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

[richard mizer]

Point well taken...I guess I was a little lacksadaisical in complaining that
it was MPEG that is responsible...you are right, it is MPEG-LA as
representative for the IP holders...however, you see the perception that
exists in the Studios, that are blaming MPEG, because they do not have a clear
picture of this license issue, and don't differentiate between MPEG-4, MPEG-LA
and even ISO-MPEG....they put the blame on all when they say they won't use
it, regardless of who came up with the proposed terms.  What is equally
interesting is that they don't seem to realize that they are already paying
usage based fees for MPEG-2 to MPEG-LA for DVDs.
I agree what is important now is that the studios direct their message to
MPEG-LA,  and I will endeavor within Digital Cinema to make the participants
realize that MPEG is not the cause of the licensing issues, and that they
should send a position to MPEG-LA. But I agree also with some of the other
comments on this thread that MPEG may need to relook at it's patent policy.
It seems that there is growing resentment with licensing fees which is
encouraging proprietary solutions to stay proprietary where they make their
money off of sales rather than license fees (the Real and MS model).  In the
mean time, the Digital Cinema work will be going on next week in
MPEG...hopefully the IP licensing issues will be resolved before it is
made a
standard.  I think many of the Digital Cinema compression technology providers
hope that their proprietary solution would get selected rather than have
to go
with an industry standard.
Rob Koenen wrote:
> 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
>