straight... > > > >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay > $0.25 - OK, > >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > package on DirecTV or > >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > distribute to that > >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must > pay $250 to > >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > they'vet gone > >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are > added and removed > all the time. How would you monitor/manage this? > > In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will > cost extra 50 cents > since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder. > > If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due > to $1.25 per > channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4. > > Fevzi. > > "William J. Fulco" wrote: > > > This license's terms are much better... > > > > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop > the $1M (well, > > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and > pay-off the license for > > the year and then give away millions and millions of > encoders/decoders... > > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well > - this term > > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 > days and then > > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system > easily.... This is > > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 > codec expire - I > > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is > it "downloads" of > > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it > is the former... > > > > Here's a question I had... > > > > A line in the press release: > > > > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and > over-the-air > > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address > its broadcast to a > > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 > for the right to > > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party > providing > > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of > $1.25 for the > > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded > MPEG-4 Visual > > information." > > > > OK - so let me get this straight... > > > > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they > pay $0.25 - OK, > > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > package on DirecTV or > > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > distribute to that > > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) > must pay $250 to > > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > they'vet gone > > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > > > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so > does that mean > > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay > for each sub in a > > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of > > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and > dozens)) dollars > > for this package? > > > > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not > so sure it will > > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These > particular economics > > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such > set-top devices via > > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous > > delivery-infrastructure. > > > > But I digress... > > > > ++Bill > > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael > > > Bourges-Sevenier > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM > > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion > List (E-mail)' > > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > > > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > > > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > > > > downloadable > > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the > $1M/y cap for > > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > > > > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance > > > > business, you > > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even > like audio > > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > > > > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first > > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only > > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you > > > > must be thinking Big. > > > > > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can > easily reach > > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often > installed for few > > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is > there a 30-day > > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020717/84e1f196/attachment.html From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed Jul 17 23:11:53 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:33 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3352@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: > It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same set top > box is used to access services for multiple service providers You mean to say "WHEN the same set top..." ;-) > - a stated goal for MPEG-21. > The license seems to only reckon with the (currently dominant) model in > which there is a one-to-one relation between set top and service provider. This is almost always a problem when introducing paradigm-shifting technology into a very large extant market. Look at Radio into Newspaper markets, TV into Film Markets, VCRs into TV markets - the "powers that be" always try to manage today's profits, relationships and business structures over laying groundwork for what is to come. CYA is much easier to write into a contract or license than ?what-if?. I just want to see this revolution take place like the last few have - where the FACT of a technology?s introduction is not and cannot be killed/prevented/taxed-out-of-existence by the legal system (laws or contracts) while at the same time allowing that there must be a reasonable COST for the use/reuse of IP (like technology and content). For the most part, this has been the way it has worked to date. Broadcasters weren't allowed to kill or stop cable - but cable was not allowed to just use broadcasters product for free either... same as the case for VCR etc. This is one of Larry Lessig's oft made points. New technology must be allowed to have a shot in the marketplace, but there?s not reason that it has to be subsidized by the extant market players. So, as long as the license terms allow reasonable adoption of this new technology (unlike the current fees for web-radio, lets say) then full speed ahead. People who develop IP should be paid for their work. However, if the goal or effect of such ?payments? is to prevent a technology's wide-spread adoption.. Well .. Careful Billy Tauzin is-a-legislatin? ;-) ++Bill William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 Cell --------------------------------- Logic: When you absolutely, positively have to refute every fallacy in the room. > Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest, could benefit from > having a FAQ. > > Rob > > ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list, it will > make sure we > don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and the News list was > set-up > for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks for your > consideration. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23 > > To: William J. Fulco > > Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF > > Discussion List (E-mail)' > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > > >OK - so let me get this straight... > > > > > >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay > > $0.25 - OK, > > >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > > package on DirecTV or > > >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > > >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > > distribute to that > > >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must > > pay $250 to > > >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > > they'vet gone > > >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > > > Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are > > added and removed > > all the time. How would you monitor/manage this? > > > > In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will > > cost extra 50 cents > > since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder. > > > > If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due > > to $1.25 per > > channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4. > > > > Fevzi. > > > > "William J. Fulco" wrote: > > > > > This license's terms are much better... > > > > > > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop > > the $1M (well, > > > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and > > pay-off the license for > > > the year and then give away millions and millions of > > encoders/decoders... > > > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well > > - this term > > > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 > > days and then > > > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system > > easily.... This is > > > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 > > codec expire - I > > > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is > > it "downloads" of > > > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it > > is the former... > > > > > > Here's a question I had... > > > > > > A line in the press release: > > > > > > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and > > over-the-air > > > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address > > its broadcast to a > > > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 > > for the right to > > > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party > > providing > > > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of > > $1.25 for the > > > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded > > MPEG-4 Visual > > > information." > > > > > > OK - so let me get this straight... > > > > > > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they > > pay $0.25 - OK, > > > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > > package on DirecTV or > > > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > > > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > > distribute to that > > > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) > > must pay $250 to > > > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > > they'vet gone > > > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > > > > > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so > > does that mean > > > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay > > for each sub in a > > > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of > > > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and > > dozens)) dollars > > > for this package? > > > > > > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not > > so sure it will > > > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These > > particular economics > > > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such > > set-top devices via > > > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous > > > delivery-infrastructure. > > > > > > But I digress... > > > > > > ++Bill > > > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael > > > > Bourges-Sevenier > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM > > > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion > > List (E-mail)' > > > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > > > > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > > > > > downloadable > > > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the > > $1M/y cap for > > > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance > > > > > business, you > > > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even > > like audio > > > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > > > > > > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first > > > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only > > > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you > > > > > must be thinking Big. > > > > > > > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can > > easily reach > > > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often > > installed for few > > > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is > > there a 30-day > > > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 Jul 17 23:13:39 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice nsing Announced!! Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3370@exchange.epr.com> > Well .. Careful Billy Tauzin is-a-legislatin' ;-) In the US he is, yes. r From fevzi tivo.com Thu Jul 18 09:33:33 2002 From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59256497@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <3D36DFCD.9A950A3C@tivo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020718/4afecf80/attachment.html From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Jul 18 09:44:09 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice nsing Announced!! Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3381@exchange.epr.com> DVD is indeed a kind of Packaged Media. I don't think this clause covers VoD. In my view, that falls under point 2 of the release. ( http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html ) I do not understand the 'transmitted' either. The transactional fee refers to buying the disc (I think) I will take these questions along with other ones in our Q&A conference call, that M4IF members have with MPEG LA tomorrow. We are looking into making the results of that call generally available in some form. For M4IF members on his list: here is where you can find the dial-in information: http://www.m4if.org/private/licensing_meeting.php Kind Regards, Rob Koenen -----Original Message----- From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2023 8:34 To: rob.koenen@m4if.org Cc: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'; Larry Horn (E-mail) Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! Rob, Yeah you are right, we should use the original doc, thanks for the link. Reading the news release, I found the item 3, the case of stored video, interesting: 3. In the case of Stored Video (packaged media and video transmitted and stored for viewing for which a transactional fee is paid), the replicator or content provider will pay (a) US $0.01 per 30 minutes or part to a maximum of US $0.04 per movie; (b) US $0.005 per 30 minutes or part thereof to a maximum of US $0.02 per movie where the content of the Stored Video is 5 years or older (after it was copyrighted or subject to be copyrighted), and (c) US $0.002 for a Stored Video of 12 minutes or less. Can anybody shed any light on these terms, packaged media (DVD?) video transmitted and stored for viewing for which a transactional fee is paid (such as PPV/VOD?, what about PVR?) Fevzi. Rob Koenen wrote: Fevzi,Let's all work from the source, so that we don't work on interpretationsform interpretations (although CED is very close to the source): http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html I would like to note that collecting royalties from end-users was never theintention as I understand it, and I cannot imagine that having changed.Best,robDISCLAIMER: I am interpreting the language from the release,and even though I have discussed many MPEG-4 licensing issues whithmany people at many occasions, I may be wrong. I am not a licensor, nor an agent for any of them. I represent my members, an interesting collection of licensees, licensors and users otherwise, with the common goal of seeing MPEG-4 succeed. -----Original Message----- From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [ mailto:fevzi@tivo.com ] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 17:14 To: Rob Koenen Cc: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'; Larry Horn (E-mail) Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! >From what I have seen encoder and decoder together >*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but >I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although >the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes). Hmm so it is not clear yet I guess. I was reading an article on the CED daily, it states: In the cable television, direct satellite television and over-the-air broadcast areas, manufacturers will pay 25 cents for the right to manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder. Content providers will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right to use the decoder and use encoded MPEG-4 visual information. So that prompted me think that for some PVRs it may cost 50 cents. per box. What do the manufacture refer to here? The box manufacturer or the encoder/decoder chip manufacturer? I guess both? >I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be >end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the >lion's mouth. Yes very true. >Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when >they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been >paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again >be a good thing. PVRs can record content and users can erase them without ever watching them. What if a user only watches the first 15 minutes then earses it from the disk? Should they (or whoever) pay the full prize? So yes I agree it would make more sense if the royalties are absorbed elsewhere as opposed to the end user. Fevzi. Rob Koenen wrote: Good questions indeed. From what I have seen encoder and decoder together *may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes). I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the lion's mouth. Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again be a good thing. It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same set top box is used to access services for multiple service providers - a stated goal for MPEG-21. The license seems to only reckon with the (currently dominant) model in which there is a one-to-one relation btween set top and service provider. Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest, could benefit from having a FAQ. Rob ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list, it will make sure we don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and the News list was set-up for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks for your consideration. > -----Original Message----- > From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [ mailto:fevzi@tivo.com ] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23 > To: William J. Fulco > Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail)' > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > Licensing Announced!! > > > >OK - so let me get this straight... > > > >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay > $0.25 - OK, > >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > package on DirecTV or > >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > distribute to that > >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must > pay $250 to > >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > they'vet gone > >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are > added and removed > all the time. How would you monitor/manage this? > > In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will > cost extra 50 cents > since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder. > > If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due > to $1.25 per > channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4. > > Fevzi. > > "William J. Fulco" wrote: > > > This license's terms are much better... > > > > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop > the $1M (well, > > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and > pay-off the license for > > the year and then give away millions and millions of > encoders/decoders... > > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well > - this term > > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 > days and then > > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system > easily.... This is > > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 > codec expire - I > > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is > it "downloads" of > > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it > is the former... > > > > Here's a question I had... > > > > A line in the press release: > > > > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and > over-the-air > > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address > its broadcast to a > > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 > for the right to > > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party > providing > > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of > $1.25 for the > > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded > MPEG-4 Visual > > information." > > > > OK - so let me get this straight... > > > > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they > pay $0.25 - OK, > > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel > package on DirecTV or > > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel > > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to > distribute to that > > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) > must pay $250 to > > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and > they'vet gone > > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion? > > > > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so > does that mean > > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay > for each sub in a > > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of > > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and > dozens)) dollars > > for this package? > > > > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not > so sure it will > > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These > particular economics > > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such > set-top devices via > > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous > > delivery-infrastructure. > > > > But I digress... > > > > ++Bill > > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > > [ mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org ]On Behalf Of Mikael > > > Bourges-Sevenier > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM > > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion > List (E-mail)' > > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems > > > Licensing Announced!! > > > > > > > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely > > > > downloadable > > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the > $1M/y cap for > > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct? > > > > > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance > > > > business, you > > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even > like audio > > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business). > > > > > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first > > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only > > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you > > > > must be thinking Big. > > > > > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can > easily reach > > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often > installed for few > > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is > there a 30-day > > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-) > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020718/ef2d1567/attachment.html From fevzi tivo.com Thu Jul 18 09:49:56 2002 From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!! References: <92800BEF04DB704192951C1A407CD91D1A59D8@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <3D36E3A4.A3E6E611@tivo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020718/04c7ba15/attachment.html From robert streamcrest.com Thu Jul 18 13:33:42 2002 From: robert streamcrest.com (Streamcrest Associates) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Visual and Systems Licensing Announced Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020718122034.036cc500@pop3.norton.antivirus> I sense there's some confusion about the licensing terms from MPEG-LA. Video IPR is an area with its own vernacular - Packaged media means programming stored on a recording medium which is then sold to a consumer. Examples would be DVD, VCD, CD, etc. I would like to hear a further definition of "stored content" but my understanding is this is intended to cover content stored on a device as a result of a transaction (payment) between a content supplier and the consumer. Thus, this would cover feature films that would be purchased for repeat viewing. I think a grey area exists for content that is purchased on a pay-per-view basis for one-time viewing, as it is only stored as a side effect of the transmission process. It's strictly my interpretation of the license terms, which could be wrong, but I've posted some summary charts explaining them at www.streamcrest.com - click on the "MPEG-4 Information" button. ____________________________________________________________ Robert Bleidt Streamcrest Associates +1 408-981-0822 Mobile +1 408-327-2245 Office robert@streamcrest.com www.streamcrest.com From LHorn mpegla.com Thu Jul 18 16:05:47 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:35 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: Visual and Systems Licensing Announced Message-ID: <8DDF6652F243A7419BC9BA168417EDDC12CBB3@oxford.mpegla.com> Hello, Robert. It's good to hear from you again. I think the information you provided should be helpful to everyone. Because of the question you raised, I'll go one step further. Packaged media is fundamentally as you've described it - MPEG-4 video information which is duplicated on physical media (e.g., DVD). In addition to Packaged Media, MPEG-4 Stored Video also includes MPEG-4 Video information that is transmitted to an end user. To be treated as MPEG-4 Stored Video, however, MPEG-4 video information must be that for which an end user makes specific payment (e.g., title by title) and which has associated rights that do not prevent it from being viewed for at least 20 times or 365 days (e.g., the electronic equivalent of a DVD). Therefore, content purchased for one-time viewing would not be Stored Video. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Streamcrest Associates [mailto:robert@streamcrest.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2023 3:34 PM To: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)' Cc: Rob Koenen; Larry Horn Subject: Visual and Systems Licensing Announced I sense there's some confusion about the licensing terms from MPEG-LA. Video IPR is an area with its own vernacular - Packaged media means programming stored on a recording medium which is then sold to a consumer. Examples would be DVD, VCD, CD, etc. I would like to hear a further definition of "stored content" but my understanding is this is intended to cover content stored on a device as a result of a transaction (payment) between a content supplier and the consumer. Thus, this would cover feature films that would be purchased for repeat viewing. I think a grey area exists for content that is purchased on a pay-per-view basis for one-time viewing, as it is only stored as a side effect of the transmission process. It's strictly my interpretation of the license terms, which could be wrong, but I've posted some summary charts explaining them at www.streamcrest.com - click on the "MPEG-4 Information" button. ____________________________________________________________ Robert Bleidt Streamcrest Associates +1 408-981-0822 Mobile +1 408-327-2245 Office robert@streamcrest.com www.streamcrest.com From rb hdtv.com Fri Jul 19 17:14:49 2002 From: rb hdtv.com (Robert Bleidt) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:35 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] A simple table to make sense of the MPEG-4 visual profiles Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020719160901.03798670@pop3.norton.antivirus> Some of my work involves explaining MPEG-4 in terms a non-expert can understand, so I've been using a two-page table to explain the relationships between visual profiles, levels, tools, and object types. In case its of use to anyone, I've posted it at www.streamcrest.com - click on the "MPEG-4 Information" button. I'm always concerned about distributing mis-information, so if you find an error or have any comments, please let me know. ____________________________________________________________ Robert Bleidt Streamcrest Associates +1 408-981-0822 Mobile +1 408-327-2245 Office robert@streamcrest.com www.streamcrest.com From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Jul 19 17:28:51 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:35 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Q&A with MPEG LA today Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B33F7@exchange.epr.com> M4IF Members and Discussers, The Q&A with Larry Horn of MPEG LA went well today, lots of good questions were asked. Unfortunately, we were not able to tape the thing, as become clear after the session. Fortunately, however, I have kept notes of what was said, and we intend to publish these notes coming Monday, when we have had a chance to check them for correctness and completeness. My typing skills have not allowed me to provide a literal transcript, but I hope to have captured the essence of what was Q-ed and A-ed Kind Regards, Rob Koenen From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Jul 22 23:43:32 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:35 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] A simple table to make sense of the MPEG-4 vis ual profiles Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3455@exchange.epr.com> Thanks Robert. This is useful. There is definitively a need for more explanation and insight. We will add the link to the patent info page: http://www.m4if.org/patents/ Of course the definitive reference is the license itself, and I hope we will be provided with similar information by the licensors, as the terms surely aren't as transparent as they are for MPEG-2. Best, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Bleidt [mailto:rb@hdtv.com] > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2023 16:15 > To: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)' > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] A simple table to make sense of the MPEG-4 > visual profiles > > > Some of my work involves explaining MPEG-4 in terms a non-expert can > understand, so I've been using a two-page table to explain the > relationships between visual profiles, levels, tools, and > object types. In > case its of use to anyone, I've posted it at > www.streamcrest.com - click on > the "MPEG-4 Information" button. > > I'm always concerned about distributing mis-information, so > if you find an > error or have any comments, please let me know. > > ____________________________________________________________ > Robert Bleidt > Streamcrest Associates > +1 408-981-0822 Mobile +1 408-327-2245 Office > robert@streamcrest.com www.streamcrest.com > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Jul 23 11:12:21 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:37 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Transcript of 19 July Licensing Q&A with MPEG LA available Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3469@exchange.epr.com> Discuss List The transcript of last Friday's (19 July) M4IF telephone Q&A with MPEG LA about Visual and Systems Licensing is now available on our website. Go here www.m4if.org and follow directions found in Hot News. Best Regards, Rob From craig pcube.com Tue Jul 23 17:09:01 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:37 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] News: Forgent claims JPEG patent Message-ID: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-945735.html Forgent claims JPEG patent By Robert Lemos Special to ZDNet News July 23, 2002, 4:30 AM PT A small videoconferencing company is laying claim to the ubiquitous JPEG format, igniting a backlash from some consumers and from a standards organization. Austin, Texas-based Forgent Networks posted a press release to its site earlier this month claiming to own a patent covering the technology behind JPEG, one of the most popular formats for compressing and sharing images on the Internet. According to the firm, the devices covered by the patent include cameras, cell phones, camcorders, personal digital assistants, scanners and other devices. It took a little more than a week for the statement to find its way to the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) committee, which denounced any attempts to derive fees from the standard. "It has always been a strong goal of the JPEG committee that its standards should be implementable in their baseline form without payment of royalty and license fees, and the committee would like to record their disappointment that some organizations appear to be working in conflict with this goal," Richard Clark, managing director of U.K.-based Web software company Elysium and the head of the U.K. JPEG delegation, wrote on the committee's behalf. Patent claims are common in the technology industry--the real trick is to persuade companies to pay royalties. Scores of dot-com companies, for example, claimed to own key e-commerce patents in the late 1990s, and their shares often soared when their patents were granted. But most companies failed to generate enough royalties to keep them out of bankruptcy court, much less generate million-dollar paydays. In Forgent's case, because the claim strikes at the heart of a widely used consumer technology, it sparked an immediate response from an array of people. "Maybe this type of patent nonsense will finally get more companies to see that open standards are in fact a safer way to build their products," a member of the Slashdot community wrote in one of more than 1,200 comments posted on the tech news and discussion Web site. Such responses have followed other questionable claims to Internet patents, such as Amazon's infamous 1-Click patent and British Telecom's claims to have created hyperlinking. Patent "in the ballpark" So, is Forgent taking a shot in the dark at generating some royalty revenue or does it have a legitimate claim? In this case, Forgent's patent No. 4,698,672--or "672" as it is being called--appears to stand up to initial technical scrutiny, said Rich Belgard, an independent patent consultant. It has both a solid technical pedigree--created by a research scientist well known in the image compression community--and apparently applies to the JPEG technology. "It's in the ballpark of reality," Belgard said. Moreover, the firm has been able to persuade two Japanese companies to ante up cash. In April, it signed a deal to license the patent for $15 million with a large, though unnamed, Japanese digital camera player, according to company filings and to an industry expert. In May, Forgent signed a "multimillion-dollar patent license" with Sony for the compression technology, the company said in a press release and in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Jeffrey Dabbs, a research analyst with San Antonio-based financial research firm Kercheville & Co., estimates the actual fee to be between $17 million and $18 million. "They think there is $100 million that they can get from Japanese companies," said Dabbs, who owns stock in Forgent. A patent miracle? The focus on patents is relatively new for Forgent, a company that for more than 20 years had been known as Video Telecom, or VTel, before changing its name in August 2001. A patent deal nearly two years ago that resulted in $45 million payoff whetted Forgent's appetite for the world of intellectual property. Since then, a new management team has taken the company from a maker of videoconferencing hardware with declining revenue to a video technology firm focusing on software and patents. Its portfolio includes nearly 40 patents, with another 35 in the works. The claim to JPEG technology ownership arose from a data compression patent that Forgent acquired from videoconferencing hardware maker Compression Labs in 1997, said Ken Kalinoski, chief technology officer for Forgent. If he's right, it couldn't come at a better time for the company, whose revenue has hit the doldrums. In 1997, the company collected $200 million selling high-end video conferencing solutions and services, but for the latest year, ending July 2001, sales fell to $38 million. In a corporate restructuring and management shakeup, the company exited the video hardware business in August 2000 and slashed more than 250 jobs. Kalinoski believes patent 672 has incredible potential. However, while Forgent has gotten two companies to sign its licensing agreement, sooner or later the patent will be contested. Kalinoski believes the company is ready. "This is not a willy-nilly scenario that has come up," he said. "There has been six months of due diligence as to what this patent is all about." Patents filed on Internet technology and business practices have taken off in recent years and are nearly always contentious. Two years ago, Unisys accelerated its program of collecting royalties on the Graphics Interchange Format, or GIF, another popular format for graphics on the Web. Unisys started pursuing licensing in earnest after the Web caught on with mainstream consumers, and it reached agreements with Microsoft and AOL in 1996. Other companies have resorted to a controversial tactic of applying for patents while pushing the technology in question in standards committees. In 1995, Dell Computer agreed not to enforce its patent rights for the technology included in the VL-bus graphics standards, as part of an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC had charged Dell with pushing for the adoption of a technology in the standards committee, without disclosing when asked, that the company held a patent. Sun Microsystems and Rambus have both been investigated for similar actions. Who was first? Forgent didn't do any of the original work of the patent that they now own; that was done by Compression Labs' Wen-Hsiung Chen and Daniel Klenke. Chen, who joined Cisco after selling Compression Labs and a second firm to the networking giant, published several papers in the 1970s and 1980s on image compression and transformation. Some experts credit him with the creation of a specific kind of image manipulation--the discrete cosine transform--used in the JPEG format. Yet he or others may have published all the components of the 672 patent more than a year before before the application date for the patent. Known as prior art, such publications can undermine a patent. "There is a lot of work around that can predate the Forgent patent," said the JPEG's Clark. "Most of the JPEG standard was pretty well formulated by the time this patent came out." While Chen and Klenke applied for 672 in October 1986, the same year that the Joint Photographic Experts Group was formed, the push for the standard had begun more than four years earlier. Three international standards bodies--the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)--had begun the search for an image compression standard in 1982. Clark of the JPEG group said Chen may have sat on one of the committees. Chen could not be reached for comment, but Kalinoski of Forgent denied the claim and stressed that he believed that Chen never took part in any committees. "We have had those discussions with Wen and absolutely he has confirmed that he had no part in those standards discussions." Even if he had, it's unlikely his participation would be considered improper, said patent expert Belgard. "Even if he was on the committee, if there was no rule (prohibiting patent applications on the standard), then...it's not illegal," he said. That leaves the question of prior art as the issue that will determine whether the patent is valid. While the debate rages, Forgent refuses to slow its royalties effort. Kalinoski said the company is looking for more royalties from other digital camera makers and the company is looking at companies in other industries as well. One certainty: Forgent has a wide swath of the Internet in its sights, as it will consider any company that doesn't pay to use JPEG a pirate. "This is very analogous to the music industry, who have said that the people who have been using our methods and materials have been stealing our intellectual property and this needs to stop," Kalinoski said. "We are just asking for the same thing." From nmathur.ext rd.francetelecom.com Mon Jul 29 12:44:32 2002 From: nmathur.ext rd.francetelecom.com (zze-tdf tvnum MATHUR N ext FTRD/TDF/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:37 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] DMIF and Amendment 7 Message-ID: <32808FAD125F8A49A3145D4BB67ADC40239602@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> Hi, I'm currently working on a review of technologies that would suit digital television. One of them is the MHP standard, which relies on Java code and MPEG-2 TS, but an enhancement based on MPEG-4 is already being talked about. The problem is that I'm a bit confused about the DMIF layer that is introduced in MPEG-4 and the "amendment 7" that specifies how mpeg-4 data may be carried over mpeg-2 TS and PS. Do they represent two different visions of how data can be carried in a broadcasting environment, or does "amendment 7" imply the use of DMIF? Could someone enlighten me on this point? Moreover, I'm looking for documents related to actual implementation of mpeg-4 over mpeg-2 and of DMIF. Any suggestion would be welcomed! Best Regards, Nivedita MATHUR -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020729/258fe8dd/attachment.html