[M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice
nsing Announced!!
Rob Koenen
rkoenen intertrust.com
Thu Jul 18 09:44:09 EDT 2002
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
<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
<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 $0.002 for a Stored Video of 12 minutes or less.
Can anybody shed any light on these terms,
packaged media (DVD?)
video transmitted and stored for viewing for which a transactional fee is
paid (such as PPV/VOD?, what about PVR?)
Fevzi.
Rob Koenen wrote:
Fevzi,Let's all work from the source, so that we don't work on
interpretationsform interpretations (although CED is very close to the
source): http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html
<http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html> I would like to note that
collecting royalties from end-users was never theintention as I understand
it, and I cannot imagine that having changed.Best,robDISCLAIMER: I am
interpreting the language from the release,and even though I have discussed
many MPEG-4 licensing issues whithmany people at many occasions, I may be
wrong. I am not a licensor, nor an agent for any of them. I represent my
members, an interesting collection of licensees, licensors and users
otherwise, with the common goal of seeing MPEG-4 succeed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [ mailto:fevzi tivo.com <mailto:fevzi tivo.com> ]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 17:14
To: Rob Koenen
Cc: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'; Larry Horn (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
Licensing Announced!!
>From what I have seen encoder and decoder together
>*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but
>I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although
>the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (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 <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
<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
<http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
<http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss lists.m4if.org
http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
<http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020718/ef2d1567/attachment.html
More information about the Discuss
mailing list