From asjabbi micron.com Fri Mar 1 15:36:18 2002 From: asjabbi micron.com (asjabbi) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:04 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Impulse Response (Commentary) Message-ID: (from the dsp insider) *** Impulse Response, by Jeff Bier MPEG? No, Thanks. Microsoft and Real Networks must be thrilled. This February, Apple immediately followed the unveiling of its QuickTime 6 media player and QuickTime Broadcaster with an announcement that these products were on hold indefinitely. At issue were the proposed licensing terms for MPEG-4 video, a key component of these products. These licensing terms, announced in February, require content providers to pay a royalty for every second of MPEG-4 video downloaded, streamed over a network, or distributed on pre-recorded media. In Apple's view, this "pay-per-view" fee structure is not a realistic match for the business realities of streaming video. Apple's rejection of the proposed licensing terms is particularly notable because of Apple's long-standing involvement with the MPEG-4 standard. For example, the MPEG-4 file format is based on Apple's QuickTime file format. When one of MPEG-4's loudest cheerleaders balks at the licensing terms, it suggests that the process of bringing the standard to market has gone horribly awry. Indeed, the controversial licensing terms are but one of the complications awaiting would-be MPEG-4 implementers. Despite the common perception that MPEG-4 is a single standard, it is more like a library of standards. The video standards alone describe nineteen "profiles," each with a unique combination of algorithms, resolutions, and so on. This complex scheme makes it difficult for system designers to assess the cost of implementing MPEG-4, particularly the licensing cost. The recently announced MPEG-4 video license, for example, covers only two profiles; implementing other profiles requires negotiating with up to nineteen patent holders. Despite the uncertainty surrounding MPEG-4, it has already gained acceptance in many streaming media applications. However, as Apple VP Phil Schiller said in a recent interview, "This is a nascent industry; we're trying to kick it off, trying to get it started and we don't need to put roadblocks in the way for people--[these royalties] would be a major roadblock." Indeed, one must wonder if the proposed MPEG-4 royalties will kill the streaming media goose before it lays a single golden egg. From jeffh bisk.com Mon Mar 4 12:59:44 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:05 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Licensing update? Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C400@mail.corp.bisk.com> Larry (or anyone else in the know), Has any progress been made regarding the "use fee" portion of the draft? It would be nice to hear if anything is working and if we are all doing our part to influence this issue. Have some of the patent holders loosened up? Are they all sticking to their guns? Should we appeal to them rather than to the MPEG-LA? Please just give us some sort of an update. I know these things take time, but throw us a bone. Jeff Handy - Senior 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 rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Mar 5 15:02:15 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:05 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E36@exchange.epr.com> Late response due to fortunate family circumstances. > Hi Rob, all, > Great example. Would be good to see shorter message with more > such figures :-) > and make a consolidated report out of that to make our case ... > Some comments : > 1- Value taken are for audio. Sould be different for video > (ex : easier to add adds on a video). Anyone got figures for > a complete movie clip ? The values are largely the same * perhaps you'd want a bit higher bitrate, but streaming is done at 44 kbit * As I understand it, CPM doesn't significantly change between Audio and Video. > 2- Example is probably not relevant for Systems. Since > Systems may include more application oriented features (ex : > clickable items, games, ...), the revenue will be also different. * What you are implying is that you are more likely to convert a 'view' to a 'sale'. THis is the holy grail for Internet advertsing. What is your conclusion then? > 3- I guess the costs to deliver one song includes the Real > Network license. In case of MPEG-4 products, since we have an > open standard, it is expected that the license will be > cheaper than with a closed solution. At least there will be competing products with price being one of the competition points. The price of the license and its administration needs to be factored in. > I think therefore we should revisit the conclusion. What you have made clear is that there may be other and arguably more attractive business models, but that shouldn't change the conlcusion of this example. Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Mar 5 15:13:24 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:06 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E38@exchange.epr.com> Kevin and all, > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Marks [mailto:kmarks@apple.com] > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2024 1:14 > > In other news today, the CARP said that any webcaster streaming songs > would have to pay $0.0014 per song to the record label. (It is also > hedged around with complex conditions that seem designed to > nullify any > advantages that the web has over FM radio for the listener, > so this can > be regarded as the absolute minimum royalty fee, audio only, no video > involved). > Adding this to the MPEG-4 license and our putative broadcaster is now > losing money on every song, even if he alternates songs and adverts. What is likely ewven more relevant is that this gives an indication of the cost of content vs. the cost of technology. 0.0017 for 5 minutes of Video technology (and should we, for the sake of the argument, also assume the same for Audio and also for Systems?) vs. 0.0014 for the song. OK, the song may be shorter and it plays out alittle differently. A BIG disclaimer is appropriate: the terms for one-to-many haven't really been disclosed yet. We are still waiting. ANother disclaimer: we are comparing the cost of audio content to the cost of video technology. I contend this is fair though: if we accept that the video use fee is reasonable, then we need to assume a like audio fee is reasonable too (Video without AUdio is pretty useless except in surveillance). Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Mar 5 15:34:38 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:07 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E3C@exchange.epr.com> > The JVT effort is commendable and a very interesting experiment. In the > absense of that, in the future the business terms should maybe be > established alongside the technology. That may ensure that 'realistic' > becomes part of 'fair' and 'non-discriminatory' :-) The terminology is actually (already) 'Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory". ('Fair' is nowhere to be found, but Reasonable should mean largely the same.) Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Mar 5 15:52:13 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:07 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E3E@exchange.epr.com> Ken and all, > Under the proposed licensing scheme, there won't be any > hourly usage fees > for decoding MPEG4 content stored on DVD. Correct. The use fee is paid when the content is pressed on the disk. > So if an MPEG4 movie is first > downloaded to a storage device, and then viewed some time after the > download, just as a user would a DVD, would there be an > hourly usage fee? Good question. My intuition tells me that the use fee is dues when content is being downloaded. This bring us to the question: if the content is never consumed - what then? This is especially relevant in the context of Broadcast. However, we only have seen hints at what the broadcast model looks like, and it mentions something like 'statistics'. Statistics could account for non-viewings ... Let me leave it at that. The interesting and underlying question in your questions is that content moves from place to place and there may be intermediate stations before it hits an end users. Say A(uthor) -> B(etween) -> C(onsumer) Questions - I guess to MPEGLA: * Where does the fee get charged? * if in B (say, a Bekamai CDN) - will B even know it *is* an MPEG-4 file??? - Assume for the sake of the argument that a simple download takes place of a zipped MP4 file from a non-MPEG-4 specific server. (I know zipping doesn't make much sense, but let's just assume) Can B even be deemed to be infringing? (Disclaimer - I Am Not A Lawyer) * if with A - how will A know how many C's get to view the content? * What does a practical accounting scheme look like that is imposed by the license structure? Best to all, Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Mar 5 16:06:55 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E41@exchange.epr.com> Let me correct a potantial misunderstanding that arose in the discussio nbetween Craig and Olivier, and then get the discussion on the right track again (yes, at the risk of reviving it :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig@pcube.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2024 8:29 > At 5:27 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: > > > And there is one simple way to proceed if you are serious about a > >> royalty free standard: > >> Impose a requirement that any essential IP be offered on a royalty > >> free basis. Unfortunately I don't know if this is > possible under ISO > > > or ITU rules. > > > >Unfortunatly I don't think it is. > > Perhaps you are mistaken about this. > > Please direct your attention to: > > ToR Joint Video Team.doc [rest of mail below for those who lost track] Olivier is an MPEG Chair and well aware of what is happening in MPEG. He is definitely NOT mistaken. There is huge difference between a (commendable) voluntary process that may lead to an RF baseline and the suggested *requirement* that you seek to *impose*. This said, I want to stop the discussion on * What should be done with future coding schemes * How should ISO really work * Why patent law would or would not be fair/reasonalbe/good/bad ... and concentrate on the real question at hand that will now determine success or failure of MPEG-4: Are the currently porposed licensing terms Reasonable and do they support widespread adoption of the MPEG-4 Standard? Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig@pcube.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2024 8:29 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 > > > At 5:27 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: > > > And there is one simple way to proceed if you are serious about a > >> royalty free standard: > >> Impose a requirement that any essential IP be offered on a royalty > >> free basis. Unfortunately I don't know if this is > possible under ISO > > > or ITU rules. > > > >Unfortunatly I don't think it is. > > Perhaps you are mistaken about this. > > Please direct your attention to: > > ToR Joint Video Team.doc > > Terms of Reference for a Joint Project between > ITU-T Q.6/SG16 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG11 > for the Development of new Video Coding > Recommendation and International Standard > > Sorry, but I do not know the MPEG document number or the server > location(s) where it can be found. > > > In particular look at table 2 within the Patent Disclosure > Form in Annex 3: > > > >Disclosure information - Submitting Organization/Person > (choose one box) > > > > 2.0 The submitter is not aware of having any granted, > >pending, or planned patents associated with the technical content of > >the Recommendation | Standard or Contribution. > > > >or, > > > >The submitter (Patent Holder) has granted, pending, or planned > >patents associated with the technical content of the Recommendation > >| Standard or Contribution. In which case, > > > > 2.1 The Patent Holder is prepared to grant - on the basis of > >reciprocity for the above Recommendation | Standard - a free license > >to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, > >non-discriminatory basis to manufacture, use and/or sell > >implementations of the above Recommendation | Standard. > > > > 2.2. The Patent Holder is prepared to grant - on the basis of > >reciprocity for the above Recommendation | Standard - a license to > >an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, > >non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions to > >manufacture, use and/ or sell implementations of the above > >Recommendation | Standard. > > > > Such negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are > >performed outside the ITU | ISO/IEC. > > > > 2.2.1 The same as box 2.2 above, but in addition the Patent > >Holder is prepared to grant a "royalty-free" license to anyone on > >condition that all other patent holders do the same. > > > > 2.3. The Patent Holder is unwilling to grant licenses > >according to the provisions of either 2.1, 2.2, or 2.2.1 above. In > >this case, the following information must be provided as part of > >this declaration: > >- patent registration/application number; > >- an indication of which portions of the Recommendation | Standard > >are affected. > >- a description of the patent claims covering the > Recommendation | Standard. > > > Apparently, you have all the information needed to determine the > contributors intent with respect to any patents required for > implementation of the 26L standard. What's more, the mechanism is > clearly in place to allow participants to contribute their IPR on a > royalty free basis, by checking box 2.1 or 2.1.1 (provisional on all > patent holders doing the same). > > I am curious Olivier. You wrote: > > >We leave in a world where ownership of intellectual creation is > >recognized as a right (and in your country even more than > others so you > >should be aware of that). Do you ask as well for content > companies to give > >their content free ? No, there is no still free lunch in > this world. That's > >life (but we can still quote "Imagine" as Leonardo did in > the last MPEG > >plenary ;-) > > I ask for a level playing field, and for the opportunity for all > interested parties to share in the success of a communal effort to > provide consumers with the many benefits of standardization. > > I do not ask for free content, but if it is provided freely in the > context of one business model I do not accept restrictions on my > rights under a different set of circumstances: The article by > Lawrence Lessig that I posted earlier contains a very clear > description of what I am talking about: > > >We live in a world with "free" content, and this freedom is not an > >imperfection. We listen to the radio without paying for the songs we > >hear; we hear friends humming tunes that they have not licensed. We > >refer to plots in movies to tell jokes without the permission of the > >director. We read books to our children borrowed from a library > >without any payment for performance rights to the original copyright > >holder. The fact that content at any particular time is free tells > >us nothing about whether using that content is "theft." Similarly, > >an argument for increasing control by content owners needs more than > >"they didn't pay for this use" to back up the argument. > > It is hypocrisy for the music industry to use the "free" distribution > and sharing of music via radio broadcasting to promote the sales of > their products, then deny those who seek to build a similar business > on the Internet the right to license their products on a > non-discriminatory basis. > > And it is hypocrisy for patent holders to create licensing terms for > derivative products that disadvantage those derivatives relative to > other products that incorporate the same IPR. > > Leonardo has asked the participants in MPEG to "Imagine" what they > could do by following a different path to a common goal - the > successful proliferation of the products of your efforts. > > This makes me wonder if he played John Lennon's song at the plenary, > and if so, whether he paid the requisite usage fee? > > -- > Regards > Craig Birkmaier > Pcube Labs > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Tue Mar 5 16:50:05 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC7721389E3@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117E0B@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Sorry to return so late to the discussion. I've been out of the country (somewhat successfully) selling MPEG-4. I've had the opportunity to meet with many content providers and network operators and have discussed the proposed fees for the Visual layer. All of them consider the proposed fees "ridiculous". One of the key things we need to rememeber is this - it doesn't matter if a reasonable business model can be made around the proposed fees. What matters is if content providers endorse, support and adopt the standard. There are *free* options available out there. And, of course, content providers can simply choose to not adopt a new media altogether. A good business case can be made for MPEG-4, but license fees that make the content providers laugh-out loud, don't help. Primary Objections: 1. Too high. These fees *might8 be in-line for a DVD-like product - if they represent 100% of MPEG-4 fees for that product. Additional systems fees would push even this premium content out of the realm of reasonable (from the content creator's perspective). But DVD is pretty much the high-end of premium content (in terms of revenue / unit). For every other kind of content monetization, the fee is increasingly burdensome. 2. Bizarre relationship to different kinds of content monetization. A flat rate per minute watched creates very different economic models for DVD / VOD / SVOD / Pay Cable / Subscription Cable / Broadcast TV / Ad VOD / Internet / Etc. In some of these cases, the MPEG-4 license fee actually pushes the content model outside of positive ROI. One interesting example. Imagine a premium SVOD channel with first-run movies that charges $20 per month and has 1,000,000 subscribers. Then imagine a lower-tier SVOD channel that carries comedy reruns that charges $2 per month and has 1,000,000 subscribers. Both would end up paying the same MPEG-4 fee. It is the value of the content that makes the channels valuable. Not the technology. 3. Logistical nightmare. Particularly for the very large content providers. They already have enough headaches tracking SAG fees, do they really need to track and report MPEG-4 fees? One interesting proposal I've heard here is a cap on the delivery fee as well. "One Check" is something that might make sense. Let us pay some fee and figure out how we can make money against it. 4. Biased. There is contention betweent the CE guys and the Content guys. The content companies don't like the fact that the MPEG-4 fees favor device makers ($.25 per unit, cap) to the detriment of content providers. They see the MPEG-4 proposed fees as something proposed by a bunch of CE guys who don't know the content business and think they can transfer some wealth from content to CE. Oh, and while we are talking about free competitors, don't forget that these MPEG-4 patent royaltes are before any fees charged by the technology providers themselves. J -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Rob Koenen Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2024 3:02 PM To: 'AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN'; Rob Koenen; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees Late response due to fortunate family circumstances. > Hi Rob, all, > Great example. Would be good to see shorter message with more > such figures :-) > and make a consolidated report out of that to make our case ... > Some comments : > 1- Value taken are for audio. Sould be different for video > (ex : easier to add adds on a video). Anyone got figures for > a complete movie clip ? The values are largely the same * perhaps you'd want a bit higher bitrate, but streaming is done at 44 kbit * As I understand it, CPM doesn't significantly change between Audio and Video. > 2- Example is probably not relevant for Systems. Since > Systems may include more application oriented features (ex : > clickable items, games, ...), the revenue will be also different. * What you are implying is that you are more likely to convert a 'view' to a 'sale'. THis is the holy grail for Internet advertsing. What is your conclusion then? > 3- I guess the costs to deliver one song includes the Real > Network license. In case of MPEG-4 products, since we have an > open standard, it is expected that the license will be > cheaper than with a closed solution. At least there will be competing products with price being one of the competition points. The price of the license and its administration needs to be factored in. > I think therefore we should revisit the conclusion. What you have made clear is that there may be other and arguably more attractive business models, but that shouldn't change the conlcusion of this example. Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From kmarks apple.com Tue Mar 5 17:06:37 2002 From: kmarks apple.com (Kevin Marks) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117E0B@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <68C6C19A-309E-11D6-8F78-00039348D666@apple.com> On Tuesday, March 5, 2002, at 04:50 PM, Jordan Greenhall wrote: > 3. Logistical nightmare. Particularly for the very large content > providers. They already have enough headaches tracking SAG fees, do > they really need to track and report MPEG-4 fees? One interesting > proposal I've heard here is a cap on the delivery fee as well. "One > Check" is something that might make sense. Let us pay some fee and > figure out how we can make money against it. On that front, this article seems relevant: http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/garfinkel0302.asp > I spent eight months as the “chief scientist” for an Internet startup > called Broadband2Wireless. Our company tried to build a high-speed > wireless Internet service that could be accessed in cities throughout > the United States, South America, Europe and Asia. We were going to do > it using unlicensed portions of the spectrum and with wireless network > equipment that employed a hot new standard called 802.11. And we were > going to charge no more than $50 a month. > > Of course, we failed. We had $30 million in funding; we needed $200 > million. > [...] > One of the most surprising things we learned from launching our > Internet startup was that providing wireless Internet service is really > cheap. What ended up bankrupting the company were all the ancillary > services we had to develop—credit card billing, technical support, the > corporate Web site and the various security measures we had to put in > place to prevent unauthorized use of the network by nonsubscribers. > Organizations that aren’t trying to make money providing wireless > Internet service can do away with all of these measures and offer the > service for free. From craig pcube.com Tue Mar 5 20:08:38 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E41@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E41@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: At 4:06 PM -0800 3/5/02, Rob Koenen wrote: >Let me correct a potantial misunderstanding that arose in the >discussio nbetween Craig and Olivier, and then get the discussion >on the right track again (yes, at the risk of reviving it :-) This is not an effort to revive the thread. Some of what I posted originally was a 'blue sky" look at what might be desirable to avoid problems such as those being faced by MPEG-4 now, in the future. I interpreted Olivier's comment that it is not possible to ask participants to contribute IP on a royalty free basis at its face value. Then I was provided with a copy of the patent statement that JVT participants are being asked to execute. This appeared to contradict what Olivier had suggested, so I brought this to the attention of the list. I do think that this is relevant to the current MPEG-4 licensing discussions. The major arguments I am hearing on this list are based in assumptions about the viability of various business models. Clearly the JVT is trying to avoid a repeat of the current situation. While we cannot ask the MPEG-4 IPR holders to act retroactively regarding their positions with MPEG-4 visual, AAC and systems, we CAN point out that their proposed license is out of sync with emerging industry business models, and that this is now being reflected in the current work of MPEG. One more data point. Today at the VidTrans Conference, Gorden Castle of CNN presented a very comprehensive overview of how CNN is moving to compression based storage and IP networking for both internal and field operations. His presentation stopped short of discussing emission coding for Internet streaming. In the Q&A I asked him what CNN's position is on the proposed usage fees for MPEG-4. He made it quite clear that CNN is very interested in what MPEG-4 has to offer, and noted the strength of the object coding tools; AND he made it clear that usage fees are unacceptable, and CNN would be forced to look to other alternatives. He noted that much of what CNN is streaming is intended to cross promote other services; that they want consumers to access and use these services freely. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From kgoldsholl oxygnet.com Tue Mar 5 17:09:01 2002 From: kgoldsholl oxygnet.com (Ken Goldsholl) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E3E@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <016001c1c4ab$8037b230$8901a8c0@KNG> One industry that will surely profit greatly from the proposed licensing scheme is the legal profession. The plan requires compliance from parties that are not part of the agreement, i.e., the consumers, as until a file is decoded, it's just data and not utilizing anybody's intellectual property. Will consumers be required to pay a monthly fee to the licesne holders to use a decoder? there already is existing technology that has no hourly usage fees, so why would someone switch over to a new service that costs more? they do not care about how the content arrives at their home, that is not their problem. If an encoded file is shipped from distributor to retailer to consumer, it's still just a file. The only person who has taken advantage of the MPEG IP is the company that encoded the file, and they paid their licensing fee to use the encoder. Charging companies that move the files around is almost analagous to charging FedEx royalties when they ship a product that utilizes copyrighted material (like a DVD) or patented technology. The MPEGLA may see it otherwise, but it will most likely be decided in court. To address Rob's question about the terms being fair and reasonable, I don't know from what perspective they could be considered either. Most technology-based products require an investment in the creation of intellectual property, and for years companies would earn a return on their investment by selling the product. Then the software industry was born, and the expectations for return on investment changed dramatically, as software vendors seem to think that their technology is more important than all of the other technology used in creating the products that made software useful. With the proposed licensing structure, and new pricing strategies by some large software companies, now it seems companies are not content with 99% gross margins. Instead of selling a product to customers that they pay once for, they want a recurring revenue stream, where you never own the technology, but just rent it. I vaguely recall a similar case where telephone service providers were forced to let subscribers own their own phones instead of renting them. If an MPEG4 set-top box sells for $200 and is used for 1000 hours per year over three years, the usage cost for the STB will be $60. After the STB has been amortized, the MPEG4 IP holders will still be receiving a revenue stream. Their is a lot of technology needed to build that STB, far beyond the MPEG4 decoder. Why is it reasonable to charge for the hourly use of the MPEG4 technology but not for any of the other technology in the product? > Ken and all, > > > Under the proposed licensing scheme, there won't be any > > hourly usage fees > > for decoding MPEG4 content stored on DVD. > > Correct. The use fee is paid when the content is pressed on the disk. > > > So if an MPEG4 movie is first > > downloaded to a storage device, and then viewed some time after the > > download, just as a user would a DVD, would there be an > > hourly usage fee? > > Good question. My intuition tells me that the use fee is dues when > content is being downloaded. > > This bring us to the question: if the content is never > consumed - what then? > This is especially relevant in the context of Broadcast. > > However, we only have seen hints at what the broadcast model looks > like, and it mentions something like 'statistics'. Statistics could > account for non-viewings ... Let me leave it at that. > > > The interesting and underlying question in your questions is that > content moves from place to place and there may be intermediate > stations before it hits an end users. > Say A(uthor) -> B(etween) -> C(onsumer) > > Questions - I guess to MPEGLA: > > * Where does the fee get charged? > * if in B (say, a Bekamai CDN) > - will B even know it *is* an MPEG-4 file??? > - Assume for the sake of the argument that a simple download > takes place of a zipped MP4 file from a non-MPEG-4 specific > server. (I know zipping doesn't make much sense, but let's > just assume) Can B even be deemed to be infringing? > (Disclaimer - I Am Not A Lawyer) > * if with A - how will A know how many C's get to view the content? > * What does a practical accounting scheme look like that is imposed > by the license structure? > > Best to all, > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Mar 5 17:35:38 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E54@exchange.epr.com> > The plan requires compliance > from partiesthat are not part of the agreement, i.e., the consumers, as > until a file is decoded, it's just data and not utilizing anybody's > intellectual property. This is a misconception. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot explain (and do not know) how it works, but NO license fee will be collected from consumers, as long as they do not (re)distribute content in association with which there is a remuneration. > Will consumers be required to pay a monthly fee to the licesne holders to > use a decoder? No. I wonder where this idea comes from. > Charging companies that move the files around is almost > analagous to charging FedEx royalties when they ship a > product that utilizes copyrighted material (like a DVD) > or patented technology. I have similar questions. Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Mar 5 17:54:50 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E5A@exchange.epr.com> > He noted that much of what CNN is > streaming is intended to cross promote other services; that they want > consumers to access and use these services freely. Thanks for the interesting feedback. The basic question here (to MPEGLA and licensors) is: does cross-promotion fall in the content-for-remuneration category. Or does it depend - and then on what does it depend? Rob From kgoldsholl oxygnet.com Tue Mar 5 22:27:14 2002 From: kgoldsholl oxygnet.com (Ken Goldsholl) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <200203060238.g262c3w24739@BlackBerry.NET> I don't expect consumers to directly pay for any licensing fees, but if companies don't pay any fees for distributing encoded files, then who will pay? No one, which means someone will get sued. From craig pcube.com Wed Mar 6 09:27:40 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E5A@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187E5A@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: At 5:54 PM -0800 3/5/02, Rob Koenen wrote: > > He noted that much of what CNN is >> streaming is intended to cross promote other services; that they want >> consumers to access and use these services freely. > >Thanks for the interesting feedback. > >The basic question here (to MPEGLA and licensors) is: >does cross-promotion fall in the content-for-remuneration category. >Or does it depend - and then on what does it depend? I "think" that Gordon's assumption is that CNN would be liable for the usage fees based on the fact that the web site is advertiser supported, and that the they are in the business of making a profit creating and distributing content. Gordon also mentioned that CNN had recently entered into a deal with Real Networks for a premium news subscription service. Clearly something like this would be subject to the usage fees. ANd then there is the whole issue of usage fees for broadcasting that is still in limbo. This could potentially subject all CNN networks to usage fees if MPEG-4 were used by Digital cable, DBS or DTV broadcasters. But it is not clear who would be liable here. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From jeffh bisk.com Wed Mar 6 10:02:33 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C406@mail.corp.bisk.com> I haven't seen any "real" alternative ideas to the use fees. What about this? A one time encoding fee per minute. For the sake of example, we are charged $.01/minute of encoded material. IOW, if I encode 20 hours of footage, I pay $12 in royalties. This model would be easier to monitor and bill as well. It would require the encoder developers to have a reporting mechanism similar to a serial number checking routine that some developers already employ. It would have to keep an encrypted record of all encoding activity. I know this leaves room for some pirates to "block" the transmission of billing info. However, I think it's an acceptable risk. The majority of content developers work on the up and up anyway. A report would automatically be retrieved at specified intervals and go directly to the MPEG-LA. The fees would occur only once per encode. So you aren't paying for "views" or "viewers". If your material was not encoded well and had to be redone, specific encoding charges can be disputed. However, if you want to encode five bit rates, you pay for five encodes. After all, you ARE encoding different bit rates to reach a greater audience, no? So, using my example from above (20 hours @$.01/min) five bit rate encodes would cost me $60. These are just some of the thoughts I've had over the past week or so. Is it making any sense? Jeff Handy - Senior 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 craig pcube.com Wed Mar 6 10:08:51 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] News: Video on RealNetworks' RealOne Will Sometimes Come at a Price Message-ID: Hmmmm. Maybe Gordon Castle of CNN was not completely up front with his comments yesterday. Looks like CNN is moving to an exclusively subscription model for streaming clips from its web site... Regards Craig NEW MEDIA Video on RealNetworks' RealOne Will Sometimes Come at a Price By NICK WINGFIELD Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ANGELES -- RealNetworks Inc. began shipping a version of its popular multimedia software that it said makes viewing video over the Internet closer to the experience of watching television. But in a development that may jolt consumers accustomed to getting free video online, a growing number of media companies distributing their content through the RealNetworks software plan to charge viewers a fee for watching news, sports and other clips. At a news conference here to mark the release of RealNetworks's RealOne software and a related media subscription service, AOL Time Warner Inc.'s CNN said within a month it will no longer make video clips available for free to users through its Web site. Instead, CNN said all of the video that it puts on the Internet will be available through RealOne SuperPass, the new name for a $9.95-a-month subscription service from RealNetworks. Viewers, alternatively, will be able to pay $4.95 a month or $39.95 a year to access the CNN video directly through the network's Web site. Mitch Gelman, senior vice president and executive producer at CNN.com, acknowledge that some users may balk at the fees, but advertising revenue alone isn't sufficient to cover the company's continuing investment in video on the Web. "In order for us to continue to offer the quality and quantity of video that we expect our users will want, we need to be able to support that as part of our business model," Mr. Gelman said. Other media and sports organizations are also moving to charge Internet users for video. Major League Baseball last year made archived video of its games available for a fee through the RealOne service and its own Web site. Tuesday Major League Baseball said it will offer video programming through RealOne that condenses hours-long ballgames into 20 minutes. The service will be available for the 2002 season. Tracy Dolgin, president of News Corp.'s Fox Sports Net, which has also begun charging for more of its sports-video programming through RealOne, said he views Internet video as an adjunct business. That is partly because the quality of video on the Internet isn't nearly as good as on television. Still, RealNetworks Tuesday said it has devised a new technology, available in its RealOne software, that plays video almost instantaneously after a user clicks on it on a Web site. Now there is typically a 10-second or longer delay after a user requests a video clip on a Web site, as the software "buffers" or downloads an initial chunk of video from the Internet. Write to Nick Wingfield at nick.wingfield@wsj.com Updated March 6, 2024 From P.Sergeant ukerna.ac.uk Thu Mar 7 16:34:31 2002 From: P.Sergeant ukerna.ac.uk (Paul Sergeant) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees In-Reply-To: <68C6C19A-309E-11D6-8F78-00039348D666@apple.com> References: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117E0B@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020307163057.017bcf18@arien.ukerna.ac.uk> For anyone interested in this 'peer2peer free wireless internet' from the UK perspective try looking at www.consume.net I also heard someone say that it costs our incumbent telco operator in the UK more to track and bill 'per minute' telephony usage than it does to run the whole network. Regards Paul At 17:06 05/03/2024 -0800, you wrote: >On Tuesday, March 5, 2002, at 04:50 PM, Jordan Greenhall wrote: >>3. Logistical nightmare. Particularly for the very large content >>providers. They already have enough headaches tracking SAG fees, do >>they really need to track and report MPEG-4 fees? One interesting >>proposal I've heard here is a cap on the delivery fee as well. "One >>Check" is something that might make sense. Let us pay some fee and >>figure out how we can make money against it. > >On that front, this article seems relevant: > >http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/garfinkel0302.asp > >>I spent eight months as the ?chief scientist? for an Internet startup >>called Broadband2Wireless. Our company tried to build a high-speed >>wireless Internet service that could be accessed in cities throughout the >>United States, South America, Europe and Asia. We were going to do it >>using unlicensed portions of the spectrum and with wireless network >>equipment that employed a hot new standard called 802.11. And we were >>going to charge no more than $50 a month. >> >>Of course, we failed. We had $30 million in funding; we needed $200 million. >>[...] >>One of the most surprising things we learned from launching our Internet >>startup was that providing wireless Internet service is really cheap. >>What ended up bankrupting the company were all the ancillary services we >>had to develop?credit card billing, technical support, the corporate Web >>site and the various security measures we had to put in place to prevent >>unauthorized use of the network by nonsubscribers. Organizations that >>aren?t trying to make money providing wireless Internet service can do >>away with all of these measures and offer the service for free. > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Mar 7 14:48:17 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:08 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Article Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187EBA@exchange.epr.com> Hi Damien, I just read your article on MPEG-4 licenses - very interesting. A few facts in the very opening do, however, create potential misunderstanding that will significantly confuse the issue: "On Jan. 31, the agency charged with licensing MPEG-4, a standard for digital audio and video compression, announced a series of new fees." MPEGLA is _not_ charged with licensing by anyone, except by the licensors themselves that seek to operate through a single outlet. Their license is always non-exclusive "More controversially, the alliance of companies pushing the MPEG-4 standard also proposed a "use fee" the real alliance of companies pusing MPEG-4 is not MPEGLA but M4IF, which has _not_ proposed the use fee. more likely MPEG-4 was _not_ cooked up by MPEGLA or the licensors, but by MPEG, an ISO standards grouip (the Moving Picture Experts Group) Many more than the 18 licensors took part. see http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com a 2 cents an hour charge that either users or manufacturers of the software would have to come up with. 3) User will _not_ be charged under the proposed scheme Best, Rob Rob Koenen Senior Director of Technology Initiatives InterTrust Technologies Corporation tel +1 (408) 855 6891 gsm +1 (408) 823 7512 fax +1 (408) 855 0250 4750 Patrick Henry Drive Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA rob@intertrust.com ____________________________________________ http://www.m4if.org has the latest on MPEG-4 From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Mar 7 14:53:41 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Article in Salon.com Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187EBB@exchange.epr.com> A combination of keys that was so far unknown to me made the email leave too soon. > -----Original Message----- Hi Damien, I just read your article on MPEG-4 licenses - very interesting. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/03/06/mpeg/index.html A few facts in the very opening do, however, create potential misunderstanding that will significantly confuse the issue: "On Jan. 31, the agency charged with licensing MPEG-4, a standard for digital audio and video compression, announced a series of new fees." MPEGLA is _not_ charged with licensing by anyone, except by the licensors themselves that seek to operate through a single outlet. Their license is always non-exclusive "More controversially, the alliance of companies pushing the MPEG-4 standard also proposed a "use fee" the real alliance of companies pusing MPEG-4 is not MPEGLA but M4IF, which has _not_ proposed the use fee. "Cooked up by an alliance of 18 consumer electronics companies called MPEG-LA, the MPEG-4 standard is" MPEG-4 was _not_ cooked up by MPEGLA or the licensors, but by MPEG, an ISO standards grouip (the Moving Picture Experts Group) Many more than the 18 licensors took part. see http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com "a 2 cents an hour charge that either users or manufacturers of the software would have to come up with. " User will _not_ be charged under the proposed scheme. Thanks for the (rest of) the article which is interesting and highlights the different perspectives well. Best Regards, Rob Koenen From rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM Thu Mar 7 15:16:33 2002 From: rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM (Robert Saint John) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Article in Salon.com Message-ID: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B5042@SF-MAIL.ligos> Thanks for passing on the link, Rob. I just wanted to point out that my quote: "The patent holders will end up being the biggest losers," says Robert Saint John, marketing director for Ligos, a streaming media company. "I'm afraid these [MPEG-LA] companies are shooting themselves in the foot." ...might read as if I was against MPEG-LA and any licensing at all, and that I was a true believer in "Open Source Will Save MPEG". Like any quote, that's not quite the case. My full perspective on these matters is too long to be summed up in a few lines. Rather than post the entire (long) reply to Damien's questions here, I'll refer anyone who is interested to: http://www.nearlynews.com/salon/salon_stjohn.txt As always, I speak for myself, not my employer. Thanks! Robert -- Robert W. Saint John - rsaintjohn@ligos.com Director of Marketing Ligos Corporation - http://www.ligos.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 2:54 PM To: Damien Cave (E-mail) Cc: M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Article in Salon.com A combination of keys that was so far unknown to me made the email leave too soon. > -----Original Message----- Hi Damien, I just read your article on MPEG-4 licenses - very interesting. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/03/06/mpeg/index.html A few facts in the very opening do, however, create potential misunderstanding that will significantly confuse the issue: "On Jan. 31, the agency charged with licensing MPEG-4, a standard for digital audio and video compression, announced a series of new fees." MPEGLA is _not_ charged with licensing by anyone, except by the licensors themselves that seek to operate through a single outlet. Their license is always non-exclusive "More controversially, the alliance of companies pushing the MPEG-4 standard also proposed a "use fee" the real alliance of companies pusing MPEG-4 is not MPEGLA but M4IF, which has _not_ proposed the use fee. "Cooked up by an alliance of 18 consumer electronics companies called MPEG-LA, the MPEG-4 standard is" MPEG-4 was _not_ cooked up by MPEGLA or the licensors, but by MPEG, an ISO standards grouip (the Moving Picture Experts Group) Many more than the 18 licensors took part. see http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com "a 2 cents an hour charge that either users or manufacturers of the software would have to come up with. " User will _not_ be charged under the proposed scheme. Thanks for the (rest of) the article which is interesting and highlights the different perspectives well. Best Regards, Rob Koenen _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Mar 7 15:15:59 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187EBE@exchange.epr.com> Thanks Jeff. M4IF will shortly revive its dormant 'Licensing WG4' which has studied models for licensing. It's charter is to come up with alternatives for the licensors to consider. With the remark that I assume your encoding fee to only apply to "for-remuneration-content" I'll leave it to others to comment for the moment. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2024 7:03 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Questions about the hourly usage fee for > MPEG4 > > > I haven't seen any "real" alternative ideas to the use fees. > What about > this? A one time encoding fee per minute. > > For the sake of example, we are charged $.01/minute of > encoded material. > IOW, if I encode 20 hours of footage, I pay $12 in royalties. > > This model would be easier to monitor and bill as well. It would > require the encoder developers to have a reporting mechanism > similar to > a serial number checking routine that some developers already employ. > It would have to keep an encrypted record of all encoding activity. I > know this leaves room for some pirates to "block" the transmission of > billing info. However, I think it's an acceptable risk. The majority > of content developers work on the up and up anyway. > > A report would automatically be retrieved at specified > intervals and go > directly to the MPEG-LA. The fees would occur only once per > encode. So > you aren't paying for "views" or "viewers". If your material was not > encoded well and had to be redone, specific encoding charges can be > disputed. > > However, if you want to encode five bit rates, you pay for > five encodes. > After all, you ARE encoding different bit rates to reach a greater > audience, no? So, using my example from above (20 hours > @$.01/min) five > bit rate encodes would cost me $60. > > These are just some of the thoughts I've had over the past week or so. > Is it making any sense? > > > Jeff Handy - Senior 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 > From ramizer wmr.com Thu Mar 7 15:37:47 2002 From: ramizer wmr.com (richard mizer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] From Digital Media Wire - March 6 Message-ID: <3C87F9CB.97C17FD6@wmr.com> Here is the link to the Salon article... (San Francisco) Online magazine Salon.com featured an article Wednesday on the controversy surrounding licensing fees proposed by MPEG-LA, a group of 18 companies that own the patents to the video compression standard. Several reports have shown that the proposed fees to be paid by webcasters per hour of video they stream could eclipse any possible profits, prompting review of open source alternatives. New York-based On2, for instance, has made its VP3 video compression codec open source -- meaning that it is free to use and modifications may be made without the permission of its creators. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/03/06/mpeg/index.html http://www.on2.com From ben interframemedia.com Thu Mar 7 18:15:01 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Message-ID: Folks, Here's a link to the rather active Slashdot discussion of the same article. Lots of people aren't getting it - they think MPEG-4 is just a codec. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/07/030213 Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding From mikael sevenier.com Thu Mar 7 19:18:23 2002 From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Are you surprised? For most people, MPEG-4 is just a video codec, widely popular thanks to Microsoft and DivX. MPEG-LA licensing terms created lots of 'heated' discussions around video. But if people know MPEG-4 mostly for its video part and might be looking for alternatives in video then, they might also look for alternatives for other parts by fear of propagation of such terms. Isn't what we 'decode' from these articles? What is MPEG-LA reaction? Do they plan to do something about the turmoil they created? When will we know the terms for the other profiles? I guess it might take ages with 19 or so video profiles, 10 or so audio profiles and 8 or so systems profiles... But maybe not: if people look at alternatives, there might not even be need for licensing terms and MPEG-LA. Time will tell. Cheers, Mikael Bourges-Sevenier > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Ben Waggoner > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 6:15 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > Folks, > > Here's a link to the rather active Slashdot discussion of > the same article. Lots of people aren't getting it - they > think MPEG-4 is just a codec. > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/07/030213 Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2700 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020307/3ebfabad/winmail.bin From jeffh bisk.com Fri Mar 8 00:16:33 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C40A@mail.corp.bisk.com> ": if people look at alternatives, there might not even be need for licensing terms and MPEG-LA. " I'd like to know what alternatives you are talking about. MPEG-4 is about, above all, interoperability. What truly interoperable alternatives are there? AFAIK, everything else is a proprietary solution. IMO, THIS point is what they don't get. Jeff Handy Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3870 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020308/83b91a25/attachment.bin From mikael sevenier.com Thu Mar 7 21:31:56 2002 From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C40A@mail.corp.bisk.com> Message-ID: <027101c1c662$9320cea0$7000a8c0@manystreams.com> Dear Jeff, Yes MPEG-4, like any international standard, is about interoperability. Recently On2 opened its codec, that's proprietary, but the H.26x family of codecs are not proprietary and are international standards. May not be as complete as MPEG-4 but may be enough for your applications, who knows. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 9:17 PM To: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; Ben Waggoner; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article ": if people look at alternatives, there might not even be need for licensing terms and MPEG-LA. " I'd like to know what alternatives you are talking about. MPEG-4 is about, above all, interoperability. What truly interoperable alternatives are there? AFAIK, everything else is a proprietary solution. IMO, THIS point is what they don't get. Jeff Handy Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3804 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020307/17695c96/winmail.bin From tlm demografx.com Fri Mar 8 04:35:49 2002 From: tlm demografx.com (Tom McMahon) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] IP Message-ID: There are number of companies who ship product that steps on the IP of both MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 stakholders, and yet they never get in trouble and they're never prosecuted. What gives? From craig pcube.com Fri Mar 8 08:50:29 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:09 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C40A@mail.corp.bisk.com> References: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C40A@mail.corp.bisk.com> Message-ID: At 12:16 AM -0500 3/8/02, Jeff Handy wrote: > ": if people look at alternatives, there might not even be need >for licensing terms and MPEG-LA. " > > > > I'd like to know what alternatives you are talking about. >MPEG-4 is about, above all, interoperability. What truly interoperable >alternatives are there? AFAIK, everything else is a proprietary >solution. IMO, THIS point is what they don't get. > I am not promoting Apple's proprietary QuickTime solution, but it is an extensible architecture with a proven track record of being able to plug-in new technologies as they evolve, AND it provides a level of proven cross-platform media player and web-browser interoperability that is yet to be demonstrated for MPEG-4. Despite the historic track record, Apple would like to support MPEG-4 because it is a standard, which they can plug-intoQuickTime. Given the fact that QuickTime already supports many of the advanced features of MPEG-4, I would suggest that the marketplace may provide alternatives, even IF they are "proprietary." -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Fri Mar 8 08:46:41 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:10 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772138D7F@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117E1B@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 6544 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020308/b7b823c6/winmail.bin From jeffh bisk.com Fri Mar 8 12:11:55 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:10 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A09376291@mail.corp.bisk.com> Jordan, So are you saying that a codec is a replacement for an interoperable platform?? Are you also saying the MP3 is being used in DVD and satellite distribution? Further are you REALLY trying to say WiMP is an alternative to MPEG-4?? This is ludicrous. I give up on trying to be logical and objective ;-) I'm opting out of this discussion. Sorry. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020308/e357b288/attachment.html From kgoldsholl oxygnet.com Fri Mar 8 09:28:40 2002 From: kgoldsholl oxygnet.com (Ken Goldsholl) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:10 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article References: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117E1B@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <008601c1c6c6$b1cc3920$6401a8c0@KNG> MessageI was interpreting the interoperability question to mean will other alternative schemes be interoperable with MPEG4, which of course they could not be without infringing on the patents. If however you just mean whether they are interoperable between different implementations of the same algorithms and protocols, well you know, it just takes software (and time) to achieve that goal. Windows media can't be a viable alternative unless every viewing device runs windows - which is not feasible. Unless the source code is released so versions can run on competing operating systems, interoperability won't be likely. Also, who is to say that that format would be less expensive (I'm guessing that Microsoft has not put windows media source code in the public domain, someone correct me if I'm wrong). ----- Original Message ----- From: Jordan Greenhall To: 'Mikael Bourges-Sevenier' ; 'Jeff Handy' ; 'Ben Waggoner' ; discuss@lists.m4if.org Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 8:46 AM Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article All - we have to be sure not to drink our own Kool-aid here. MPEG-4 is a proposed "de jure" international standard that will hopefully ultimately be interoperable. It is by no means a de facto standard and as we all painfully know, there is a long way to interoperability. Alternatives? First I'd look at de facto standards - windows media certainly comes to mind. You don't need interoperability if everyone is using the same software. Then you can also look at Open Source alternatives - VP3, Xvid. Again, because anyone can use them, interoperability begins to drop out. As all of these are completely free, they are quite compelling to content owners. For content providers, it is a question of how many people can view (and pay for) their content. Interoperability is a very small means to this end. MP3 was a standard for a long time before it was actually used. MP3 was important when it became a de facto standard and there were lots of people using it. A big part of the reason this was possible was that the license was actually fair and reasonable and was well designed to promote the technology. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Mikael Bourges-Sevenier Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 9:32 PM To: 'Jeff Handy'; 'Ben Waggoner'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Dear Jeff, Yes MPEG-4, like any international standard, is about interoperability. Recently On2 opened its codec, that's proprietary, but the H.26x family of codecs are not proprietary and are international standards. May not be as complete as MPEG-4 but may be enough for your applications, who knows. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 9:17 PM To: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; Ben Waggoner; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article ": if people look at alternatives, there might not even be need for licensing terms and MPEG-LA. " I'd like to know what alternatives you are talking about. MPEG-4 is about, above all, interoperability. What truly interoperable alternatives are there? AFAIK, everything else is a proprietary solution. IMO, THIS point is what they don't get. Jeff Handy Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020308/09dfe304/attachment.html From dim psytel-research.co.yu Fri Mar 8 18:29:39 2002 From: dim psytel-research.co.yu (Ivan Dimkovic) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:10 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article References: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117E1B@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <001401c1c6c6$d4e73130$0100a8c0@hal> MessageDear Jordan, All, I am not sure if we are talking about same system here, Xvid - www.xvid.org - than I must add small correction, Xvid is also a MPEG-4 simple profile implementation (like DivX 4.xx), and - as such, it is also subject to patent royalties, no matter if it is open source or not - vendor who wishes to use Xvid in commercial application will also have to pay royalties to MPEG-4 patent holders (apart from dealing with GPL licensing behind Xvid project). Regarding OpenSource and standards, this is a "heavy" subject and it is off-topic, but I must add that some very important ITU/IETF/ISO standards are built as robust OpenSource implementations, like WWW (mozilla as viewer, apache as server) , RTP/RTCP (Cisco reference implementation, RAT, etc...), MP3 decoders (mpg123), MP3 encoders (LAME) - the fact they are open source does not decrease their interoperability with proprietary, closed-source implementations of the same standards. I also think that most of the "encoding" engines will (and should) remain closed-source as because many trade-secrets are incorporated in various algorithms. MP3 also gained popularity because it was the first high quality algorithm that was possible to use on Pentium 90 system - and FhG IIS haven't got enough legal resources to fight unlicensed distributions and cracked versions of their codecs, which turned out to be a very good for MP3 popularity, no matter how crazy it sounds :) At the time "big players" (Microsoft, Real) accepted MP3, it was already widely used by users on the Internet. Best Regards, -- Ivan Dimkovic http://www.psytel-research.co.yu From: Jordan Greenhall To: 'Mikael Bourges-Sevenier' ; 'Jeff Handy' ; 'Ben Waggoner' ; discuss@lists.m4if.org Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 5:46 PM Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article All - we have to be sure not to drink our own Kool-aid here. MPEG-4 is a proposed "de jure" international standard that will hopefully ultimately be interoperable. It is by no means a de facto standard and as we all painfully know, there is a long way to interoperability. Alternatives? First I'd look at de facto standards - windows media certainly comes to mind. You don't need interoperability if everyone is using the same software. Then you can also look at Open Source alternatives - VP3, Xvid. Again, because anyone can use them, interoperability begins to drop out. As all of these are completely free, they are quite compelling to content owners. For content providers, it is a question of how many people can view (and pay for) their content. Interoperability is a very small means to this end. MP3 was a standard for a long time before it was actually used. MP3 was important when it became a de facto standard and there were lots of people using it. A big part of the reason this was possible was that the license was actually fair and reasonable and was well designed to promote the technology. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Mikael Bourges-Sevenier Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 9:32 PM To: 'Jeff Handy'; 'Ben Waggoner'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Dear Jeff, Yes MPEG-4, like any international standard, is about interoperability. Recently On2 opened its codec, that's proprietary, but the H.26x family of codecs are not proprietary and are international standards. May not be as complete as MPEG-4 but may be enough for your applications, who knows. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 9:17 PM To: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; Ben Waggoner; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article ": if people look at alternatives, there might not even be need for licensing terms and MPEG-LA. " I'd like to know what alternatives you are talking about. MPEG-4 is about, above all, interoperability. What truly interoperable alternatives are there? AFAIK, everything else is a proprietary solution. IMO, THIS point is what they don't get. Jeff Handy Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020308/cd394e86/attachment.html From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Fri Mar 8 10:01:47 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772138E2A@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117E20@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Jeff, what I am saying is this: I am in front of customers every day. These are the customers who MPEG-LA wants to use MPEG-4. Network operators, content providers, consumer electronics manufacturers. Most of the largest such companies in the world. These customers *actually* and *definitively* consider Windows Media to be an alternative to MPEG-4. In fact, as microsoft will occasionally *pay* these customers to use Windows Media, rather than asking them to pay what can be a very large royalty, these customers are asking me why MPEG-4 is even a viable alternative to Windows Media. This is in every medium - High Definition DVD, Cable VOD, FTTH Broadcast, Wireless Broadcast, chipsets, you name it. And Windows Media is not alone. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Handy Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 9:12 AM To: Jordan Greenhall; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Jordan, So are you saying that a codec is a replacement for an interoperable platform?? Are you also saying the MP3 is being used in DVD and satellite distribution? Further are you REALLY trying to say WiMP is an alternative to MPEG-4?? This is ludicrous. I give up on trying to be logical and objective ;-) I'm opting out of this discussion. Sorry. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020308/a590982b/attachment.html From mikael sevenier.com Fri Mar 8 11:00:34 2002 From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187EDE@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Yes they are. But, as it was said many times on this reflector, the licensing terms were fair and reasonable. After reading the mails on the reflector, I have the impression that nobody is against paying royalties as long as it is fair and reasonable. This sounds a bit vague statement to me but it seems everyone has in mind mp3 and other well-known technologies were the licensing terms match well-established/understood business practices. I would like to understand how MPEG-LA came with the idea of pay-per-stream. What were the business cases and how they assessed and validated them? What make them choose this solution over other solutions? Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 9:26 AM To: 'Mikael Bourges-Sevenier' Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article And they are encumbered byt the same patents -----Original Message----- From: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier [mailto:mikael@sevenier.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 21:32 To: 'Jeff Handy'; 'Ben Waggoner'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Dear Jeff, Yes MPEG-4, like any international standard, is about interoperability. Recently On2 opened its codec, that's proprietary, but the H.26x family of codecs are not proprietary and are international standards. May not be as complete as MPEG-4 but may be enough for your applications, who knows. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 9:17 PM To: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; Ben Waggoner; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article ": if people look at alternatives, there might not even be need for licensing terms and MPEG-LA. " I'd like to know what alternatives you are talking about. MPEG-4 is about, above all, interoperability. What truly interoperable alternatives are there? AFAIK, everything else is a proprietary solution. IMO, THIS point is what they don't get. Jeff Handy Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 6016 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020308/5c92ac7b/winmail.bin From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Mar 8 12:21:24 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187EF7@exchange.epr.com> > After reading the mails on the reflector, I have the > impression that nobody is against paying royalties as long as > it is fair and reasonable. This sounds a bit vague statement > to me but it seems everyone has in mind mp3 and other > well-known technologies were the licensing terms match > well-established/understood business practices. Yes. "Reasonable" is the keyword here. The opposite is "unreasonable". I have heard and read a lot about the proposed licensing scheme. What is important in these discussions is to establish *where* the proposed terms are unreasonable. This should be demonstrated by 'cold data' - facts, that is. We can't get enough of those. Rob From mikael sevenier.com Fri Mar 8 13:46:19 2002 From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187EF7@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: > > After reading the mails on the reflector, I have the > > impression that nobody is against paying royalties as long as > > it is fair and reasonable. This sounds a bit vague statement > > to me but it seems everyone has in mind mp3 and other > > well-known technologies were the licensing terms match > > well-established/understood business practices. > > > Yes. "Reasonable" is the keyword here. > The opposite is "unreasonable". > > I have heard and read a lot about the proposed licensing scheme. > > What is important in these discussions is to establish *where* > the proposed terms are unreasonable. This should be demonstrated > by 'cold data' - facts, that is. We can't get enough of those. Why don't we start with mp3, mpeg-2, etc.? They might cover many situations where MPEG-4 can be used? Mike From ben interframemedia.com Fri Mar 8 14:15:00 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mikael, Because MPEG-4 isn't being targeted at the things that MPEG-2 and MP3 do well. Discounting all the Systems stuff, MPEG-4 offers huge compression efficiency advantages. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 3/8/02 1:46 PM, Mikael Bourges-Sevenier at mikael@sevenier.com wrote: > Why don't we start with mp3, mpeg-2, etc.? They might cover many > situations where MPEG-4 can be used? From tlm demografx.com Fri Mar 8 14:42:31 2002 From: tlm demografx.com (Tom McMahon) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Message-ID: With the work of the JVT, MPEG-4 is going to do QUITE well in the video CODEC area. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 2:15 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Mikael, Because MPEG-4 isn't being targeted at the things that MPEG-2 and MP3 do well. Discounting all the Systems stuff, MPEG-4 offers huge compression efficiency advantages. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 3/8/02 1:46 PM, Mikael Bourges-Sevenier at mikael@sevenier.com wrote: > Why don't we start with mp3, mpeg-2, etc.? They might cover many > situations where MPEG-4 can be used? _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com Fri Mar 8 15:28:35 2002 From: kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com (Sanjay Kulkarni) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article References: Message-ID: <3C894923.655D84CE@dvd.panasonic.com> Yes, I think everyone is in agreement with that, but IMHO MPEGLA is trying to get the technology advantages of the MPEG2/MP3 domain (along with its business model) and trying to apply them to a whole new market (of Internet Streaming) that has historically been dominated by "free" or "open-source business model. I see this "per-stream-per-minute" charge justifiable for wireless mobile industry (for e.g. I pay for every minute I watch a video on my cellphone) but I still don't accept a per-minute charge for Internet streaming, especially when I have other options. Sanjay Kulkarni Panasonic Disc Services Corp. Tom McMahon wrote: > With the work of the JVT, MPEG-4 is going to do QUITE well in the video > CODEC area. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 2:15 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > Mikael, > > Because MPEG-4 isn't being targeted at the things that MPEG-2 and > MP3 do well. Discounting all the Systems stuff, MPEG-4 offers huge > compression efficiency advantages. > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > on 3/8/02 1:46 PM, Mikael Bourges-Sevenier at mikael@sevenier.com wrote: > > > Why don't we start with mp3, mpeg-2, etc.? They might cover many > > situations where MPEG-4 can be used? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mjacklin geneva-link.ch Sat Mar 9 00:35:27 2002 From: mjacklin geneva-link.ch (Martin Jacklin) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I might add: I heard the news that the Advanced Video Coding (AVC) group in DVB are talking about integrating JVT, which they call "MPEG-4 v3" into "ETSI TR 101 154" - their main MPEG implementation guidelines document. This was said by Ken McCann of Zetacast (who is the chairman of that group) in Dublin on the 7th March. MPEG-4 offers more stable periodic and more massive codec upgrades, and stays open and doesn't bundle stuff you don't need, like DRM and proprietary codec revision cycles which you will later need to follow closely for it to work. With MPEG-4 you can take what you want. /\/\artin Jacklin Hypermedium +41 79 291 1882 gsm/sms/fax "The linking itself will become the heart of the matter, rather than the endless variety of different digital streams, objects and files from which and to which there will be links." > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Tom McMahon > Sent: 08 March 2024 23:43 > To: Ben Waggoner; discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > With the work of the JVT, MPEG-4 is going to do QUITE well in the video > CODEC area. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 2:15 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > Mikael, > > Because MPEG-4 isn't being targeted at the things that MPEG-2 and > MP3 do well. Discounting all the Systems stuff, MPEG-4 offers huge > compression efficiency advantages. > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > > on 3/8/02 1:46 PM, Mikael Bourges-Sevenier at mikael@sevenier.com wrote: > > > Why don't we start with mp3, mpeg-2, etc.? They might cover many > > situations where MPEG-4 can be used? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mikael sevenier.com Fri Mar 8 16:01:29 2002 From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <02f601c1c6fd$9216fc50$7000a8c0@manystreams.com> Compression is one thing but you know that other codecs can perform better (see video results of last July meeting). There are many other things that MPEG-4 Video provides ranging from object coding to scalable streams, fine grain scalability etc... Personnally, I always thought about MPEG-4 as being a truly multimedia standard where synthetic and natural objects can be mixed together and you can interact with them. Restricting it to just audio and video is comparing it to 'de facto' standards that already do similar things very well for a quite a long time such as Microsoft, Real, Apple. So, "cold data" from their applications could be a way to start. But later on, when we'll move to MPEG-4 as a whole, you might want to look at data from "web interactive" industry from companies such as Macromedia, Cycore, Viewpoint... Best, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Ben Waggoner > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 2:15 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > Mikael, > > Because MPEG-4 isn't being targeted at the things that > MPEG-2 and MP3 do well. Discounting all the Systems stuff, > MPEG-4 offers huge compression efficiency advantages. > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > > on 3/8/02 1:46 PM, Mikael Bourges-Sevenier at > mikael@sevenier.com wrote: > > > Why don't we start with mp3, mpeg-2, etc.? They might cover many > > situations where MPEG-4 can be used? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From kmarks apple.com Fri Mar 8 17:49:22 2002 From: kmarks apple.com (Kevin Marks) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 03:35 PM, Martin Jacklin wrote: > I might add: > > I heard the news that the Advanced Video Coding (AVC) group in DVB are > talking about integrating JVT, which they call "MPEG-4 v3" into "ETSI > TR 101 > 154" - their main MPEG implementation guidelines document. This was > said by > Ken McCann of Zetacast (who is the chairman of that group) in Dublin on > the > 7th March. > > MPEG-4 offers more stable periodic and more massive codec upgrades, and > stays open and doesn't bundle stuff you don't need, like DRM and > proprietary > codec revision cycles which you will later need to follow closely for > it to > work. With MPEG-4 you can take what you want. More than what? You didn't say what you are comparing too. QT fits your description above better than MPEG4 does at the moment. QT movies from 10 years ago still play in current QT, but newer codecs can be added and selectively downloaded. This is all shipping today. From kmarks apple.com Fri Mar 8 17:53:28 2002 From: kmarks apple.com (Kevin Marks) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Article in Salon.com In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187EBB@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <734214CA-3300-11D6-8C43-00039348D666@apple.com> On Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 02:53 PM, Rob Koenen wrote: > "a 2 cents an hour charge that either users or manufacturers > of the software would have to come up with. " > User will _not_ be charged under the proposed scheme. Rob, that is sophistry. The current scheme charges content vendors when revenue is being generated. This means someone is being charged for it. Either the viewers (directly or indirectly) or the content vendors. Either of these can reasonably be termed 'users' of MPEG4. From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Mar 8 17:59:05 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Article in Salon.com Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187F15@exchange.epr.com> Kevin, Of course. In the end the consumer always pays for all the cost of providing a service, including the profit that any party stands to make. And yes, there are more users of MPEG-4 than just the end-users (or consumers). It is important, however, to dispel the myth (and some people really believe this) that the licensors or there representatives will collect royalties directly from end-users. This was very much the gist of the story Stop-Pay-Download. It is good to be concerned, but people should be aware of the real situation and then be concerned on the basis of that understanding, and not on the basis of myths and FUD. Thanks for your input, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Marks [mailto:kmarks@apple.com] > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 17:53 > To: Rob Koenen > Cc: Damien Cave (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Article in Salon.com > > > > On Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 02:53 PM, Rob Koenen wrote: > > "a 2 cents an hour charge that either users or manufacturers > > of the software would have to come up with. " > > User will _not_ be charged under the proposed scheme. > > Rob, that is sophistry. > The current scheme charges content vendors when revenue is being > generated. This means someone is being charged for it. Either the > viewers (directly or indirectly) or the content vendors. > Either of these > can reasonably be termed 'users' of MPEG4. > From dcave salon.com Fri Mar 8 18:21:33 2002 From: dcave salon.com (Damien Cave) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:11 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Article in Salon.com In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187F15@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187F15@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: rob, i honestly don't think that salon's readers -- a pretty sophisticated bunch -- would be confused by this. i laid the groundwork simply at the start, then added the layers of complexity later. anyone who read the whole story will understand how the system works. and the point is just as you put it: "the consumer always pays." best, damien cave senior writer salon.com 415 645-9274 At 5:59 PM -0800 3/8/02, Rob Koenen wrote: >Kevin, > >Of course. In the end the consumer always pays for all the >cost of providing a service, including the profit that any >party stands to make. And yes, there are more users of >MPEG-4 than just the end-users (or consumers). > >It is important, however, to dispel the myth (and some people really >believe this) that the licensors or there representatives will collect >royalties directly from end-users. This was very much the >gist of the story Stop-Pay-Download. > >It is good to be concerned, but people should be aware of >the real situation and then be concerned on the basis of >that understanding, and not on the basis of myths and FUD. > >Thanks for your input, > >Rob > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kevin Marks [mailto:kmarks@apple.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 17:53 >> To: Rob Koenen >> Cc: Damien Cave (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) >> Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Article in Salon.com >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 02:53 PM, Rob Koenen wrote: >> > "a 2 cents an hour charge that either users or manufacturers >> > of the software would have to come up with. " >> > User will _not_ be charged under the proposed scheme. >> >> Rob, that is sophistry. >> The current scheme charges content vendors when revenue is being >> generated. This means someone is being charged for it. Either the >> viewers (directly or indirectly) or the content vendors. >> Either of these >> can reasonably be termed 'users' of MPEG4. >> -- From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Mar 8 18:13:51 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:12 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Article in Salon.com Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187F18@exchange.epr.com> Damien, > rob, i honestly don't think that salon's readers -- a pretty > sophisticated bunch -- would be confused by this. i laid the > groundwork simply at the start, then added the layers of complexity > later. anyone who read the whole story will understand how the system > works. > the reactions on the slashdot message board seems to suggest differently. Let me take the chance to correct myself though: >> This was very much the gist of the story Stop-Pay-Download. I really meant to say "this is very much the gist of the TITLE OF the story Stop - Pay Toll - Download." Best, Rob From mjacklin geneva-link.ch Sat Mar 9 03:31:34 2002 From: mjacklin geneva-link.ch (Martin Jacklin) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:12 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeez I wish I could download QT6. I hear there's a little problem with availability. I was thinking of available codecs, that don't explicitly conform. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Marks [mailto:kmarks@apple.com] > Sent: 09 March 2024 02:49 > To: mjacklin@geneva-link.ch > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > > On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 03:35 PM, Martin Jacklin wrote: > > > I might add: > > > > I heard the news that the Advanced Video Coding (AVC) group in DVB are > > talking about integrating JVT, which they call "MPEG-4 v3" into "ETSI > > TR 101 > > 154" - their main MPEG implementation guidelines document. This was > > said by > > Ken McCann of Zetacast (who is the chairman of that group) in Dublin on > > the > > 7th March. > > > > MPEG-4 offers more stable periodic and more massive codec upgrades, and > > stays open and doesn't bundle stuff you don't need, like DRM and > > proprietary > > codec revision cycles which you will later need to follow closely for > > it to > > work. With MPEG-4 you can take what you want. > > More than what? You didn't say what you are comparing too. > > QT fits your description above better than MPEG4 does at the moment. > QT movies from 10 years ago still play in current QT, but newer codecs > can be added and selectively downloaded. This is all shipping today. > > From shawn email.envivio.com Fri Mar 8 18:44:27 2002 From: shawn email.envivio.com (Shawn AMBWANI) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:12 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003501c1c714$783fe050$5fb0200a@sambwani> Martin, Why wait for Apple's QT 6 to be released when RealOne and Real 8 for the PC now has full ISMA MPEG-4 support as well as several advanced video and systems features not available in QT6. Regards, Shawn > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Martin Jacklin > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 6:32 PM > To: Kevin Marks > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > Jeez I wish I could download QT6. I hear there's a little > problem with availability. I was thinking of available > codecs, that don't explicitly conform. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Marks [mailto:kmarks@apple.com] > > Sent: 09 March 2024 02:49 > > To: mjacklin@geneva-link.ch > > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 03:35 PM, Martin Jacklin wrote: > > > > > I might add: > > > > > > I heard the news that the Advanced Video Coding (AVC) > group in DVB > > > are talking about integrating JVT, which they call > "MPEG-4 v3" into > > > "ETSI TR 101 154" - their main MPEG implementation guidelines > > > document. This was said by > > > Ken McCann of Zetacast (who is the chairman of that > group) in Dublin on > > > the > > > 7th March. > > > > > > MPEG-4 offers more stable periodic and more massive codec > upgrades, > > > and stays open and doesn't bundle stuff you don't need, > like DRM and > > > proprietary codec revision cycles which you will later need to > > > follow closely for it to > > > work. With MPEG-4 you can take what you want. > > > > More than what? You didn't say what you are comparing too. > > > > QT fits your description above better than MPEG4 does at > the moment. > > QT movies from 10 years ago still play in current QT, but > newer codecs > > can be added and selectively downloaded. This is all shipping today. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From mjacklin geneva-link.ch Sat Mar 9 04:03:34 2002 From: mjacklin geneva-link.ch (Martin Jacklin) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:12 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article - Codecs and Players potential end user perspective In-Reply-To: <003501c1c714$783fe050$5fb0200a@sambwani> Message-ID: Hi Shawn Argh sorry. You asked so now I'm starting to get into my individual user preferences and a whole other area than licensing I like and enjoy Real One. The video control is better than my integrated XP WM8 player (whose media management abilities are nicer) and of course it's for ram and rm files. I have as many players as I can find. Can you send me yours? I volunteer for beta testing it with Zone Alarm. Just personally, I trust QT, I have 5.0 not pro, but maybe I wanted QT 6 Pro with MPEG-4. I have not yet heard of any spyware capabilities in QT (yet), like the stories you find at www.gibsonresearch.com and elsewhere, nor do I think Apple has such motives. I may be wrong, also maybe I'm the only one who cares about my video privacy. I don't look forward to bathing in advertising and cookies. Times I guess I just feel MS has too many customers either to want to spy or to sell information on them. But I am often and easily wrong. I look forward to dissecting my discuss.lists.mpeg.org corpse tomorrow. (It's now 3.00 am) Good night. /\/\ In independent consultant, research mode... -----Original Message----- From: Shawn AMBWANI [mailto:shawn@email.envivio.com] Sent: 09 March 2024 03:44 To: mjacklin@geneva-link.ch Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Kevin Marks' Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Martin, Why wait for Apple's QT 6 to be released when RealOne and Real 8 for the PC now has full ISMA MPEG-4 support as well as several advanced video and systems features not available in QT6. Regards, Shawn > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Martin Jacklin > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 6:32 PM > To: Kevin Marks > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > Jeez I wish I could download QT6. I hear there's a little > problem with availability. I was thinking of available > codecs, that don't explicitly conform. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Marks [mailto:kmarks@apple.com] > > Sent: 09 March 2024 02:49 > > To: mjacklin@geneva-link.ch > > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 03:35 PM, Martin Jacklin wrote: > > > > > I might add: > > > > > > I heard the news that the Advanced Video Coding (AVC) > group in DVB > > > are talking about integrating JVT, which they call > "MPEG-4 v3" into > > > "ETSI TR 101 154" - their main MPEG implementation guidelines > > > document. This was said by > > > Ken McCann of Zetacast (who is the chairman of that > group) in Dublin on > > > the > > > 7th March. > > > > > > MPEG-4 offers more stable periodic and more massive codec > upgrades, > > > and stays open and doesn't bundle stuff you don't need, > like DRM and > > > proprietary codec revision cycles which you will later need to > > > follow closely for it to > > > work. With MPEG-4 you can take what you want. > > > > More than what? You didn't say what you are comparing too. > > > > QT fits your description above better than MPEG4 does at > the moment. > > QT movies from 10 years ago still play in current QT, but > newer codecs > > can be added and selectively downloaded. This is all shipping today. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From shawn email.envivio.com Fri Mar 8 19:09:27 2002 From: shawn email.envivio.com (Shawn AMBWANI) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:12 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article - Codecs and Players potential end user perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006101c1c717$fcecd800$5fb0200a@sambwani> Martin, There is no beta. It is in full release. You just have to try to open a .mp4 file with a Real Player for our plug in to be activated. s > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Jacklin [mailto:mjacklin@geneva-link.ch] > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 7:04 PM > To: shawn@email.envivio.com > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Kevin Marks' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon > article - Codecs and Players potential end user perspective > > > Hi Shawn > > Argh sorry. You asked so now I'm starting to get into my > individual user preferences and a whole other area than licensing > > I like and enjoy Real One. The video control is better than > my integrated XP WM8 player (whose media management abilities > are nicer) and of course it's for ram and rm files. I have as > many players as I can find. Can you send me yours? I > volunteer for beta testing it with Zone Alarm. > > Just personally, I trust QT, I have 5.0 not pro, but maybe I > wanted QT 6 Pro with MPEG-4. I have not yet heard of any > spyware capabilities in QT (yet), like the stories you find > at www.gibsonresearch.com and elsewhere, nor do I think Apple > has such motives. I may be wrong, also maybe I'm the only one > who cares about my video privacy. I don't look forward to > bathing in advertising and cookies. > > Times I guess I just feel MS has too many customers either to > want to spy or to sell information on them. But I am often > and easily wrong. I look forward to dissecting my > discuss.lists.mpeg.org corpse tomorrow. (It's now 3.00 am) > > Good night. > > /\/\ > In independent consultant, research mode... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn AMBWANI [mailto:shawn@email.envivio.com] > Sent: 09 March 2024 03:44 > To: mjacklin@geneva-link.ch > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Kevin Marks' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > Martin, > > Why wait for Apple's QT 6 to be released when RealOne and > Real 8 for the PC now has full ISMA MPEG-4 support as well as > several advanced video and systems features not available in QT6. > > Regards, > > Shawn > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Martin Jacklin > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 6:32 PM > > To: Kevin Marks > > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > > > > Jeez I wish I could download QT6. I hear there's a little > problem with > > availability. I was thinking of available codecs, that don't > > explicitly conform. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kevin Marks [mailto:kmarks@apple.com] > > > Sent: 09 March 2024 02:49 > > > To: mjacklin@geneva-link.ch > > > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 03:35 PM, Martin Jacklin wrote: > > > > > > > I might add: > > > > > > > > I heard the news that the Advanced Video Coding (AVC) > > group in DVB > > > > are talking about integrating JVT, which they call > > "MPEG-4 v3" into > > > > "ETSI TR 101 154" - their main MPEG implementation guidelines > > > > document. This was said by Ken McCann of Zetacast (who is the > > > > chairman of that > > group) in Dublin on > > > > the > > > > 7th March. > > > > > > > > MPEG-4 offers more stable periodic and more massive codec > > upgrades, > > > > and stays open and doesn't bundle stuff you don't need, > > like DRM and > > > > proprietary codec revision cycles which you will later need to > > > > follow closely for it to work. With MPEG-4 you can take > what you > > > > want. > > > > > > More than what? You didn't say what you are comparing too. > > > > > > QT fits your description above better than MPEG4 does at > > the moment. > > > QT movies from 10 years ago still play in current QT, but > > newer codecs > > > can be added and selectively downloaded. This is all > shipping today. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/disc> uss > > > > From craig pcube.com Fri Mar 8 23:29:31 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:12 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: <3C894923.655D84CE@dvd.panasonic.com> References: <3C894923.655D84CE@dvd.panasonic.com> Message-ID: >Tom McMahon wrote: > >> With the work of the JVT, MPEG-4 is going to do QUITE well in the video > > CODEC area. And Sanjay Kulkarni replied: >Yes, I think everyone is in agreement with that, but IMHO MPEGLA is trying >to get the technology advantages of the MPEG2/MP3 domain (along with its >business model) and trying to apply them to a whole new market (of Internet >Streaming) that has historically been dominated by "free" or "open-source >business model. > >I see this "per-stream-per-minute" charge justifiable for wireless mobile >industry (for e.g. I pay for every minute I watch a video on my cellphone) >but I still don't accept a per-minute charge for Internet streaming, >especially when I have other options. One can correctly claim that MPEG-4 visual surpasses MPEG-2 in coding quality.efficiency. And one can rightly claim that most of the interest in MPEG-4 - outside of those who understand the implications of the entire MPEG-4 coding model - has been centered on the video coding capabilities. Tom's comment only re-enforces this perception. MPEG-LA is focused on this reality. And the JVT is focused on this reality. The proposed usage fee is for the same kind of linear video streaming that is supported by MPEG-2. OK, maybe new applications and markets, but the focus is just on linear video streams. Linear video streams account for hundreds of billions in TV revenues worldwide each year - those who control these revenues rightly are interested in protecting them. It is perhaps ironic that when I started writing about video compression 1990, the major concerns were about quality. The battle cry of video professionals was that they would not allow the pristine quality of their product to be decimated by video compression. When it became obvious that compression was for real, that it might actually work, the focus was on minimum bit rate required for transparency. MPEG-2 could do the job, but only if given adequate headroom. By the time the second generation of MPEG-2 encoders were hitting the market, however, the focus had shifted, from quality to quantity. Rather than how many bits to I need for transparency, the focus became how few bits do I need to keep consumers from complaining. This was re-enforced by the reality that people were watching crappy "postage stamp" video via a 56K modem...millions of people. Rather than SDTV being threatened by HDTV, the battleground became the fertile ground between streaming video and TV. MPEG-4 video does not threaten MPEG-2 because the quality might be better. It is a threat because it challenges the traditional business models that support the massive business of delivering linear video programing to brain dead receivers/consumers. A 10% reduction in bandwidth for a given level of quality is enough to get program distributors excited. The ability to move from linear streaming to an advanced system for delivering digital media content, content that can be customized, localized, optimized for many devices, and navigated by the consumer is threatening to those who control and seek to protect the old business model. But that is just the beginning of the story. The handwriting is on the wall. Control of content and control of distribution are the profit centers of the future. The business of carriage is mundane and highly competitive - it's a steady business, but don't look for huge profit margins here. The business of selling hardware is mundane and highly competitive - huge volumes, razor thin margins. The home VCR was a disappointment; tiny margins on machines and blank tape. The major CE vendors watched others get rich off of packaged media. The money is in content and access to content. The CE industry has learned a thing or two about revenues AFTER the box is sold. Video games are a prime example - a huge chunk of Sony's profits come from the royalties on the sale of PS2 games. DVD was a breakthru product. MPEG-LA and the DVD Consortium figured out how to cash in on the box (traditional royalties), AND by creating ongoing revenue streams via royalties on the IP. Every DVD movie includes a usage fee. A small but humble start. Damian Cave came close to hitting the nail on the head in the Salon article. Unfortunatley he was not as aggressive as he could have been in pointing out the real issues that are in play here. The proposed usage fees are about control over an emerging medium. Several times this week I heard people ask how we have reached the point where it has become possible for the developers of a technology to place a tax on content. These things can happen when powerful industries act in concert to protect a highly profitable legacy. Internet streaming is NOT "a whole new market" as Sanjay suggests. It is a whole new business model. The "whole" of MPEG-4 is to this new business model what linear video/MPEG-2 is to the old dumb TV business model. Focusing on another linear video codec - JVT - misses the point. The effort that will be required to migrate to the new business model supported by MPEG-4 will be massive. For the technology to be a success, every penny in royalties on the IP should be plowed back into promotion of the standard. Something tells me that this is not what MPEG-LA has in mind. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From craig pcube.com Fri Mar 8 23:39:15 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:12 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article - Codecs and Players potential end user perspective In-Reply-To: <006101c1c717$fcecd800$5fb0200a@sambwani> References: <006101c1c717$fcecd800$5fb0200a@sambwani> Message-ID: At 7:09 PM -0800 3/8/02, Shawn AMBWANI wrote: >Martin, > >There is no beta. It is in full release. You just have to try to open >a .mp4 file with a Real Player for our plug in to be activated. And where do you find the .mp4 files? Real has announced support for MPEG-4 via your plug-in. But REAL support means offering .mp4 files for use with their player. They don't have any reason to use MP4 over their own proprietary solution. Given the current air of uncertainty, I would not expect to see a significant amount of MP4 content available in the near future. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Mar 8 21:40:12 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:12 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article - Codecs and Players potential end user perspective Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187F20@exchange.epr.com> Enough on WM(8) vs Real One vs QT. I don't want to lose list members over too many off-topic discussions. Please restrict the discussions to the topic of the list: non-technical things that affect the adotpion of MPEG-4. Interesting though these other discussions may be, there are enough lists out there to deal with them. Thanks much, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Jacklin [mailto:mjacklin@geneva-link.ch] > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 19:04 > To: shawn@email.envivio.com > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Kevin Marks' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article - > Codecs and Players potential end user perspective > > > Hi Shawn > > Argh sorry. You asked so now I'm starting to get into my > individual user > preferences and a whole other area than licensing > > I like and enjoy Real One. The video control is better than > my integrated XP > WM8 player (whose media management abilities are nicer) and > of course it's > for ram and rm files. I have as many players as I can find. > Can you send me > yours? I volunteer for beta testing it with Zone Alarm. > > Just personally, I trust QT, I have 5.0 not pro, but maybe I > wanted QT 6 Pro > with MPEG-4. I have not yet heard of any spyware capabilities > in QT (yet), > like the stories you find at www.gibsonresearch.com and > elsewhere, nor do I > think Apple has such motives. I may be wrong, also maybe I'm > the only one > who cares about my video privacy. I don't look forward to bathing in > advertising and cookies. > > Times I guess I just feel MS has too many customers either to > want to spy or > to sell information on them. But I am often and easily wrong. > I look forward > to dissecting my discuss.lists.mpeg.org corpse tomorrow. > (It's now 3.00 am) > > Good night. > > /\/\ > In independent consultant, research mode... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn AMBWANI [mailto:shawn@email.envivio.com] > Sent: 09 March 2024 03:44 > To: mjacklin@geneva-link.ch > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Kevin Marks' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > Martin, > > Why wait for Apple's QT 6 to be released when RealOne and > Real 8 for the > PC now has full ISMA MPEG-4 support as well as several advanced video > and systems features not available in QT6. > > Regards, > > Shawn > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Martin Jacklin > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 6:32 PM > > To: Kevin Marks > > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > > > > Jeez I wish I could download QT6. I hear there's a little > > problem with availability. I was thinking of available > > codecs, that don't explicitly conform. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kevin Marks [mailto:kmarks@apple.com] > > > Sent: 09 March 2024 02:49 > > > To: mjacklin@geneva-link.ch > > > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 03:35 PM, Martin Jacklin wrote: > > > > > > > I might add: > > > > > > > > I heard the news that the Advanced Video Coding (AVC) > > group in DVB > > > > are talking about integrating JVT, which they call > > "MPEG-4 v3" into > > > > "ETSI TR 101 154" - their main MPEG implementation guidelines > > > > document. This was said by > > > > Ken McCann of Zetacast (who is the chairman of that > > group) in Dublin on > > > > the > > > > 7th March. > > > > > > > > MPEG-4 offers more stable periodic and more massive codec > > upgrades, > > > > and stays open and doesn't bundle stuff you don't need, > > like DRM and > > > > proprietary codec revision cycles which you will later need to > > > > follow closely for it to > > > > work. With MPEG-4 you can take what you want. > > > > > > More than what? You didn't say what you are comparing too. > > > > > > QT fits your description above better than MPEG4 does at > > the moment. > > > QT movies from 10 years ago still play in current QT, but > > newer codecs > > > can be added and selectively downloaded. This is all > shipping today. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Sat Mar 9 11:13:21 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/HDM) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:12 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article - Codecsand Players potential end user perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005401c1c753$585a4b10$1e0487ca@rd.francetelecom.fr> Dear Craig, > And where do you find the .mp4 files? > > Real has announced support for MPEG-4 via your plug-in. But REAL > support means offering .mp4 files for use with their player. They > don't have any reason to use MP4 over their own proprietary solution. > > Given the current air of uncertainty, I would not expect to see a > significant amount of MP4 content available in the near future. At least the people who want to play MP4 files can play them on a popular software. The compliance to ISMA ensures true interoperability. And, toppings ! you can get a real feeling of what "true" MPEG-4 is with rich interaction. As far as I know, this is the more complete MPEG-4 2D player available on the market place and it supports rich graphics and scene description constructs. This can therefore really foster the deployment of MPEG-4 (Audio, Video and Systems). cu, O. From JMcClenny sandstream.com Sat Mar 9 16:01:23 2002 From: JMcClenny sandstream.com (=?utf-8?B?TWNDbGVubnksIEpvaG4gRG9j?=) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] =?utf-8?B?UkU6IFtNNElGIERpc2N1c3NdIFNsYXNoZG90IGRpc2N1c3Npb24g?= =?utf-8?B?b2YgU2Fsb24gYXJ0aWNsZQ==?= Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2024 11:17 PM To: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; Ben Waggoner; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article ": if people look at alternatives, there might not even be need for licensing terms and MPEG-LA. " I'd like to know what alternatives you are talking about. MPEG-4 is about, above all, interoperability. What truly interoperable alternatives are there? AFAIK, everything else is a proprietary solution. IMO, THIS point is what they don't get. If the proprietary solutions are cheaper and solve the content providers requirements, who cares if they are proprietary? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020309/c5b8f4c2/attachment.html From tlm demografx.com Sat Mar 9 09:42:43 2002 From: tlm demografx.com (Tom McMahon) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Message-ID: Sounds like the classic definition of willful commoditization by a Superpower. Does Windows Media step on IP inherent in MPEG-2 or MPEG-4? -----Original Message----- From: Jordan Greenhall [mailto:jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 10:02 AM To: 'Jeff Handy'; Jordan Greenhall; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Jeff, what I am saying is this: I am in front of customers every day. These are the customers who MPEG-LA wants to use MPEG-4. Network operators, content providers, consumer electronics manufacturers. Most of the largest such companies in the world. These customers *actually* and *definitively* consider Windows Media to be an alternative to MPEG-4. In fact, as microsoft will occasionally *pay* these customers to use Windows Media, rather than asking them to pay what can be a very large royalty, these customers are asking me why MPEG-4 is even a viable alternative to Windows Media. This is in every medium - High Definition DVD, Cable VOD, FTTH Broadcast, Wireless Broadcast, chipsets, you name it. And Windows Media is not alone. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Handy Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 9:12 AM To: Jordan Greenhall; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article Jordan, So are you saying that a codec is a replacement for an interoperable platform?? Are you also saying the MP3 is being used in DVD and satellite distribution? Further are you REALLY trying to say WiMP is an alternative to MPEG-4?? This is ludicrous. I give up on trying to be logical and objective ;-) I'm opting out of this discussion. Sorry. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020309/380fa676/attachment.html From mikael sevenier.com Sat Mar 9 09:57:31 2002 From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <033c01c1c793$e3d2d690$7000a8c0@manystreams.com> Dear Craig, All, > The money is in content and access to content. The CE industry has > learned a thing or two about revenues AFTER the box is sold. Video > games are a prime example - a huge chunk of Sony's profits come from > the royalties on the sale of PS2 games. DVD was a breakthru product. > MPEG-LA and the DVD Consortium figured out how to cash in on the box > (traditional royalties), AND by creating ongoing revenue streams via > royalties on the IP. Every DVD movie includes a usage fee. A small > but humble start. > > Damian Cave came close to hitting the nail on the head in the Salon > article. Unfortunatley he was not as aggressive as he could have been > in pointing out the real issues that are in play here. > > The proposed usage fees are about control over an emerging medium. > Several times this week I heard people ask how we have reached the > point where it has become possible for the developers of a > technology to place a tax on content. > > These things can happen when powerful industries act in concert to > protect a highly profitable legacy. > > Internet streaming is NOT "a whole new market" as Sanjay suggests. > > It is a whole new business model. > > The "whole" of MPEG-4 is to this new business model what linear > video/MPEG-2 is to the old dumb TV business model. > > Focusing on another linear video codec - JVT - misses the point. > > The effort that will be required to migrate to the new business model > supported by MPEG-4 will be massive. For the technology to be a > success, every penny in royalties on the IP should be plowed back > into promotion of the standard. Something tells me that this is not > what MPEG-LA has in mind. Thanks for this excellent analysis. Exactly, this is the point. IMHO, this is what MPEG-LA has completely missed. One thing that surprised me is that no content creator companies, no massive content production, no content distributor has been involved in the discussions. It's like making lots of technology available without consulting the prime users, but worse by restricting access to this technology. On the business side, if you restrict access to the technology as MPEG-LA did, content may not be created at a scale for massive adoption. No content, no adoption. And, in the internet era, content distribution business models are already well-known and have made some companies very successful, Macromedia come to my mind which equipped 75% of the web sites, lots of CD-ROM, some games and with the advent of Director 8.5 already has more than 20% of 3D market on the web (Macromedia numbers). The whole MPEG-4 competes just in this category. No wonder why so many MPEG-4 centric companies have written converters (incuding me) from Flash to MPEG-4! With such policy, MPEG-LA has just said to content creators: continue using Macromedia (and others) tools. Yes it's proprietary but who cares when you can distribute your contents freely, when thousands of people use your tools, when you have millions of players out there that can view your contents on virtually any platforms. In other words, when you have a business model where both content creators and companies using your tools find a win-win situation. To me, it looks like MPEG-LA had in mind to make patent holders win on everything, but by doing so, they may also loose everything. And for those of us who spent many years in MPEG-4 committee, what could be worse than to see this technology not deployed as envisioned or when markets MPEG-4 was targeted for are shrinking or even lost (remember NTT DoCoMo speech at M4IF last year)? Let's hope that MPEG-LA will come with reasonable terms soon, before it's too late. Best, Mike From craig pcube.com Tue Mar 12 10:20:15 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Internet Radio usage fees Message-ID: Copyright Arbitration Panel (CARP) announced royalty fees for Internet radio broadcasting Feb. 20. Recording Industry Assn. March 12, 2024 12:00am Source: Warren Publishing PUBLIC BROADCASTING REPORT via NewsEdge Corporation : Copyright Arbitration Panel (CARP) announced royalty fees for Internet radio broadcasting Feb. 20. Recording Industry Assn. of America (RIAA) said fees could have been higher for artists, but still were 10 times proposals by Webcasters. "It is apparent to us, as it was to the panel, that Webcasters and broadcasters of every size will be able to afford these rates and build business on the Internet," RIAA Pres. Hilary Rosen said: "We would have preferred a higher rate. But in setting a rate that is about 10 times that proposed by the Webcasters, the panel clearly concluded that the Webcasters' proposal was unreasonably low and not credible." Although the rates were released, a copy of the decision won't be available for several days due to "confidentiality issues," RIAA said. The decision said that for Webcasters and commercial broadcasters: (1) The fee for simultaneous Internet retransmissions of over-air AM or FM radio broadcasts would be a $0.0007 per performance and the ephemeral license fee would be 9% of performance fees. (2) All other Internet transmissions would have a $0.0014 fee and a 9% ephemeral license fee for all performance fees. For noncommercial broadcasters: (1) The fee for simultaneous Internet retransmissions of over-air AM or FM broadcasts would be $0.0002 per performance and an ephemeral license fee of 9% of performance fees due. (2) Other transmissions, including up to 2 side channels of programming consistent with the public broadcasting mission of the station, would be have a $0.0005 fee per performance and an ephemeral license fee of 9% of performance fees. (3) Transmission on any other side channels would carry a $0.0014 performance fee. For business establishment services, digital broadcast transmissions of sound recordings would have a fee of 10% of gross proceeds. There is a minimum fee of $500 per year for each licensee. << Copyright ?2002 Warren Publishing >> -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Mar 12 12:49:51 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] The Discussions So Far... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187FD3@exchange.epr.com> People, First details about Visual licensing were announced 5 weeks ago, and we have seen many responses, many of which with a concerned tone of voice. It is good to see where we stand. MPEG standards are developed with contributors agreeing in writing to license any essential patents on Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms and conditions (RAND). Most of the discussions on licensing on this list have concentrated on whether the tentatively announced terms are indeed reasonable. There seems to be general consensus that, in order for MPEG-4 to succeed, the licensing scheme: 1) Must be reasonable, for *all* markets, applications and services to which MPEG-4 provides an solution; 2) Must allow solutions to be built that are competitive to proprietary solutions in the same market. There are 2 elements to the license: 1) The encoder and decoder fee of 25 cents. Most people think this is acceptable, although some people favor free decoders and more fees on the encoder. 2) The use fee of USD 0.02 per hour (actually calculated per minute). The use fee is controversial, and there is much debate over how this works out in various circumstances. If we accept that 2 cts is reasonable for MPEG-4 Visual Simple and Core Profiles, then we must accept that a similar use fee is reasonable for * The other MPEG-4 natural video profiles (?) * Synthetic MPEG-4 visual tools * MPEG-4 Natural Audio * MPEG-4 Speech coding * MPEG-4 Systems * MPEG-4 DMIF (* and perhaps further non-MPEG-4 technologies encumbered by patents) In other words, in assessing how reasonable 2 cents per hours are under various circumstances, we need to assume that the use fee for a complete MPEG-4 System is a multiple of 2 cents per hour. Below are the main application areas of MPEG-4, with an assessment of how the fees may work out, derived from the discussions so far. (please add if you see more...) A. Person-to-person communication. No use fee; just the encoder/decoder fee. Most parties seem to think this is reasonable, certainly in hardware implementations. B. Personal content for which there is no remuneration. There is no use-fee, and again the encoder/decoder fees are within the realm of what pro versions of players/rippers are being sold for. C. Individual on-line access to content for which there is remuneration. The use fee applies, and applies every time the content is accessed. If the content is of high value, and the price too, the use fee is low relative to the remuneration. There are concerns about accounting. D. Media play-back where remuneration is indirect, e.g. ad-supported, sales-generating, for courseware, etc. Depending on the exact business model, the use fee seems to be able to become a real burden, and many concerns have been raised. Note well that this is the dominant usage on the Internet. Whatever technology is to become a standard for on-line usage, must support this business model. E. Subscription content. This one sits between C and D. F. On-media distribution. There is a one-time decoder fee per play medium and a one-time content use-fee, no matter how often the content is played. It is very similar to the current DVD MPEG-2 royalty. There doesn't seem to be contention, although in highly interactive multimedia content it will be impossible to constitute what the play time is. G. One-to-many distribution, such as in webcasts or classical broadcasts. Not much has been announced, but there is some fear that the use-fee will be calculated as follows: actual viewers x hours x 2 cts according to some statistic on how many viewers there are. There are concerns about the competitiveness of this scheme, and about accounting, see below. In general, there are also concerns about the viability of keeping track for all potential uses. Not all broadcasts come with statistics, certainly not the smaller ones. Also, it is unclear what will happen if service providers (e.g. Content Distribution Networks) facilitate file distribution, without them being aware or even wanting to be aware of what is being distributed and in which format. They could well be participating in the distribution of MP4 files, perhaps even zipped (although that make fairly little sense, but that is irrelevant), and if I understand correctly, be 'eligible' to pay use fees if there is remuneration. This situation, in which a party that does *not* employ any MPEG-4 technology is required to pay, may create problems that people will want to avoid. Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of time to resolve the issues. Technology choices are being made today, and company plans for adding or dropping MPEG-4 support are being modified right now. I want to dispel the myth that there is plenty of time to resolve the issues. There may be in some markets, but surely there isn't in most. There especially isn't in the market that should lead MPEG-4's adoption, the interoperable streaming media arena. I look forward to continuing a focused discussion; one that hopefully bears a real impact on what is finally agreed between the licensors as organized in the patent pool and the community of potential licensees. I would also like to extend an invitation to the licensors and their representatives to keep the world informed about their thinking. this is crucial if we want to stay with the facts, to counter the FUD and to allow informed decisions to be made by potential users. Kind Regards, Rob Koenen President, M4IF From retiarius earthlink.net Wed Mar 13 08:20:04 2002 From: retiarius earthlink.net (retiarius laboratories) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Canadian recordable media levy Message-ID: <20020313002004.11927.qmail@earthlink.net> Proposed for up to $21/GB for MP3 player storage, ($2.27 for DVD-R media) this makes MP4 use fees look tame. Acknowledging that comparisons are apples-to-oranges (media vs. content), it nonetheless provides perspective. See Slashdot for active discussion, or http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032002-b.pdf for the source. The tariff is hiked from an existing $0.21 for CD-R/RW ($0.77 for CD-R audio) -- figures are in Canadian dollars. -- From rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM Thu Mar 14 09:09:54 2002 From: rsaintjohn LIGOS.COM (Robert Saint John) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ Message-ID: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B506C@SF-MAIL.ligos> Well, this is just getting downright silly. As if the issues at hand weren't complicated enough, On2 has decided to try to disrupt the entire MPEG effort by calling in our (United States) beloved DoJ.... -------------------- On2 Technologies Sends Letter to Department of Justice Questioning Legality of MPEG LA NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 14, 2002--On2 Technologies Inc., The Duck Corporation, the industry leader in video compression technology, has petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate the validity of MPEG LA, as it relates to the promotion of MPEG-4 as a video standard, and the patent pooling of other MPEG technologies. (more) http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020314/140113_1.html Robert -- Robert W. Saint John - rsaintjohn@ligos.com Director of Technical Marketing Ligos Corporation - http://www.ligos.com/ From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Mar 14 09:53:53 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918803E@exchange.epr.com> An interesting development. If the fees are indeed unreasonable as On2 states, then the feared effect of creating a monopoly will not occur, because the market will choose alternatives. There are many alternatives available, including On2. If MPEG-4 does indeed come to dominate the market, it will mean that the fees are reasonable because the market chooses to use MPEG-4 and pay the patent fees in all freedom. Note that MPEGLA sells licenses non-exclusively. Staying with the facts, On2 is wrong in: * stating that "MPEG-2 is not really a standard but one of many forms of video compression technology" (MPEG-2 is also known as ISO/IEC 13818 and ITU standards H.262 and H.222 respectively - is those are not standards then ISO, IEC and ITU had better call it quits now). * stating that MPEG-4 is owned by MPEG LA ("In January of 2002, MPEG LA announced a licensing structure for its newest digital compression technology MPEG-4"). MPEG-4 is also an international standard (ISO/IEC 14496), created by many more parties than just the license holders; * the license is final -- it is far from final. Conclusions are drawn from unknown and unannounced facts, notably when broadcast is concerned. On2 objects against a patent pool. We all understand that requiring licensees to deal with 18+ individual patent holders (as On2 suggests) will not result in a faster process, and it is not likely to yield more reasonable license arrangements. Nobody will risk implementing the standard in that case. Draw your own conclusions. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Saint John [mailto:rsaintjohn@ligos.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 9:10 > To: M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ > > > Well, this is just getting downright silly. As if the issues > at hand weren't > complicated enough, On2 has decided to try to disrupt the > entire MPEG effort > by calling in our (United States) beloved DoJ.... > > -------------------- > On2 Technologies Sends Letter to Department of Justice > Questioning Legality > of MPEG LA > > NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 14, 2002--On2 Technologies > Inc., The Duck > Corporation, the industry leader in video compression technology, has > petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate the > validity of MPEG LA, > as it relates to the promotion of MPEG-4 as a video standard, > and the patent > pooling of other MPEG technologies. > > (more) > > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020314/140113_1.html > > > Robert > -- > Robert W. Saint John - rsaintjohn@ligos.com > Director of Technical Marketing > Ligos Corporation - http://www.ligos.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From grl iis.fhg.de Fri Mar 15 06:06:43 2002 From: grl iis.fhg.de (Bernhard Grill) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ References: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B506C@SF-MAIL.ligos> Message-ID: <3C918163.8040508@iis.fhg.de> Robert Saint John wrote: > Well, this is just getting downright silly. As if the issues at hand weren't > complicated enough, On2 has decided to try to disrupt the entire MPEG effort > by calling in our (United States) beloved DoJ.... I'd call it an interesting PR gag. On2 and other companies are using the current MPEG-4 licensing discussion to gain publicity for their propriatory products. Rob's answers are quite correct. Let's hope the professionals in this business don't get distracted and recognize it for what this really is. Bernhard > > -------------------- > On2 Technologies Sends Letter to Department of Justice Questioning Legality > of MPEG LA > > NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 14, 2002--On2 Technologies Inc., The Duck > Corporation, the industry leader in video compression technology, has > petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate the validity of MPEG LA, > as it relates to the promotion of MPEG-4 as a video standard, and the patent > pooling of other MPEG technologies. > > (more) > > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020314/140113_1.html > > > Robert -- Dr. Bernhard Grill email: grl@iis.fhg.de Head of Audio Department, FhG-IIS A phone: +49 9131 776-351 Am Weichselgarten 3, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany FAX: +49 9131 776-398 From tlm demografx.com Thu Mar 14 21:18:10 2002 From: tlm demografx.com (Tom McMahon) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ Message-ID: Doesn't this just wash out if one were to come out and assert their IP position? -----Original Message----- From: Bernhard Grill [mailto:grl@iis.fhg.de] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 9:07 PM To: Robert Saint John Cc: M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ Robert Saint John wrote: > Well, this is just getting downright silly. As if the issues at hand > weren't complicated enough, On2 has decided to try to disrupt the > entire MPEG effort by calling in our (United States) beloved DoJ.... I'd call it an interesting PR gag. On2 and other companies are using the current MPEG-4 licensing discussion to gain publicity for their propriatory products. Rob's answers are quite correct. Let's hope the professionals in this business don't get distracted and recognize it for what this really is. Bernhard > > -------------------- > On2 Technologies Sends Letter to Department of Justice Questioning > Legality of MPEG LA > > NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 14, 2002--On2 Technologies Inc., The > Duck Corporation, the industry leader in video compression technology, > has petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate the validity > of MPEG LA, as it relates to the promotion of MPEG-4 as a video > standard, and the patent pooling of other MPEG technologies. > > (more) > > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020314/140113_1.html > > > Robert -- Dr. Bernhard Grill email: grl@iis.fhg.de Head of Audio Department, FhG-IIS A phone: +49 9131 776-351 Am Weichselgarten 3, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany FAX: +49 9131 776-398 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From sm dicas.de Fri Mar 15 06:16:28 2002 From: sm dicas.de (Moeritz, Sebastian) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:13 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ References: Message-ID: <003701c1cbe8$f2dff7e0$93c87ad5@oemcomputer> Well -- let's put it this way, I would not interpret too much into all these third-party efforts that are made up to disrupt MPEG-4 etc. They will not succeed anyway. Plus, please do not forget -- it seems that it is the "non MPEG-4" community that always causes "trouble", not the other way around. I wonder why ... 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. Kind regards. Sebastian Moeritz CEO, dicas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom McMahon" To: "Bernhard Grill" ; "Robert Saint John" Cc: "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 5:18 AM Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ > Doesn't this just wash out if one were to come out and assert their IP > position? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bernhard Grill [mailto:grl@iis.fhg.de] > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 9:07 PM > To: Robert Saint John > Cc: M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ > > > Robert Saint John wrote: > > Well, this is just getting downright silly. As if the issues at hand > > weren't complicated enough, On2 has decided to try to disrupt the > > entire MPEG effort by calling in our (United States) beloved DoJ.... > > I'd call it an interesting PR gag. On2 and other companies are using the > current > MPEG-4 licensing discussion to gain publicity for their propriatory > products. Rob's answers are quite correct. Let's hope the professionals > in this business > don't get distracted and recognize it for what this really is. > > Bernhard > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > On2 Technologies Sends Letter to Department of Justice Questioning > > Legality of MPEG LA > > > > NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 14, 2002--On2 Technologies Inc., The > > Duck Corporation, the industry leader in video compression technology, > > > has petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate the validity > > of MPEG LA, as it relates to the promotion of MPEG-4 as a video > > standard, and the patent pooling of other MPEG technologies. > > > > (more) > > > > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020314/140113_1.html > > > > > > Robert > > > > -- > Dr. Bernhard Grill email: > grl@iis.fhg.de > Head of Audio Department, FhG-IIS A phone: +49 9131 > 776-351 > Am Weichselgarten 3, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany FAX: +49 9131 > 776-398 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 craig pcube.com Fri Mar 15 08:26:51 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:14 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ In-Reply-To: <3C918163.8040508@iis.fhg.de> References: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B506C@SF-MAIL.ligos> <3C918163.8040508@iis.fhg.de> Message-ID: At 6:06 AM +0100 3/15/02, Bernhard Grill wrote: >Robert Saint John wrote: >>Well, this is just getting downright silly. As if the issues at hand weren't >>complicated enough, On2 has decided to try to disrupt the entire MPEG effort >>by calling in our (United States) beloved DoJ.... > >I'd call it an interesting PR gag. On2 and other companies are using >the current MPEG-4 licensing discussion to gain publicity for their >propriatory products. >Rob's answers are quite correct. Let's hope the professionals in >this business don't get distracted and recognize it for what this >really is. On the surface, I tend to agree with Rob and others, that ON2 is using this as an opportunity to score some PR points. There is, however, another way to look at this. This could be an attempt to see who comes out of the woodwork to support the position that the companies who control the IPR in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 have colluded to control the markets for digital video compression, and acted as an illegal trust, under the veil of the MPEG standardization process. Clearly, these 18 companies could not have collaborated to control the migration of video from analog to digital under U.S. Law, without the mantle of credibility that ISO and MPEG bring to the table. It is less clear whether the kinds of consumer electronics "industrial policy" we have seen in Japan and Europe are illegal, or in fact government sanctioned competitive advantage. What is clear is that the MPEG process was used to entrench a great deal of NEW IP related to the coding of digital video. The fact that MPEG-2 has been a marketplace success probably has more to do with the fact that the "CE trust" already controlled virtually every aspect of video acquisition, processing and consumer premises equipment. The fact that these companies worked together in MPEG to control the emerging field of digital video coding is neither surprising, nor is it illegal. But the use of the IPR that dominates MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 visual to control the future evolution of the markets for video distribution is quite another matter. Frankly, I think that ON2 may find some traction with their letter to the DOJ, especially if others step forward to question the tactics of MPEG-LA. Washington loves to get in the middle of these kinds of problems...it is highly profitable for the politicians, as we are seeing right now with the debate about a government mandate for a copy protection system in virtually every digital media appliance. It is not difficult to draw the lines between MPEG-LA's attempt to tax the distribution of content, and all of the other power grabs that are taking place as we migrate to a new digital distribution infrastructure. Everyone wants to gain perfect control over the flow of bits, so that they can create perpetual cash flows from their copyrights and patents. But this view of the future is being challenged by the Open Standards community that has grown in prominence thanks to the Personal Computer and Internet revolutions. This cannot be ignored, as the debate has now moved full square into the MPEG process as evidenced by the discussions about royalty free implementations of 26L and other MPEG development efforts. Sebastian Moeritz wrote: >Well -- let's put it this way, I would not interpret too much into all these >third-party efforts that are made up to disrupt MPEG-4 etc. They will not >succeed anyway. Plus, please do not forget -- it seems that it is the "non >MPEG-4" community that always causes "trouble", not the other way around. I >wonder why ... I find this position to be rather out of touch. I do not view the world outside of MPEG as a bunch of trouble makers. Instead, I see entrepreneurs who are taking up a very different approach to the evolution of technology. An approach that is much more horizontal, closer to both the consumers and the producers of new ideas. An approach that has proven that vast wealth can be created by managing the evolution of open standards, rather than controlling the evolution of industries via captive standards organizations that act to protect entrenched legacies. Strong words, but I believe they are accurate. I am preparing to go to Las Vegas to view the slow death of the video industry. An industry that is being strangled to death by the desire of entrenched interests to maintain control of a lucrative franchise. An industry that is suffering from a self-imposed depression, because the ability to innovate is being thwarted. ON2 may be trying to spin the MPEG-4 situation to gain some free PR, but the issues they are raising do resonate with the larger issues we face in trying to migrate to a new digital media infrastructure. Sebastian expresses an optimistic view: >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. But I do not share the optimism. Clearly those who have invested heavily in MPEG-4 believe that their work deserves the opportunity to flourish in the marketplace. It is equally clear to me that the companies that control the key IPR in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 have a different set of interests. They have successfully used the MPEG-2 process to protect a valuable television franchise. And they seek to profit from and control new forms of digital media that may eventually diminish the value of that franchise. I do believe that some of these companies want MPEG-4 to succeed, but only so that they can tax the flow of content via ALL digital networks. I do not expect them to make the investments in MPEG-4 that will be required for it to succeed; they believe they have the power (and the IP) to impose their vision of the future. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From singer apple.com Fri Mar 15 08:59:43 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:14 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ In-Reply-To: <003701c1cbe8$f2dff7e0$93c87ad5@oemcomputer> References: <003701c1cbe8$f2dff7e0$93c87ad5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: At 06:16 +0000 3/15/02, Moeritz, Sebastian wrote: >Well -- let's put it this way, I would not interpret too much into all these >third-party efforts that are made up to disrupt MPEG-4 etc. They will not >succeed anyway. Plus, please do not forget -- it seems that it is the "non >MPEG-4" community that always causes "trouble", not the other way around. I >wonder why ... > >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. > >Kind regards. > >Sebastian Moeritz >CEO, dicas These are, of course, my personal opinions. I think you are exhibiting greater trust and optimism than may be warranted. It seems that there are aspects of the proposed terms which indicate that the licensors do not understand what they are selling. In particular, they seem under the mistaken impression that MPEG-4 will be used for 'dedicated channel' purposes where the use and packaged content fees can be readily calculated (e.g. DVB or DVD). However, MPEG-4 is intended for mixed use environments where the simple policing and calculation of those fees alone is onerous, irrespective of their magnitude. They also seem to feel that there are no alternatives, but this is not the case. On2's statements may be clumsy and mistaken, but they are at liberty to offer, for example, more acceptable licensing terms to industry consortia who simply replace the MPEG-4 video codec with theirs. There are other vendors in a similar position. There are also other standards -- the H.26x series obviously springs to mind. Others have pointed out that there is an apparent conflict of interest for at least one of the patent holders, who could have a plausible reason for not wanting open multi-vendor network-based media to become too successful. I don't need to re-hash these here. Yes, many companies have a substantial investment behind MPEG-4 already. However, they are all prudent enough not to 'throw good money after bad' i.e. to realize that they may have made a mistake and not invest more simply because of their past investment. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Fri Mar 15 10:22:54 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:14 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC7721ECAA8@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117E35@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> All, unfortunately, this isn't just straight non-sense. I was on a panel before the DOJ where the anti-competitive nature of MPEG-4 was raised. The chief concern was the interplay between patents and pools. A patent pool is at extreme risk of anti-trust and anti-competitive behaviour (can you imagine a Joint Venture between the 18 patent holders passing regulatory approval?). The market benefit of patent pools in an IP landscape that can be described as a "patent thicket" has justified their existence. But, their actions are subject to very close scrutiny - if there is any evidence that the pool is using its market power to extract even the smallest bit of premium . . . The recent license terms announcement (particularly the use fees) does raise some serious concerns. Not only is the fee novel, but the potential fees associated with MPEG-4 in certain circumstances could exceed those associated with MPEG-2 by a great deal. Compare this to previous standards such as H.261 and MP3, and the DOJ might see MPEG-4 as an unfair revenue generation effort by 18 multinationals attempting to avoid anti-trust legislation through the vehicle of a patent pool. J -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 5:27 AM To: Bernhard Grill; Robert Saint John Cc: M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ At 6:06 AM +0100 3/15/02, Bernhard Grill wrote: >Robert Saint John wrote: >>Well, this is just getting downright silly. As if the issues at hand >>weren't complicated enough, On2 has decided to try to disrupt the >>entire MPEG effort by calling in our (United States) beloved DoJ.... > >I'd call it an interesting PR gag. On2 and other companies are using >the current MPEG-4 licensing discussion to gain publicity for their >propriatory products. >Rob's answers are quite correct. Let's hope the professionals in >this business don't get distracted and recognize it for what this >really is. On the surface, I tend to agree with Rob and others, that ON2 is using this as an opportunity to score some PR points. There is, however, another way to look at this. This could be an attempt to see who comes out of the woodwork to support the position that the companies who control the IPR in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 have colluded to control the markets for digital video compression, and acted as an illegal trust, under the veil of the MPEG standardization process. Clearly, these 18 companies could not have collaborated to control the migration of video from analog to digital under U.S. Law, without the mantle of credibility that ISO and MPEG bring to the table. It is less clear whether the kinds of consumer electronics "industrial policy" we have seen in Japan and Europe are illegal, or in fact government sanctioned competitive advantage. What is clear is that the MPEG process was used to entrench a great deal of NEW IP related to the coding of digital video. The fact that MPEG-2 has been a marketplace success probably has more to do with the fact that the "CE trust" already controlled virtually every aspect of video acquisition, processing and consumer premises equipment. The fact that these companies worked together in MPEG to control the emerging field of digital video coding is neither surprising, nor is it illegal. But the use of the IPR that dominates MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 visual to control the future evolution of the markets for video distribution is quite another matter. Frankly, I think that ON2 may find some traction with their letter to the DOJ, especially if others step forward to question the tactics of MPEG-LA. Washington loves to get in the middle of these kinds of problems...it is highly profitable for the politicians, as we are seeing right now with the debate about a government mandate for a copy protection system in virtually every digital media appliance. It is not difficult to draw the lines between MPEG-LA's attempt to tax the distribution of content, and all of the other power grabs that are taking place as we migrate to a new digital distribution infrastructure. Everyone wants to gain perfect control over the flow of bits, so that they can create perpetual cash flows from their copyrights and patents. But this view of the future is being challenged by the Open Standards community that has grown in prominence thanks to the Personal Computer and Internet revolutions. This cannot be ignored, as the debate has now moved full square into the MPEG process as evidenced by the discussions about royalty free implementations of 26L and other MPEG development efforts. Sebastian Moeritz wrote: >Well -- let's put it this way, I would not interpret too much into all >these third-party efforts that are made up to disrupt MPEG-4 etc. They >will not succeed anyway. Plus, please do not forget -- it seems that it >is the "non MPEG-4" community that always causes "trouble", not the >other way around. I wonder why ... I find this position to be rather out of touch. I do not view the world outside of MPEG as a bunch of trouble makers. Instead, I see entrepreneurs who are taking up a very different approach to the evolution of technology. An approach that is much more horizontal, closer to both the consumers and the producers of new ideas. An approach that has proven that vast wealth can be created by managing the evolution of open standards, rather than controlling the evolution of industries via captive standards organizations that act to protect entrenched legacies. Strong words, but I believe they are accurate. I am preparing to go to Las Vegas to view the slow death of the video industry. An industry that is being strangled to death by the desire of entrenched interests to maintain control of a lucrative franchise. An industry that is suffering from a self-imposed depression, because the ability to innovate is being thwarted. ON2 may be trying to spin the MPEG-4 situation to gain some free PR, but the issues they are raising do resonate with the larger issues we face in trying to migrate to a new digital media infrastructure. Sebastian expresses an optimistic view: >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. But I do not share the optimism. Clearly those who have invested heavily in MPEG-4 believe that their work deserves the opportunity to flourish in the marketplace. It is equally clear to me that the companies that control the key IPR in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 have a different set of interests. They have successfully used the MPEG-2 process to protect a valuable television franchise. And they seek to profit from and control new forms of digital media that may eventually diminish the value of that franchise. I do believe that some of these companies want MPEG-4 to succeed, but only so that they can tax the flow of content via ALL digital networks. I do not expect them to make the investments in MPEG-4 that will be required for it to succeed; they believe they have the power (and the IP) to impose their vision of the future. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From MTayer aerocast.com Fri Mar 15 10:51:30 2002 From: MTayer aerocast.com (Marc Tayer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:14 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ Message-ID: As a (former) active participant in the MPEG-2 standardization process, as well as in the effort to form the MPEG-2 IPR group (which led to MPEG-LA) I can assure you that in that process, every attempt was made to structure the licensing in a way that would not run afoul of antitrust laws, inside and outside the U.S. Close coordination occurrred every step of the way with the relative governmental entities, such as the antitrust division of the U.S. Justice Dept. In that case, the feedback was generally positive, in that the MPEG-2 patent pool was viewed as pro-competitive, fair and reasonable, and as a good and even necessary way of resolving a very difficult problem, i.e., an "open" standard containing many essential patents owned by multiple companies. Imagine if MPEG-LA didn't exist for MPEG-2: companies practicing the MPEG-2 standard (companies making encoders, DVDs, DVD players, digital set-tops, etc.) would have been forced to go to over a dozen companies and negotiate an individual license with each company. The aggregate royalty would have almost certainly been much higher than the MPEG-LA royalty, causing a major impediment to market growth. Of course every situation is somewhat unique, and the use fee proposal is certainly a twist, but I assume MPEG-LA is proactively coordinating with lawyers and with the gov't powers that be, just as we did with MPEG-2. My guess is the use fee notion will be more of an issue with media companies than with legal authorities, although the devil is in the details and time will tell. Ultimately I'm confident MPEG-4 will prevail. There is too much interest for (nearly) all interested parties for it not to succeed. And of course there will be spoilers along the way with transparent and vested interests. -----Original Message----- From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig@pcube.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 5:27 AM To: Bernhard Grill; Robert Saint John Cc: M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ At 6:06 AM +0100 3/15/02, Bernhard Grill wrote: >Robert Saint John wrote: >>Well, this is just getting downright silly. As if the issues at hand weren't >>complicated enough, On2 has decided to try to disrupt the entire MPEG effort >>by calling in our (United States) beloved DoJ.... > >I'd call it an interesting PR gag. On2 and other companies are using >the current MPEG-4 licensing discussion to gain publicity for their >propriatory products. >Rob's answers are quite correct. Let's hope the professionals in >this business don't get distracted and recognize it for what this >really is. On the surface, I tend to agree with Rob and others, that ON2 is using this as an opportunity to score some PR points. There is, however, another way to look at this. This could be an attempt to see who comes out of the woodwork to support the position that the companies who control the IPR in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 have colluded to control the markets for digital video compression, and acted as an illegal trust, under the veil of the MPEG standardization process. Clearly, these 18 companies could not have collaborated to control the migration of video from analog to digital under U.S. Law, without the mantle of credibility that ISO and MPEG bring to the table. It is less clear whether the kinds of consumer electronics "industrial policy" we have seen in Japan and Europe are illegal, or in fact government sanctioned competitive advantage. What is clear is that the MPEG process was used to entrench a great deal of NEW IP related to the coding of digital video. The fact that MPEG-2 has been a marketplace success probably has more to do with the fact that the "CE trust" already controlled virtually every aspect of video acquisition, processing and consumer premises equipment. The fact that these companies worked together in MPEG to control the emerging field of digital video coding is neither surprising, nor is it illegal. But the use of the IPR that dominates MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 visual to control the future evolution of the markets for video distribution is quite another matter. Frankly, I think that ON2 may find some traction with their letter to the DOJ, especially if others step forward to question the tactics of MPEG-LA. Washington loves to get in the middle of these kinds of problems...it is highly profitable for the politicians, as we are seeing right now with the debate about a government mandate for a copy protection system in virtually every digital media appliance. It is not difficult to draw the lines between MPEG-LA's attempt to tax the distribution of content, and all of the other power grabs that are taking place as we migrate to a new digital distribution infrastructure. Everyone wants to gain perfect control over the flow of bits, so that they can create perpetual cash flows from their copyrights and patents. But this view of the future is being challenged by the Open Standards community that has grown in prominence thanks to the Personal Computer and Internet revolutions. This cannot be ignored, as the debate has now moved full square into the MPEG process as evidenced by the discussions about royalty free implementations of 26L and other MPEG development efforts. Sebastian Moeritz wrote: >Well -- let's put it this way, I would not interpret too much into all these >third-party efforts that are made up to disrupt MPEG-4 etc. They will not >succeed anyway. Plus, please do not forget -- it seems that it is the "non >MPEG-4" community that always causes "trouble", not the other way around. I >wonder why ... I find this position to be rather out of touch. I do not view the world outside of MPEG as a bunch of trouble makers. Instead, I see entrepreneurs who are taking up a very different approach to the evolution of technology. An approach that is much more horizontal, closer to both the consumers and the producers of new ideas. An approach that has proven that vast wealth can be created by managing the evolution of open standards, rather than controlling the evolution of industries via captive standards organizations that act to protect entrenched legacies. Strong words, but I believe they are accurate. I am preparing to go to Las Vegas to view the slow death of the video industry. An industry that is being strangled to death by the desire of entrenched interests to maintain control of a lucrative franchise. An industry that is suffering from a self-imposed depression, because the ability to innovate is being thwarted. ON2 may be trying to spin the MPEG-4 situation to gain some free PR, but the issues they are raising do resonate with the larger issues we face in trying to migrate to a new digital media infrastructure. Sebastian expresses an optimistic view: >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. But I do not share the optimism. Clearly those who have invested heavily in MPEG-4 believe that their work deserves the opportunity to flourish in the marketplace. It is equally clear to me that the companies that control the key IPR in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 have a different set of interests. They have successfully used the MPEG-2 process to protect a valuable television franchise. And they seek to profit from and control new forms of digital media that may eventually diminish the value of that franchise. I do believe that some of these companies want MPEG-4 to succeed, but only so that they can tax the flow of content via ALL digital networks. I do not expect them to make the investments in MPEG-4 that will be required for it to succeed; they believe they have the power (and the IP) to impose their vision of the future. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Mon Mar 18 13:28:31 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:14 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative From craig pcube.com Mon Mar 18 10:56:51 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:14 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-2, MPEG-4 Patent License Pools Questioned Message-ID: Please do not re-distribute the following story from Warren Publishing. They are very sensitive about IPR issues. I am posting the story here because of the relevance to these discussions. Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs MPEG-2, MPEG-4 Patent License Pools Questioned March 18, 2024 12:00am Source: Warren Publishing WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY via NewsEdge Corporation : The Justice Dept. should withdraw its approval of the patent- sharing pool for the MPEG-2 video compression system because MPEG LA is abusing its patent licensing for the MPEG-4 compression system for streaming video over the Internet, On2 Technologies said in a letter to the DoJ. Douglas McIntyre, CEO of the N.Y.- based codec maker, said in the letter that the MPEG patent licensing group was using its market power to impose an "unprecedented" per-min. licensing fee for use of MPEG-4. The Justice Dept. had no immediate comment, but Garrard Beeney, an attorney for MPEG LA, said McIntyre was "clearly wrong on the facts and the law" because there was no connection between the 2 pools. Justice should rescind its 1997 antitrust review letter for the MPEG-2 licensing pool and compel MPEG LA participants to act as individual entities in MPEG licensing, McIntyre said. MPEG-2 includes all the major patents for video compression used for DTV, DBS, DVD and other digital video transmissions. McIntyre said the patents covered at least 95% of market for digital video. The follow-on MPEG-4 pool includes the patents of 18 companies for compression of streaming video, although other firms such as RealNetworks have competing technologies. MPEG LA is "attempting to use [MPEG-2] monopoly to ram unreasonable fees down the throats of consumers and businesses that use the Internet or Internet-related protocols for the delivery of video," McIntyre said. However, MPEG LA officials said there was no connection between the MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 patent pools, and the letter showed no links, such as offering packaged access to patents. The MPEG-4 license fee structure announced in Jan. has a lower fee per coder or decoder, but includes a fee amounting to about 2 cents per hour for each video stream transmitted over the Internet. The fee would be paid by the entities that disseminated MPEG-4 video, and some content providers have criticized the need for record-keeping. McIntyre said Justice Dept. guidelines required that the patent pool provide some benefit to the market in order to be approved: "The only constituency that the MPEG LA patent pool appears to be benefiting is MPEG LA." However, Beeney said the letter reflected "a complete misunderstanding of the government rationale for approving the patent pool." Denver-based MPEG LA hasn't decided whether to seek a Justice Dept. letter approving the MPEG-4 licensing pool, Beeney said. The decision, which is likely in May, will be based on whether the terms and conditions of MPEG-4 pool are so similar to that of the MPEG-2 pool and 2 other MPEG LA pools that there's no need for a separate approval, he said. Although the terms and conditions may be similar, Beeney said there was less similarity between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 than might be expected in the intellectual property that's being pooled. Only some of the licensors are the same, he said. -- Michael Feazel << Copyright ?2002 Warren Publishing >> From singer apple.com Mon Mar 18 09:18:06 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:14 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 13:28 +0100 3/18/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: >Hi Dave, all, > > > They also seem to feel that there are no alternatives, but this is >> not the case. On2's statements may be clumsy and mistaken, but they >> are at liberty to offer, for example, more acceptable licensing terms >> to industry consortia who simply replace the MPEG-4 video codec with >> theirs. There are other vendors in a similar position. There are >> also other standards -- the H.26x series obviously springs to mind. > >On2 is not capable of guaranteing that their codec is IPR free and >IPR exist on the H.26L baseline. These "solutions" are therefore >confronted with the same pb. as MPEG-4. On2 is amalgaming Open >Source and Royalty free solutions to get more PR points. H.26L is a >fair attempt to provide a Royalty free standard but in its current >shape it is unable to guarantee success. > Nobody, not even the MPEG-4 visual patent holders, can guarantee success; they are as vulnerable as anyone else to 'submarine' patents. Anyone using any technology, licensed or not, risks a patent popping up from nowhere. The degree of risk may differ, of course -- depending on many factors, including the diligence of the customer and licensors. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Mon Mar 18 10:12:49 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:14 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC7721ECB58@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772115525@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Query. If this is the case, how have Microsoft and Real managed to get away with free "proprietary" solutions for so long? A logical guarantee is not necessary, all that is necessary is practical success in licensing a proprietary solution. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:29 AM To: Dave Singer; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail); Larry Horn Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ Hi Dave, all, > They also seem to feel that there are no alternatives, but this is > not the case. On2's statements may be clumsy and mistaken, but they > are at liberty to offer, for example, more acceptable licensing terms > to industry consortia who simply replace the MPEG-4 video codec with > theirs. There are other vendors in a similar position. There are > also other standards -- the H.26x series obviously springs to mind. On2 is not capable of guaranteing that their codec is IPR free and IPR exist on the H.26L baseline. These "solutions" are therefore confronted with the same pb. as MPEG-4. On2 is amalgaming Open Source and Royalty free solutions to get more PR points. H.26L is a fair attempt to provide a Royalty free standard but in its current shape it is unable to guarantee success. cu, O. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020318/2097be46/attachment.html From craig pcube.com Mon Mar 18 14:42:38 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:14 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772115525@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> References: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772115525@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: At 10:12 AM -0800 3/18/02, Jordan Greenhall wrote: >Query. If this is the case, how have Microsoft and Real managed to >get away with free "proprietary" solutions for so long? A logical >guarantee is not necessary, all that is necessary is practical >success in licensing a proprietary solution. Just a few observations. To date, the quality of streaming media has not been much of a threat to traditional analog and digital distribution networks using NTSC, PAL and MPEG-2. And many of the techniques used in MPEG-2 are not workable at the lower bitrates used for streaming today. The ability to track usage has been limited by the nature of how the streams have been served in the past. There have been several developments that make a usage fee more practical and/or attractive to MPEG-LA: 1. The emergence of services that host streaming media such as Akamai Digital Island, et al. The business model for these services is a volume based pricing model dependant on usage levels. 2. The emergence of fee based subscription models for streaming audio and video. For example the Real One Super Pass, which provides access to streaming media content for $9.95/mo. 3. The growing number of businesses and homes with broadband connections. 4. The growing interest from cable and DBS in the use of MPEG-4 because of it's improved compression efficiency and the advanced services enabled by MPEG-4. I would point out that the MP3 licensing program was finalized only after the technology had become widely used on the Internet. It is often the case with IPR battles that the string on the trap is not pulled until the prey is living comfortably in the trap. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Tue Mar 19 12:16:05 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:15 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative From craig pcube.com Tue Mar 19 10:45:14 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:15 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Royalties Center Stage Again: MPEG-LA Sets Tentative Rates For MPEG-4 In Tough Times Message-ID: Royalties Center Stage Again: MPEG-LA Sets Tentative Rates For MPEG-4 In Tough Times Story Filed: Monday, March 18, 2024 6:35 PM EST Mar 18, 2024 (DVD Report/PBI Media via COMTEX) -- MPEG-LA, the licensing pool for the 18 participants in the MPEG data compression technology, has announced its anticipated license fees for the forthcoming MPEG-4 format. MPEG-4 is aimed primarily at online and wireless multimedia applications; however, it will have interaction with recordable DVD formats as those increasingly become the resident formats for downloaded entertainment data. It also has applications for prerecorded replicated DVD discs. Manufacturers of software programs that incorporate MPEG-4 would be required to pay 25 cents for each copy they sell, up to a cap of $1 million per year. But most specific to the streaming world, MPEG-LA also has proposed a "use fee" of 2 cents an hour. DVD replicators can expect the same fee to be applied to each hour of prerecorded material put onto discs. The new MPEG patent royalty rates come at an interesting juncture in the hot-button royalty imbroglio. Basic underlying patents held by Sony and Philips on the CD continue to expire, underscoring to patent holders the need to exploit patents as comprehensively as possible as media formats are threatened by both theft by piracy and by being bypassed by downloads, both legitimate and otherwise. At the same time, independent DVD replicators have become more vocal than ever about the burden royalties have become as margins on disc prices shrink, and about the ledger-book legerdemain they contend takes place with replication operations owned in part or in full by patent participants, in which the portion of royalties owed to plant owners are "washed" off the selling price. Complaints from replication trade organizations such as Swiss-based iODRA, and increasingly from recordable media duplicators, over 30 of which have banded together under the Australian-based Independent Disc Duplicators Association (IDDA), have put opposing pressure on patent holders. Though the patent holders have publicly maintained that they will remain relentless in their pursuit to sign media manufacturers to binding royalty contracts, the organizations' tactics appear to be paying off. Last year, MPEG-LA halved the 4-cent rate for its MPEG-2 format. More recently, both patent pool 6C and Philips Licensing Systems offered 90-day windows on the equivalent of rate sales. 6C cut its rate by a third, from 7.5 cents per disc to 5 cents, for replicators who agreed to sign a royalty agreement. Philips offered similar terms on its patents. Masahisa Saito, manager, DVD licensing office, Matsushita Electric Corp. of Americas, said that the 5-cent royalty would remain in effect for the term of the license. Additionally, discs manufactured by signatories during all of 2001 would be licensed retroactively at 6 cents; discs manufactured prior to Dec. 31, 2000 would be charged at the original 7.5-cent royalty rate. For manufacturers that do not sign a licensing agreement with 6C during the rate reduction period, the rate would remain at 7.5 cents per disc. However, Saito said that discs made after Jan. 1, 2002 would be charged at 6.5 cents per disc. Compounding the issue, Matsushita Electric, one of the 6C members, filed lawsuits against both Cinram and Sonopress in January, alleging infringement of its five DVD patents. Subsequent to the announced rate cut offer, 6C announced that it had settled with Cinram, which signed a license in March. Sonopress has also reportedly settled along similar lines. However, Matsushita will continue to press forward with its lawsuits against both companies. Jim Reilly, spokesman for Matsushita subsidiary Panasonic, confirmed this but could not comment on why in light of the announced resolutions with each. This makes for a muddled landscape onto which MPEG-LA will roll out the newest set of license terms for a major media compression format since the turn of the century. Larry Horn, vice president of licensing and business development for MPEG-LA, is aware that the ground is less than easy to read at the moment. Reflecting MPEG-LA's position as the first patent pool to agree to a rate reduction, Horn couched the organization's position as a business one, rather than adopting the principled, morality-tinged tone taken thus far by companies such as Philips, or the cut-and-dried view expressed by mainly Japanese patent participants, which see the royalties as simply a quid pro quo for risking capital on the R&D which developed the formats in the first place. As Horn put it, "At the end of the day, MPEG-LA is in the business of marketing a license. If this technology goes totally unused, the patent holders lose out. We have an incentive to get it right. "We're not holding a referendum," he continued, "but we do realize that give and take is necessary in this matter." Horn stopped short of calling the new license terms preliminary, but did leave the door open to reaction, in part by stating that the terms are not expected to be finalized until late spring. The first responses from companies with big stakes in online data movement -- the main thrust for MPEG-4 -- were not positive: Apple Computer made its feelings clear several weeks ago when the company announced it would delay the release of its newest version of its media player QuickTime, which uses MPEG-4 technology, to protest the royalty terms. And unlike in the arena of physical media, there are already several serious challengers to MPEG's compression hegemony for online applications, including Xiph's Tarkin video codec, and On2's VP series of codecs, all of which are open-sourced. Thus, the roll-out of MPEG-4's licensing terms comes at a pivotal time. Pragmatism is vying with principle in the media marketplace. While he declined to address the case directly, Jeffrey Kessler, partner in the Manhattan offices of the firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Matsushita's lead attorney in the Cinram/Sonopress suit, did acknowledge that Matsushita has in the past negotiated licenses with individual replicators, and suggested that the patent royalty rates have varied from case to case. "I can't comment on specific rates," he said. "But the royalty rate is presumably part of the overall negotiation process." It's likely that the entire patent royalty issue will be less cut and dried than it has been in the past. DVD Report, Vol. 7, No. 6 By Dan Daley Copyright 2002 PBI Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Copyright ? 2002, Phillips Publishing International, all rights reserved. From craig pcube.com Tue Mar 19 10:36:42 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:15 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] News: Web Sites Face Dilemma After Terror Message-ID: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1014732596730915280,00.html?mod=technology%5Ffeatured%5Fstories%5Fhs WSJ subscription required: NEW MEDIA Web Sites Face Dilemma After Terror, War Boosted Popularity of Video Clips CNN, Other Sites Look to Subscription Plans As Way to Cut Usage, Better Recoup Costs By STEPHANIE MILES THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE Online news clips are going pay-per-view. Earlier this month, AOL Time Warner Inc.'s CNN Interactive unit said it plans to begin charging for access to its streaming video, making it the most high-profile site yet to make such a move. Already, ABCNews.com and FoxSports.com are charging subscription fees for much of their video, and other big sites may soon follow suit. While Web sites have been reluctant to charge for news articles, many now see charging for video as a no-brainer. "Streaming video that is not subscription-based is a stupid idea," says Bernard Gershon, senior vice president and general manager of ABCNews.com, a unit of Walt Disney Co.'s Disney Internet Group. This shift comes in the face of unprecedented interest in online video, due largely to the Sept. 11 terror attacks and fighting overseas. This success, while proving online video's value as a news source, has also laid bare the troubling economics of piping video over the Internet. Put simply, sites generally lose money on every piece of free video served to users, meaning the more popular a video clip is, the more money they lose. And vice versa. "I think what's driving this is not some survey somebody found that said people are willing to pay for this," says Paul Grabowicz, coordinator of the New Media Program at the University of California at Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism. "What I think is driving it, is that [video] is incredibly costly to do," he says. None of the sites contacted for this article would discuss specific costs of streaming media. But industry watchers say that offering audio and video clips on a large site can easily run between $1 million and $2 million a year. Introduce a major news event, and costs can skyrocket: The recent boom has been a bust in disguise, forcing sites to cut further costs, seek partners or otherwise rejigger their strategies. MSNBC.com's experience is typical. The site, a joint venture of General Electric Co.'s NBC division and Microsoft Corp., served 73 million video streams in September alone, exceeding previous months "by a factor of ten," according to editor-in-chief Merrill Brown. Since September, the site has shouldered $1 million in additional expenses associated with hosting high-bandwidth videos, according to Mr. Brown. MSNBC.com laid off 9% of its 200 person staff in December, although Mr. Brown blames the layoffs on the lingering advertising recession rather than rising costs. This shift comes an Web users are increasingly using the Net to get video -- both at work, when they don't have easy access to a television, and as a way to replay clips they've seen elsewhere. (CNN's most-watched clips: footage of the second plane hitting the south World Trade Center tower, footage of the first plane hitting the north tower, and another angle of the second plane hitting the south tower.) Many sites now have prominent links to video on their front pages, and treat video as a more integral part of the site -- rather than a flashy extra. 'Milestone Event' September 11 was a "milestone event for online video news," says Mark Stencel, vice president for multimedia at Washington Post/Newsweek Interactive, a unit of Washington Post Co. The site served more than 12,000 hours of video that day, even though most of the clips available were only a few minutes long. "A globally significant story was breaking in the middle of a work day when people didn't have access to a television," Mr. Stencel says. "People wanted to see what was happening, not just read about it." On Sept. 11, Washingtonpost.com dispatched staffers to the Pentagon -- which is visible from the company's Arlington, Va., offices -- to get live footage of the wreckage. While news producers shuttled footage of the disaster back from the Pentagon on bicycle, the site swung its roof-top Webcam -- usually used for July 4 fireworks on the Mall -- ninety degrees to the south to broadcast live reports. Mr. Stencel says the live footage drew viewers to the video clips on the newspaper's site. "It was that moment," when users began to turn to the Web for video as well as text reports, he says. Record audiences didn't translate into more revenue, however. Many sites don't run advertisements in their video clips, though they often run traditional Web ads on pages accompanying them. Sites that do run ads in video clips have had limited success. For instance, spots similar to interactive television commercials appear on MSNBC.com's video clips, and the site can charge more for these ads then typical banner ads, according to Mr. Brown. (He doesn't disclose how much the site receives for these ads.) But even with the ads, fancy multimedia features like streaming video and audio don't yet pay for themselves, he concedes. MSNBC is exploring the possibility of charging for access to its video library. "We are, in concert with the people at [Microsoft unit] MSN, moving aggressively to come up with a subscription video strategy, which we think is definitely important." Other sites are already making that leap. ABCNews.com, for instance, in February canceled its agreement to provide streaming video and news reports to Yahoo Inc., explaining that the terms of the agreement were no longer "satisfactory." The companies declined to comment on the specifics of the partnership. Instead, ABCNews.com has pursued partnerships with traditional phone and high-speed Internet provider BellSouth Corp. and software maker RealNetworks Inc., more attractive arrangements which provide streaming audio and video content on a subscription basis. Although ABCNews.com does include free repackaged video clips from its nightly news with Peter Jennings, and other news programs, the site's Mr. Gershon says that hooking up with partners like RealNetworks -- which handles the payment and streaming from its end -- is the only smart way to make money showing video. Established User Base Scott Ehrlich, RealNetworks' vice president of programming, says that the subscription model lets content providers "increase revenue and decrease costs at the same time." CNN viewers will be able to pay $4.95 a month or $39.95 a year to access video directly through CNN's Web site. Or they can see the clips through RealNetworks' RealOne SuperPass, a $9.95 a month service, which also includes video from ABCNews.com, FoxSports.com and others, as well as audio from The Wall Street Journal Online and other providers. RealNetworks says that RealOne is a "turnkey solution" for content providers, meaning that the company takes care of e-commerce infrastructure, including authentication and security, customer service, a delivery platform in its RealPlayer, and an established base of 500,000 paying subscribers across various services. Other sites are exploring subscription options as well. Terra Lycos SA, which already charges for some areas of its portal Web site, is planning to introduce premium video and multimedia offerings for its broadband users, according to Mark Stoeber, vice president of media for Terra Lycos. Washingtonpost.com, which shows video clips of daily news as well as more in-depth packages devoted to specific events like Sept. 11 or regional political conventions, says it is mulling over making some of its video content pay-per-view. The Post's Mr. Stencel says the site is exploring the idea of charging for access, but no subscription plan is imminent. The site is also looking at opportunities for advertising in video streams as well. "You don't want to be in a position where success kills you," he says. Challenges for News Sites But sites face an uphill battle getting Internet users to pay for access to anything. Only a handful of large publications -- including The Wall Street Journal Online, Consumer Reports and the Financial Times -- currently charge or plan to charge for their text content. So far, there's been little evidence that the situation will be any different when it comes to paying for streaming media. More people are watching video online than ever before: In January, 54.7% of the overall Internet audience were accessing streaming video and audio at work, according to research firm Nielsen/NetRatings, up from 50.9% the year before. But a separate survey released Monday by Jupiter Media Metrix found that only 42% of online adults expect people over time to pay for content on the Internet -- down from 45% when the question was asked in August 2000. One major test for video came last year, when 115,000 baseball fans paid $9.95 at MLB.com (www.mlb.com) to listen to a season's worth of games. Patrick Keane, an analyst at research firm Jupiter, calls the numbers unimpressive, but blames slow rollouts of high-speed connections, which make multimedia streaming more practical and boost quality. Until at least 20% of Internet users have high-speed connections, video use online won't reach "a critical mass," he says. Last year, 9% of U.S. households with Internet access had high-speed connections, according to Jupiter, which projects that broadband connections will make up 40% of online access by 2006. In the meantime, he says, if MLB failed to find a critical mass -- with loyal fans and exclusive content -- it's unlikely that news sites will do much better charging for content that is widely available elsewhere. A spokesman for MLB.com counters that because the subscription service was introduced midway into last year's season, the numbers don't accurately reflect total demand for the product. In fact, the operation is rolling out a variety of new subscription offerings this season in anticipation of increased interest in premium products. Mitch Gelman, senior vice president and executive producer at CNN.com, acknowledges that people accustomed to free video will have to make adjustments. "It will at first be a transition [users] will have to make," he says, but necessary to keep up the level of service. He said it reflects a shift toward a cable-television model, where users are shown advertising but also pay a fee. Moreover, the phenomenon of Sept. 11 may not translate into increased long-term demand for streaming video of daily news. People who watched video of terrorist attacks and overseas bombings aren't necessarily going to watch more-mundane events -- much less pay for it. In the absence of any real numbers or track record, "All the major news organizations are experimenting and exploring," says the Post's Mr. Stencel. "Anybody who pretends to know what they're doing -- well, it's very early radio." -- Nick Wingfield contributed to this article. Write to Stephanie Miles at stephanie.miles@wsj.com Updated March 19, 2024 12:48 a.m. EST From i.g.richardson rgu.ac.uk Thu Mar 21 08:55:30 2002 From: i.g.richardson rgu.ac.uk (Iain Richardson (ensigr)) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:15 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPR Message-ID: <9B4C0CE0F5BE4E4F83226707BFA0D1B464CE84@EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk> I had a look at the source code for On2's VP3 codec : at a first glance it seems to be similar to MP4 Simple Profile, i.e. based on DCT with half-pixel motion estimation, 4 MVs per macroblock, etc. Given that we are told that Simple Profile is covered by the MP4 patent pool, I would think that the VP3 may also be open to patent claims. Any comments ? At 13:28 +0100 3/18/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: >Hi Dave, all, > > > They also seem to feel that there are no alternatives, but this is >> not the case. On2's statements may be clumsy and mistaken, but they >> are at liberty to offer, for example, more acceptable licensing terms >> to industry consortia who simply replace the MPEG-4 video codec with >> theirs. There are other vendors in a similar position. There are >> also other standards -- the H.26x series obviously springs to mind. > >On2 is not capable of guaranteing that their codec is IPR free and >IPR exist on the H.26L baseline. These "solutions" are therefore >confronted with the same pb. as MPEG-4. On2 is amalgaming Open >Source and Royalty free solutions to get more PR points. H.26L is a >fair attempt to provide a Royalty free standard but in its current >shape it is unable to guarantee success. > --- Dr Iain E G Richardson Lecturer and Researcher School of Engineering, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK Tel +44 1224 262403; Fax +44 1224 262444 i.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk From khuber sorenson.com Thu Mar 21 09:56:01 2002 From: khuber sorenson.com (Kris Huber) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:15 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] IEEE Spectrum Article Message-ID: <70A238C106788B49A1B7B46C050DEDFE228DB1@pandora.sorenson.com> There is a short article in the "Speakout" section of the IEEE Spectrum magazine. As an engineer who has been involved in MPEG to a limited extent, and now seeing M4IF encourage the licensing terms to get established and clarified, I thought it interesting to take a step back and look at this standardization/licensing situation, and this is the first article I've noticed on the subject. S. J. Frank, "Can you patent an industry standard?", IEEE Spectrum, Mar. 2002, pp. 14-15. The author is with Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault LLP. A link to the article is http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/spectrum/mar02/departments/speak.html but it is only available in the members-only portion of the site. Many university libaries subscribe to this magazine, however, as well as all members of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Best regards, Kris Huber P.S. Here is a brief summary for those who may not be able to access it or who prefer an abbreviated version: "The standards-setting process is 'open', but that does not mean 'free'. Increasingly, standards writers are patenting their contributions and charging adopters." For years contributions encumbered by patents were rejected by standards bodies as a matter of policy. The rules have loosened in recent years to avoid foregoing the best technology. Conditions under which standards bodies today accept patented contributions are typically that they "disclose relevant patents or patent applications before their technology is considered, and must agree to grant licenses on a nondiscriminatory basis and on reasonable terms." "Companies that deviate from these guidelines may face the wrath of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has treated violations as unfair competition." An example is discussed about Dell Computer, who was a member of VESA who created the VESA local bus for accelerated graphics access ('486 days). After the design was widely adopted, Dell "contacted various VESA members and told them that by using the VL-bus standard, they were infringing a Dell patent." To settle the resulting FTC complaint Dell agreed not to enforce that patent, and "also agreed to be prohibited from enforcing any of its patent rights intentionally withheld from any standards-setting organization in which it participated in the future. Various reporting requirements assist the FTC in ensuring Dell's compliance." In addition to FTC proceedings, private lawsuits are possible. "Enforcing a patent witheld from a standards body against adopters of the standard can qualify as patent misuse or, depending upon the circumstances, constitute an antitrust violation." The author then discusses the difficulty in defining what it means to license on terms that are "reasonable" and "nondiscriminatory." One difficulty of those wishing to adopt a standard is how to know whether they are being treated fairly. A seemingly fixed figure like a percentage can be a "slippery" amount. A difficulty is defining "percentage of what"? Patent holders may want the percentage to apply to a whole product while an adopter may view it as a percentage of the value they perceive to be added to a product by adoption of the standard. Also, large-quantity discounts in the IP terms can give advantage to larger firms. Such volume discounts are usually upheld as legitimate as long as they are offered to everyone. An initial one-time fee for the license is also often upheld, even though it can sometimes be much higher than the administrative costs that justify its stated existence would require. The size of the issue fee may also vary depending upon the identity of the adopter, as "the licensor is not obliged to divulge the criteria it applies." "Another license term patent owners seek is a grantback, meaning the right to use technology created by licensees." This can disadvantage the adopter compared to the licensor. "An economist might have little sympathy for companies that feel they are paying too much (or giving too much away) in order to implement an industry standard. After all, if enough of the industry feels that way, the standard will simply wither and die. But this view assumes perfect information," and it is that information that is most lacking according to the author. Standards-setting processes are "transparent" (i.e., "see-through", allowing one to understand) when it comes to technical criteria and mostly transparent on the fact that relevant proprietary rights exist, "but the process is essentially 'opaque' to licensing of those rights." The author's conclusion is that this results in industry players having to "make decisions in total strategic darkness." A company may feel forced to adopt, whatever the terms. Because of confidentiality, the licensor "can keep the blinders on everyone by refusing to discuss how its license provisions vary among adopters. In the end, the realities of standards adoption may undermine the economic logic of the market. Ignorance is bliss--if you own the patent." The author believes the solution is for standards bodies to deal with license terms as thoroughly as they deal with technical merit of contributions. "Participants holding (or intending to develop) proprietary rights in the standard should be required, at the earliest possible stage, to submit a detailed licensing proposal. The proposal would essentially be a form license, circulated to standards participants and accessible to the public at large. Should rights-holding participants envision terms that may vary across the industry, let them say so and explain the basis. Then let industry judge the standard by financial as well as technical criteria, before the snowball effect" of widespread adoption occurs and forces acceptance of the standard at almost any cost. From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Fri Mar 22 15:55:01 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:15 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPR Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative From singer apple.com Fri Mar 22 18:18:38 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:15 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPR In-Reply-To: <9B4C0CE0F5BE4E4F83226707BFA0D1B464CE84@EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk> References: <9B4C0CE0F5BE4E4F83226707BFA0D1B464CE84@EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk> Message-ID: At 8:55 AM +0000 3/21/02, Iain Richardson (ensigr) wrote: >I had a look at the source code for On2's VP3 codec : at a first glance >it seems to be similar to MP4 Simple Profile, i.e. based on DCT with >half-pixel motion estimation, 4 MVs per macroblock, etc. Given that we >are told that Simple Profile is covered by the MP4 patent pool, I would >think that the VP3 may also be open to patent claims. Any comments ? Without a schedule of patents, one really cannot tell. However, there does seem to be a class of video codecs (e.g. the ITU series) which have either less entanglement or at least have avoided law-suits so far, and the ITU (as previously noted) does attempt to scan for applicable patents. > >At 13:28 +0100 3/18/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: >>Hi Dave, all, >> >> > They also seem to feel that there are no alternatives, but this is >>> not the case. On2's statements may be clumsy and mistaken, but they >>> are at liberty to offer, for example, more acceptable licensing >terms >>> to industry consortia who simply replace the MPEG-4 video codec with >>> theirs. There are other vendors in a similar position. There are >>> also other standards -- the H.26x series obviously springs to mind. >> >>On2 is not capable of guaranteing that their codec is IPR free and >>IPR exist on the H.26L baseline. These "solutions" are therefore >>confronted with the same pb. as MPEG-4. On2 is amalgaming Open >>Source and Royalty free solutions to get more PR points. H.26L is a >>fair attempt to provide a Royalty free standard but in its current > >shape it is unable to guarantee success. >> -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Fri Mar 22 18:37:42 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RE: [M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPROliver, You'd be truly amazed how much 1980s technology STILL works and is useful for video-compression (speaking as someone that just loves to troll around the UCLA Engineering Library stacks for fun :-) Think of it this way - there were techniques developed for research-situations back in the 70s and 80s that needed very special-purpose hardware in those days... things that today can be done on a simple microprocessor in software... don't give "1982 video compression technology" the short shrift so quickly :-) Granted - most technologies (unless military) weren't talking 0.10bpp back then - but, really - wouldn't you be just as happy with a 0.3bpp that gave you good quality and could be encoded and decoded (today) in software :-) ++Bill wjf@NetworkXXIII.com -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPR People have been working in the area of video coding for decades. So, unless one wants to use state-of-the-art compression technology of 1982 for his products, he will have to deal with patents. Kind regards, Olivier -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020322/c5f41108/attachment.html From craig pcube.com Sat Mar 23 10:30:46 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:37 PM -0800 3/22/02, William J. Fulco wrote: >Oliver, > >You'd be truly amazed how much 1980s technology STILL works and is >useful for video-compression (speaking as someone that just loves to >troll around the UCLA Engineering Library stacks for fun :-) Think >of it this way - there were techniques developed for >research-situations back in the 70s and 80s that needed very >special-purpose hardware in those days... things that today can be >done on a simple microprocessor in software... don't give "1982 >video compression technology" the short shrift so quickly :-) >Granted - most technologies (unless military) weren't talking >0.10bpp back then - but, really - wouldn't you be just as happy with >a 0.3bpp that gave you good quality and could be encoded and decoded >(today) in software :-) > Excellent point Bill. Personally, I have not seen much in the MPEG-2 patent pool that is all that revolutionary. The majority of the significant IP is related to the coding of interlace, which is something that we would all be better of without. Most of the rest is incremental improvements in motion compensated prediction, created in large measure to re-establish IP developed in the '70s and early '80s that would soon enter the public domain. This looks like an effort to entrench the interests of the18 companies that made a massive investment in the MPEG-2 process, and have since used that standard to proliferate an SDTV paradigm around the world that protects their investments in interlace and "601." -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Sun Mar 24 10:59:52 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Craig, >>At 6:37 PM -0800 3/22/02, William J. Fulco wrote: >>You'd be truly amazed how much 1980s technology STILL works and is >>useful for video-compression >>[SNIP] >>don't give "1982 >>video compression technology" the short shrift so quickly :-) > At 7:31 AM -0800 3/23/02, Craig Birkmaier wrote: > Excellent point Bill. > > This looks like an effort to entrench the > interests of the18 companies that made a massive investment in the > MPEG-2 process, and have since used that standard to proliferate an > SDTV paradigm around the world that protects their investments in > interlace and "601." I don't know if the reason is quite so nefarious! MUCH of what is developed in this business is done in (often willing) ignorance of prior-art. From my reading - there was for instance - a lot of work done in compression and imaging by NASA and it's contractors (clearly bandwidth from deep-space probes needs to be minimized) - that could _ARGUABLY_ "submarine" some/most/all of the patents in today's video-compression fray - but really, no one really cares. There is (was) a world full of grad-students that think this stuff up, write their thesis, publish some work and then go get jobs in the "real world" (back then that meant going to work for the cold-war defense biz often) - leaving their cool little thingies forgotten in the stacks of university libraries. Having been on several standards committees myself, all the actual work gets done by just a couple of very smart people while everyone else is there to mostly "keep tabs" on what's going on and to protect their firm's interests. However, there is SO MUCH intellectual property in the last 50 years of video-compression research that it is impossible for these very few smart-people to either keep up to date (or out-of-date :-) with what some grad-student published while an intern at JPL.... or even what NBC/Sarnoff Labs was doodling with 40 years ago to compress The NBC Nightly News to fit on a couple of T1-Lines from NYC to LA... Granted, if someone wanted to nuke the current patents with prior-art, it would be big fight - and there's really nothing by it for MPEG-2 - however, MPEG-4 with it's current licensing structure being like MPEG-2 while it's application being far different - that's another matter. Lucky (or no) that the container can deal with multiple solutions to this problem :-) ++Bill wjf@NetworkXXIII.com From jeffh bisk.com Tue Mar 26 14:05:14 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 at NAB Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937634C@mail.corp.bisk.com> Does anyone have a list of companies showing off MPEG-4 wares at NAB? Looking through the system they have on the NAB site takes a while since MPEG-4 isn't a category. I see the heavy hitters. However, I'd also like to know about the smaller and less known companies that are hard at work developing authoring and encoding tools. Jeff Handy - Senior 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 Peter.Haighton m4if.org Tue Mar 26 14:16:36 2002 From: Peter.Haighton m4if.org (Peter Haighton) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 at NAB In-Reply-To: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937634C@mail.corp.bisk.com> Message-ID: Jeff, The M4IF will be putting up a web page shortly listing the member companies who will be showing their products. Included will be a description of each display. Peter -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Jeff Handy Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 2:05 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 at NAB Does anyone have a list of companies showing off MPEG-4 wares at NAB? Looking through the system they have on the NAB site takes a while since MPEG-4 isn't a category. I see the heavy hitters. However, I'd also like to know about the smaller and less known companies that are hard at work developing authoring and encoding tools. Jeff Handy - Senior 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 From MPeters mpegla.com Fri Mar 29 10:42:05 2002 From: MPeters mpegla.com (Michelle Peters) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:16 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Press Release Message-ID: <8DDF6652F243A7419BC9BA168417EDDC02EF2D@oxford.mpegla.com> Larry Horn wanted to make sure that you received a copy of the attached press release, issued yesterday on Business Wire. Thank you. Michelle Peters Assistant to the Vice President, Licensing 250 Steele Street Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80206 303 331.1880 FAX 303 331.1879 NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release CONTACT: Lawrence Horn MPEG LA, LLC 1.301.986.6660 1.301.986.8575 Fax lhorn@mpegla.com Statement Concerning MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License (Denver, Colorado, US - 28 March 2024) - MPEG LA, LLC today issued the following statement regarding the status of the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License: On January 31, 2002, MPEG LA announced that it will offer fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to patents (owned by 18 companies) that are essential to the MPEG-4 Visual (Simple and Core) digital compression standard under a single license to be known as the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License and provided an initial overview of the proposed license terms. The actual license agreement is still in development, however, and all terms are subject to change. MPEG LA is pleased by the intense interest in MPEG-4 Visual technology demonstrated by the market in response to the January 31 announcement. We have heard from and responded to many people, and want to thank all of them for taking the time to share their views with us. MPEG LA, the MPEG-4 Visual essential patent owners and prospective MPEG-4 Visual users have been the beneficiaries of a healthy dialogue. This first step in the process has provided a unique opportunity for the marketplace to familiarize itself with the proposed terms and provide feedback and for MPEG LA to clarify the proposed terms and assure their compatibility across various business models. Since details of the license agreement are still in the process of being worked out, these views are important and will be taken into consideration. There are many different views to be considered, however, and ultimately the marketplace will decide the success of the licensing program. It is intended that reasonable royalties will be spread among industry participants on a nondiscriminatory basis across the entire product chain consistent with the expected flow of MPEG-4 video transactions, so that those who can pay will and those who can't pay aren't expected to. For example, the royalties proposed for the use of MPEG-4 video data streaming and downloads to be paid by service providers are tied to remuneration and payable only when service providers or content providers are paid for offering or providing MPEG-4 video. And the application of this principle to various business models continues to be studied. MPEG LA facilitates the adoption of new technologies (e.g., MPEG-4 Video) in the marketplace by making the essential intellectual property rights owned by many patent owners available on fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms under a single license. MPEG LA's business relies on the broad acceptance of the license across all market sectors. Therefore, MPEG LA is sensitive to the need to structure a reasonable license consistent with marketplace conditions. To that end, MPEG LA continues to work with the patent owners to assure that the license is responsive to reasonable concerns. MPEG LA will meet with the patent holders again in late April, and will provide further guidance to the marketplace as soon as possible following that meeting. Everyone is working with all speed, but because of the challenge posed by the effort to produce a joint licensing program requiring a consensus among at least 18 different patent owners and the yet undetermined future implementations and applications of the emerging MPEG-4 Visual technology, it will take additional time to complete this process. Meanwhile, in its continuing effort to include as much essential MPEG-4 Visual (Simple and Core) intellectual property as possible in a one-stop license for the convenience of the marketplace, MPEG LA reiterates that any party that believes it has essential patents (Sections 9, 9.1 and 9.2 and Tables 9-1 and 9-2 of ISO\IEC 14496-2 Information Technology - Coding of Audio-Visual Objects - Part 2: Visual) and wishes to join upon successful evaluation, is invited to submit such patents to the independent Patent Evaluator together with a statement confirming its agreement with the objectives and intention to abide by terms and procedures governing the patent submission process, which may be obtained from Lawrence A. Horn, Vice President, Licensing and Business Development, MPEG LA, LLC (lhorn@mpegla.com), phone 1-301-986-6660, fax 1-301-986-8575. ###