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

Wed Jul 17 23:11:53 EDT 2002

> 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
>