[M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!

Jordan Greenhall jgreenhall divxnetworks.com
Wed Jul 17 18:28:22 EDT 2002


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


More information about the Discuss mailing list