[M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ...

[Rob Koenen]

Dear Richard,
You wrote today:
> All I know is that in my working on an almost daily basis with the
> Hollywood Studios on compression for Digital Cinema, MPEG-4 has "shot
> itself in the foot" by the licensing terms that it has 
> proposed.  

It cannot be repeated enough what the actual responsibilities are. 
MPEG-4 has not done anything, cannot do anything, because MPEG-4 is 
a standard and as such cannot act, not even shoot itself in the foot. 
The group that standardized MPEG-4, MPEG, is not the responsible actor 
either. MPEG does not determine licensing terms. 
If anyone at all has shot themselves in the foot, it's the licensors. 
The market has generally reacted adversely to the currently proposed 
licensing scheme. The license is a product that needs to be sold like 
other products.
Please, let's be very clear on what the responsibilities are, because
they determine whom you need to talk to.
> A formal statement went from SMPTE to MPEG, the contents of which can 
> most easily be summarized by the simple statement that "no compression 
> algorithm that includes usage based license fees will be considered for 
> digital cinema".

While this is interesting to know for MPEG, and MPEG may even regret it,
it will not change the situation. Especialy when people start issuing 
formal statements, it is crucial that they be addressed at the right party.
I urge all those concerned to talk to those that can actually change the 
situation: the licensors, who came up with the licensing terms to begin
with. 
Talk to them, through MPEG LA. Do it now, while things are still under 
definition. Forward the liaison to MPEG to MPEG LA. Please.
> The studios consider encoder and decoder fees reasonable and
> non-discriminatory, and with the price of Digital Cinema encoders and
> decoders likely to be in the tens of thousands of dollars, 
> particularly the
> encoders, the digital cinema market could absorb very high one time
> hardware licensing fees.

This is a useful piece of information, that can form the basis of a 
constructive dialog when directed to the appropriate parties.
Kind Regards,
Rob
> 
> Chiariglione Leonardo wrote:
> 
> > >As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over
> > licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video.
> >
> > I am not voicing concern over the specific terms of the 
> announced, but
> > unconfirmed, MPEG-4 Video licensing. I am just reiterating 
> what I said
> > one year ago in San Jose at the M4IF meeting: if there is 
> no way to get
> > an MPEG-4 license, this is not fair and not reasonable (I 
> do not know if
> > it is discriminatory). Therefore such an ISO standard 
> cannot be retained
> > if normal people cannot get a license to use it.
> > If the only answer for people wishing to use the standard, 3.5 years
> > after it was approved, is that "the process is advancing" 
> (thak you for
> > informing us of this, we thought it was moving backwards) 
> and that there
> > are "hopes to have a further > > announcement in the near 
> future" (thank
> > you very much for your kind commitment), either we are 
> dealing with too
> > smart or too dull people. I, as the average subscriber to 
> this list, am
> > neither, but I know that, with such an attitude, there is 
> no prospect to
> > use the standard before the next ice age.
> > One suggestion could be that the people working on MPEG-4 licensing
> > reduce their engagements on the golf courses and turn a 
> benevolent eye
> > to such worldly matters as giving a chance to people who 
> have believed
> > in and supported a fair process, to be able to use its results. But,
> > maybe, this is asking too much.
> > Leonardo
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From:   Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen   intertrust.com]
> > Sent:   2002 maggio 01 mercoledì 01:40
> > To:     M4IF news (E-mail)
> > Subject:        [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 
> Licensing
> > ...
> >
> > M4IF watchers,
> >
> > Coming Friday, May 3rd, M4IF is having a special meeting on MPEG-4
> > licensing. This meeting will be attended by both potential 
> licensees and
> > licensors. No decisions on licensing will be taken (M4IF 
> cannot do that)
> > but the meeting will provide valuable input for the 
> licensors to take
> > into account.
> > As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over
> > licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video.
> > Many of these concerns have been brought to the awareness of the
> > licensors, usually through MPEGLA. Unfortunately, not all concerned
> > parties have made their opinions known. Some of you have 
> just moved on
> > to other technologies.  Because the licensors and MPEGLA *ARE*
> > listening, it is crucial that your voices be heard.
> > THIS IS perhaps YOUR LAST CHANCE to still voice concerns. 
> If you want to
> > use MPEG-4 technology, but have an issue with the structure of the
> > license as it has been announced, then please let me know AS SOON AS
> > POSSIBLE, but Thursday at the latest.
> > Let me know on behalf of whom you are speaking and if your 
> name can be
> > used, or if you want to be 'anonimized'.
> > I will bring all constructive input to the attention of the meeting,
> > including the licensors and their representatives.
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Rob Koenen
> > President, M4IF
> >
> > ps: please do not reply to the list. A summary of all input will be
> > provided, as well as a public report on the result of the meeting.
> > _______________________________________________
> > News mailing list
> > News   lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > News mailing list
> > News   lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss   lists.m4if.org
> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>