From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed Jul 23 13:50:54 2003 Subject: No subject Message-ID: all speculating based on a press release - not an actual license!), the below "security camera" example isn't quite correct. The provider of the content (lets assume this is some sort of network operator) would be on the hook not for the 24/7 feed coming *out* of the camera, but for the total number of content-minutes going *into* a consumers eyeballs. Thus, if our hypothetical security camera operator had 100 cameras - but no viewers, no royalty would be due. By contrast, if they had 1 camera and 100 24/7 viewers, then $1,400 would be due. Tracking these numbers could be interesting. Of course, this is only the case where the delivery of content is tied to some form of revenue. Thus, if the security camera system is entirely internal to the enterprise and no-one is paying for the content per-se, then no "use fee" would be due at all. One has to wonder why the MPEGLA has written-off the Enterprise space as a revenue source. This might be based on lessons-learned from MPEG-2, but we have to remember that MPEG-4 is perhaps closer to streaming media than to MPEG-2 and the Enterprise is by-far the more lucerative market for streaming media technologies. I look forward to trying to get a website to pay a "use fee" for (yet another) new format when they've already put huge sunk-costs into Windows Media and Real --- that are losing money every month. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Yuval Fisher Sent: Monday, February 11, 2024 11:10 AM Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > If I can add to this discussion, I think the "USE fee" is a Major > ditterant to widespread adoption. We are a remote business management, > distance learning company and we were hoping to use MPEG-4 low-bitrate > streaming mode for streaming security camera feeds to all types of > displays(cell-phones, PDA's, or even PC's with just a modem > connection). Camera's typically are always on 24/7 and if we do the > math, we have to pay $15/camera in royalties every month! That's just > not cost-effective when you consider this over hundreds/thousands of > cameras! Yoiks! An excellent example of an emerging market that's completely choked by the terms as they are.. unless the terms for broadcast/cable, which were not part of the outline, will apply in your case as well. Since cable service providers can't afford $15/channel/month, I think it's clear that some other arrangement will have to be worked out for 24/7 operations with multiple channels. I also agree (with the implication) that the symmetry between the encoders and decoders only makes sense for one scenario: the teleconferencing market. What are the problems with (doing away with the streaming fees and) having encoder fees based on some kind of classification : 1) Live Encoder with < 10 viewers (basically teleconferencing) should be cheap to promote usage 2) Live Encoder with > 10 viewers: should scale with viewship 3) File encoders for personal use should be free to promote MPEG-4 usage. Ubiquity of decoders would help the license holders by promoting use of MPEG-4 in uses with license fees. 4) File encoders for re-distribution charge by duration. Well.. it's just a thought; I'm no lawyer. Best, Yuval _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:03 2003 Subject: No subject Message-ID: are still written, and film is primarily shot-to the virtual domains where they increasingly are distributed, the context of creativity has been transformed by the Internet. Many of the constraints that affected real-space creativity have been removed by the architecture, and original legal context, of the Internet. These limitations, perhaps justified before, are justified no more. But the Internet itself is also changing. Features of the architecture-both legal and technical-that originally created this environment of free creativity are now being altered. They are being changed in ways that will re-introduce the very barriers that the Internet originally removed. There are strong reasons why many are trying to rebuild these constraints: They will enable these existing and powerful interests to protect themselves from the competitive threat the Internet represents. The old, in other words, is bending the Net to protect itself against the new. MICKEY MOUSE BLOAT The distinctive feature of modern American copyright law is its almost limitless bloating-its expansion both in scope and in duration. The framers of the original Copyright Act would not begin to recognize what the act has become. The first Copyright Act gave authors of "maps, charts and books" an exclusive right to control the publishing and vending of these works, but only if their works had been "published," only after the works were registered with a copyright registry, and only if the authors were Americans. (Our outrage at China notwithstanding, we should remember that before 1891, the copyrights of foreigners were not protected in the United States. We were born a pirate nation.) This initial protection did not restrict "derivative" works: One was free to translate an original work into a foreign language, and one was free to make a play out of a novel without the original author's permission. And because of the burdens of registering, most works were not copyrighted. Between 1790 and 1799, 13,000 titles were published in America, but only 556 copyright registrations were filed. The vast majority of creative work was free for others to use; and the work that was protected was protected only for limited purposes. After two centuries of copyright statutes, the scope of copyright has exploded, and the reach of copyright is now universal. There is no registration requirement-every creative act reduced to a tangible medium is now subject to copyright protection. Your e-mail to your child or your child's finger painting: both are automatically protected. This protection is not just against competing publications. The target is not simply piracy. Any act of "copying" is presumptively regulated by the statute; any derivative use is within the reach of this regulation. We have gone from a regime where a tiny part of creative content was controlled to a regime where most of the most useful and valuable creative content is controlled for every significant use. The first Congress to grant copyright gave authors an initial term of 14 years, which could be renewed for 14 years if the author was living. The current term is the life of the author plus 70 years-which, for an author like Irving Berlin, would mean a protection of 140 years. More disturbingly, we have come to this expanded term through an increasingly familiar practice in Congress of extending the term of copyright both prospectively (to works not yet created) and retrospectively (to works created and still under copyright). In the next 50 years, it extended the term once again. In the last 40 years, Congress has extended the term of copyright retrospectively 11 times. Each time, it is said with only a bit of exaggeration, that Mickey Mouse is about to fall into the public domain, the term of copyright for Mickey Mouse is extended. You might think that there is something a bit unfair about a regime where Disney can make millions off stories that have fallen into the public domain but no one else but Disney can make money off Disney's work-apparently forever. But even if the scope of controlled content has grown, in principle there remains a constitutional limitation on this expansion. Some content is to stay in the commons, even if most useful content remains subject to control. PIANO ROLLS Control is not necessarily bad. Copyright is a critical part of the process of creativity; a great deal of creativity would not exist without the protections of the law. Large-budget films could not be produced; many books would not get written. But just because some control is good, it doesn't follow more is better. As conservative Federal Circuit Judge Richard Posner has written, "The absence of copyright protection is, paradoxical as this may seem, a benefit to authors as well as a cost to them." It is a benefit because, as we've seen already, creative works are both an input and an output in the creative process; if you raise the cost of the input, you get less of the output. More important, limited protection has always been the rule. Never has Congress embraced or the Supreme Court permitted a regime that guaranteed perfect control by copyright owners over the use of their copyrighted material. As the Supreme Court has said, "The Copyright Act does not give a copyright holder control over all uses of his copyrighted work." Instead, Congress has struck a balance between assuring that copyright owners are compensated and assuring that an adequate range of material remains in the public domain for others to draw upon and use. And this is especially true when Congress has confronted new technologies. Consider the example of "piano rolls." In the early 1870s, Henri Fourneaux invented the player piano, which recorded music on a punch tape as a pianist played the music. The result was a high-quality copy (relative to the poor quality of phonograph recordings at the time) of music, which could then be copied and played any number of times on other machines. By 1902, there were "about seventy-five thousand player pianos in the United States, and over one million piano rolls were sold." Authors of sheet music complained, saying that their content had been stolen. In terms that echo the cries of the recording industry today, copyright holders charged that these commercial entities were making money off their content, in violation of the copyright law. The Supreme Court disagreed. Though the content the piano player played was taken from sheet music, it was not, the Court held, a "copy" of the music that it, well, copied. Piano roll manufacturers (and record companies, too) were therefore free to "steal" the content of the sheet music to make money with their new inventions. Congress responded quickly to the Court's decision by changing the law. But the change was an interesting compromise. The new law did not give copyright holders perfect control over their copyrighted material. In granting authors a "mechanical reproduction right," Congress gave authors the exclusive right to decide whether and on what terms a recording of their music could be made. But once a recording had been made, others had the right (upon paying 2 cents per copy) to make subsequent recordings of the same music-whether or not the original author granted permission. This was a "compulsory licensing right," which Congress granted copiers of copyrighted music to assure that the original owners of the copyrighted works would not get too much control over subsequent innovation with that work. The effect of this compromise, though limiting the rights of original authors, is to expand the creative opportunity of others. New performers had the right to break into the market, by taking music made famous by others and re-recording it, after the payment of a small compulsory fee. Again, the amount of this fee was set by the statute, not by the market power of the author. It therefore was a far less powerful "exclusive right" than the exclusive right granted to other authors. This balance is the rule, not the exception, when Congress has confronted a new technology affecting creative rights. It did the same thing with the first real "Napster" in our history-cable television. Cable TV was born stealing the content of others and re-selling that content to consumers. Suppliers of cable services would set up an antenna, capture the commercial broadcasts made by television stations, and then resell those broadcasts to their customers. The copyright holders did not like this "theft." Twice they asked the Supreme Court to shut it down. Twice the Court said no. So it fell to Congress to strike a balance between cable TV and copyright holders. Congress in turn followed the model set by player pianos: Cable TV had to pay for the content it broadcast, but the content holders did not have an absolute right to grant or deny the right to broadcast its content. Instead, cable TV got a compulsory licensing system to guarantee that cable operators would be able to get permission to broadcast content at a relatively modest level. Thus content holders, or broadcasters, couldn't leverage their power in the television broadcasting market into power in the cable services market. Innovation in the latter field was protected from power in the former. These are not the only examples of Congress striking a balance between compensation and control. For a time there was a compulsory license for jukeboxes; there is a compulsory license for music and certain pictorial works in noncommercial television and radio broadcasts; there is a compulsory licensing scheme governing satellite television systems, digital audio home recorders and digital audio transmissions. These "compromises" give the copyright holder a guarantee of compensation without giving the copyright holder perfect control. The epitome of copyright's protection, they represent the aim to give authors not perfect control of their copyrighted work, but a balanced right that does what the Constitution requires-"promote progress." The unavoidable conclusion about changes in the scope of copyright's protections is that the extent of "free content"-meaning content that is not controlled by an exclusive right-has never been as limited as it is today. More content is controlled by law today than ever in our past. In addition to limited compulsory rights, an author is free to take from work published before 1923; is free to take noncreative work (facts) whenever published; and is free to use, consistent with fair use, a limited degree of others' work. Beyond that, however, the content of our culture is controlled by an ever-expanding scope of copyright. SAVE PORN, KILL NAPSTER? Courts are policy makers, and they must ask how best to respond. Should they respond by intervening immediately to remedy the "wrong" said to exist as a result of the Internet's concussive impact? Or should they wait to allow the system to mature, and to see just what harm there is? In the context of porn, privacy and taxation, courts and the government have insisted that we should wait to see how the network develops. In the context of copyright, the response has been different. Pushed by an army of high-powered lawyers, greased with piles of money from PACs, Congress and the courts have jumped into action to defend the old against the new. Ordinary people might find these priorities a bit odd. After all, the recording industry continues to grow at an astounding rate. Annual CD sales have tripled in the past ten years. Yet the law races to support the recording industry, without any showing of harm. (Indeed, possibly the opposite: when Napster usage fell after the court-restricted access, album sales fell as well. Napster may indeed have helped sales rather than hurting them.) At the same time, it can't be denied that the Net has reduced the ability that parents have to protect their children. Yet the law says, "Wait and see, let's make sure we don't harm the growth of the Net." In one case-where the harm is the least-the law is most active; and in the other-where the harm is most pronounced-the law stands back. Indeed, the contrast is even stronger than this, and it is this that gets to the heart of the matter. The Internet exposes unprecedented realms of copyrighted content to theft, but it also makes it possible (with the proper code) to control the use of copyrighted material much more fully than before. And it opens up a range of technologies for production and distribution that threaten the existing establishment. Congress can address the increased exposure to theft, however, without a protectionist regime for existing media control. Control, however, is precisely Hollywood's and the recording labels' objective. In the context of copyright law, the industry has been very clear: Its aim, as RIAA president Hilary Rosen has described it, is to assure that no venture capitalist invests in a start-up that aims to distribute content unless that start-up has the approval of the recording industry. This industry thus demands the right to veto new innovation, and it invokes the law to support its veto right. Some see these cases (in particular the MP3.com and Napster cases) as simple; I find them very hard. But whether they are simple or hard, Congress could intervene to strike a balance between the right of copyright holders to be compensated and the right of innovators to innovate. The model for this intervention is the compulsory license. The first real Napster case was cable television. Congress's aim in part was to assure that the cable industry could develop free of the influence of the broadcasters. The broadcasters were a powerful industry; Congress felt-rightly-that cable would grow more quickly and innovate more broadly if it was not beholden to the power of broadcasters. So Congress cut any dependency that the cable industry might have, by assuring it could get access to content without yielding control. The same solution-compensation without control-is available today. But instead, copyright interests are in effect getting more control over copyright in cyberspace than they had in real space, even though the need for more control is less clear. We are locking down the content layer, and handing over the keys to Hollywood. Intellectual property is both an input and an output in the creative process; increasing the "costs" of intellectual property increases both the cost of production and the incentives to produce. Which side outweighs the other can't be known a priori. "An expansion of copyright protection," Judge Posner argues, "mightŠreduce the output of literatureŠby increasing the royalty expense of writers." Thus the idea mix cannot be found simply by increasing the power of copyright holders to control. Other conservatives are a bit more colorful about the point. Consider, for example, Judge Alex Kozinski, one of the brightest stars of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the "Hollywood Circuit." When his fellow justices upheld game-show hostess Vanna White's right to control the use of her symbolic image, Kozinski sharply dissented. As he wrote: Something very dangerous is going on here. Private property, including intellectual property, is essential to our way of life. It provides an incentive for investment and innovation; it stimulates the flourishing of our culture; it protects the moral entitlements of people to the fruits of their labors. But reducing too much to private property can be bad medicine. Why? For the same reasons we've been tracking. Private landŠis far more useful if separated from other private land by public streets, roads and highways. Public parks, utility rights-of-way and sewers reduce the amount of land in private hands, but vastly enhance the value of the property that remains. The state must therefore find a balance, and this balance will be struck between overly strong and overly weak protection. Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. But is that unfair? Is it unfair that someone gets to profit off someone else's ideas? No, says Kozinski: Intellectual property law assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely on the ideas that underlie it. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate: It is the means by which intellectual property law advances the progress of science and art. We give authors certain exclusive rights, but in exchange we get a richer public domain. This balance reflects something important about this kind of creativity: that it is always building on something else. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture. This balance is necessary, Kozinski insists, "to maintain a free environment in which creative genius can flourish." Not because "flourish[ing]" innovation is the darling of the Left; but because innovation and creativity was the ideal of our founding, Enlightenment Republic. THE DIGITAL DILEMMA In proliferating forms of signatures, searches, sorts and surveillance, digital technology, tied to law, now promises almost perfect control over content and its distribution. And it is this perfect control that threatens to undermine the potential for innovation that the Internet promises. To reestablish a balance between control and creativity, our aim should be to give artists enough incentive to produce, while leaving free as much as we can for others to build upon and create. 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. Creation is always the building upon something else. There is no art that doesn't reuse. And there will be less art if every re-use is taxed by the earlier appropriator. Monopoly controls have been the exception in free society; they have been the rule in closed societies. Before a monopoly is permitted, there should be reason to believe it will do some good-for society, and not just for monopoly holders. With these ideals in mind, here are some first steps to freeing culture: BLACK HOLE OF COPYRIGHT Authors and creators deserve to receive the benefits of their creation. But when those benefits stop, what they create should fall into the public domain. It does not do so now. Every creative act reduced to a tangible medium is protected for upward of 150 years, whether or not the protection benefits the author. This work thus falls into a copyright black hole, unfree for over a century. The solution to this black hole of copyright is to force those who benefit from copyright to take steps to protect their state-backed benefit. And in the age of the Internet, those steps could be extremely simple. Work that an author "publishes" should be protected for a term of five years once registered, and that registration can be renewed fifteen times. If the registration is not renewed, then the work falls into the public domain. Registration need not be difficult. The U.S. Copyright Office could run a simple Web site where authors register their work. That Web site could be funded by charges for copyright renewals. When an author wants to renew the copyright, the system could charge the author a renewal fee. That fee might increase over time or depend upon the nature of the work. "Unpublished works" would be different. If I write an e-mail and send it to a group of my friends, that creativity should be treated differently from the creativity of a published book or recorded song. The e-mail should be protected for privacy reasons, the song and book protected as a quid pro quo for a government-backed monopoly. Thus, for private, unpublished correspondence, I think the current protection is perfectly sensible: the life of the author plus seventy years, automatically created, with no registration or renewal requirements. One of the strongest reasons that the copyright industry has raised for the elimination of this renewal requirement is the injustice that comes from a family's or author's losing copyright protection merely because of a technicality. If "technicality" means something like the registration was lost in the mail or was delivered two hours late, then the complaint is a good one. There is no reason to punish authors for slips. But the remedy for an overly strict system is a more relaxed system, not no system at all. If a registration is lost, or a deadline missed by a short period of time, the U.S. Copyright Office should have the power to forgive. A change in the copyright term would have no effect on the incentives for authors to produce work today. There is no author who decides whether or not to write a book depending upon whether he or his estate will receive money three-quarters of a century from now. The same with a film producer: Hollywood studios forecast revenues a few years into the future, not ninety-five. The effect on expected income from this change would therefore be tiny. But the benefit for creativity from more works falling into the commons would be large. If a copyright isn't worth it to an author to renew a copyright for a modest fee, then it isn't worth it to society to support-through an array of criminal and civil statutes-the monopoly protected. But the same work that the original author might not value could well be used by other creators in society. Software is a special case. The current protection for software is the life of an author plus 70 years or, if work-for-hire, 95 years. This is a parody of the Constitution's requirement that copyright be for "limited times." When Apple's Macintosh operating system falls into the public domain, there will be no machine that could possibly run it. The term of copyright for software is effectively unlimited. Worse, the copyright system protects software without getting any new knowledge in return. When the system protects Hemingway, we at least get to see how Hemingway writes. We get to learn about his style and the tricks he uses to make his work succeed. We can see this because it is the nature of creative writing that the writing is public. There is no such thing as language that doesn't simultaneously transmit its words. The reason copyright law doesn't include source code is that it is believed that that would make the software unprotectable. The open code movement might throw that view into doubt, but even if one believes it, the remedy-no source code-is worse than the harm. There are plenty of ways for software to be protected without the protection of law. Copy protection systems, for example, give the copyright holder plenty of control over how and when the software is copied. If society is to give software producers more protection than they otherwise would take, then we should get something in return. And one thing we could get would be access to the source code after the copyright expires. Thus, I would protect software for a term of five years, renewable once. But that protection would be granted only if the author submitted a copy of the source code to be held in escrow while the work was protected. Once the copyright expired, that escrowed copy would be publicly available from the Copyright Office server. PROTECTING MUSIC The Net has created a world where content is free. Napster is the most salient example of this world, but it is not the only one. At any time a user can select the channel of music he or she wants. A song from your childhood? Search on the lyrics and find a recording. Within seconds you can hear any music you want. This freedom the recording industry calls theft. But they don't call it theft when I hear an old favorite of mine on the radio. They don't call it theft when they are recording takeoffs of prior recorded music. And they don't call it theft when they make a new version of "Jingle Bells." They don't, in other words, call it theft when they are using music for free that has been defined by the copyright system to be fair and appropriate use. Artists should be paid, but it doesn't follow that selling music like chewing gum is the only possible way. Congress has often had to balance the rights of free access against the rights of control. When the courts said piano rolls were not "copies" of sheet music, Congress balanced the rights of composers against the rights to mechanically reproduce what was composed. It balanced these rights through a compulsory license that enabled payment to artists while assuring free access to the work produced. A similar solution was reached for cable TV. Congress protected rights holders, but not through a property right. The same solution is possible in the context of music on the Net. But here, rather than balance, the rhetoric is about "theft" and "crime." Congress should empower file sharing by recognizing a similar system of compulsory licenses. These fees should not be set by an industry set on killing this new mode of distribution. They should be set, as they have always been set, by a policy maker keen on striking a balance. If only such a policy maker were somewhere to be found. REBUILDING THE COMMONS Copyright was originally simply a restriction on commercial entities, regulating "publishers" and those who "vend" "maps, charts and books." Because the law slipped into using the term "copy" in 1909, it has now extended its reach to every act of duplication, by printing press or computer memory. It now therefore covers actions far beyond the "commercial" exploitation of anything. The Net itself, however, has now erased any effective distinction between commercial and noncommercial. Napster no doubt is a commercial activity, though the sharing that Napster enables is not. This line-drawing problem reinforces my own view that the better solution is simply to go back to the Framers' notion of limited times. If copyright were returned to a meaningfully "limited time," then we wouldn't need to worry so much about drawing commercial vs. noncommercial distinctions. For five, or maybe 10 years, commercial entities would hold these rights exclusively. Beyond that, the music, like culture generally, would be freely available. The urgency in the field of patents is even greater. Here again, patents are not per se evil; they are evil only if they do no social good. They do no social good if they benefit certain companies at the expense of innovation generally. And as many have argued convincingly, that's just what many patents today do. If Congress determines that business method patents are justified, it should also consider the proposals of Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly to grant patent protection for business methods for only a very short period. Bezos proposes five years, but an even shorter period may make sense. Network technologies move so quickly that a longer period of protection is not really needed; and whatever distortions this system might produce, they can be minimized by shortening the period of protection. Congress should also, and most obviously, radically improve funding for the Patent Office, and mandate fundamental improvements in its functioning. These changes are just beginnings, but they would be significant beginnings if done. They would together go a great distance in assuring that the space for innovation remains open and that the resources for innovation remain free. They would commit us to an environment that would preserve the innovation we have seen and help fulfill the liberating promise of the Net. Lawrence Lessig is professor of law at Stanford Law School and author of The Future of Ideas, from which this is excerpted. Reprinted with permission of Random House. January / February 2002 * The American Spectator From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:15 2003 Subject: No subject Message-ID: royalty free and likely so for other similar solutions that are now poping up. Again, open source does not mean royalty free (FYI, MPEG is open source). 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 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D1B1.8AD97C10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPR

Dear Ian, all,

> 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 ?

Well, if this is true, it is not a surprise that On2 = and other open source video coding evangelists have become so quiet all = the sudden :-)

From what you say, it is indeed very likely that the = On2 codecs is not royalty free and likely so for other similar = solutions that are now poping up. Again, open source does not mean = royalty free (FYI, MPEG is open source).

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






------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D1B1.8AD97C10-- ------=_NextPartTM-000-a806804e-3d08-11d6-b1e9-00508b69ab48-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ne·far·i·ous Pronunciation Key (n-fâr-s) adj. Infamous by way of being extremely wicked. Despite my outspoken views - which are often chalked up as "conspiracy theories" - I don't think that any of the parties to this debate meet the definition above. I'm glad that Bill agrees that there is an attempt to use IP as a tool to control the evolution of technology and channels of distribution. One does not need to dabble in conspiracy theories to see that the industries that currently control the creation and distribution of high value content are using every tool in their arsenal to prevent the marketplace which Bill describes from working. - It is a fact that the music industry and Hollywood have used the legal system to shut down file sharing services such as Napster. And it is a fact that these same companies refused to deal with Napster and other would be competitors to grant fair and reasonable licensing terms for the music copyrights that they control. - It is a fact that the music industry and Hollywood have erected many roadblocks to the digitization of distribution. They have used their lobbying power and campaign contributions to shape government policies about copyright around the world. They successfully lobbied to create the DMCA. They will most likely succeed in forcing some form of copy protection control into every device that touches, even remotely the content they produce and distribute. - It is a fact that they have the ability to control the evolution of many consumer electronic devices, either directly, or by erecting roadblocks to innovation. - And it is a fact that many would-be competitors seek to gain the same level of control over the consumption of digital media content as the entrenched players. Watching the wary dance of Microsoft and potential partners in Hollywood, cable, DBS, and the CE industry has been both educational and entertaining. Rob Koenen wrote: Always interesting to coin up all sorts of conspiracy theories. In this case, however, I strongly believe in the motto "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance." Unfortunately, one cannot attribute the current situation to ignorance. Just the opposite is true. I know this for fact, as I and others who are party to this discussion are responsible for educating the companies that seek to control the evolution of digital media content. We educated them about the path to the convergence of computing, telecommunications and television technologies; we identified all of the critical issues. We used the Internet to demonstrated the possibilities and to illustrate the awesome power of collaboration that is enabled via Metcalfs law. No, this is not a case of ignorance, at least not on the part of the companies who currently exert control over the digital transition. But it may well be a case of ignorance on the part of those who seek to ferment. change. My comment that one could see this coming years ago is not some theory. Rob, Leonardo, and others in MPEG know all too well that the warning flags were raised long ago. I know because I took the time to participate in MPEG, and I raised the flags. If ignorance is a factor in the mess we are in today, I humbly suggest that a healthy dose of it belongs to those who underestimated how difficult it would be to overcome the momentum of the industries who have highly profitable businesses to protect and extend. And I would suggest to Bill, who is well aware of the years of effort we have shared to build the new digital media industry, that we have been our own worst enemy. It is much more difficult to get a bunch of entrepreneurial companies, seeking to build a new market, to march together to challenge a group of entrenched companies that have common interests to protect. One need look no further than the skirmishes that have taken place in the MPEG-4 process to understand this. Bill understood this when he wrote: 2) There are similar and even better technologies out there right now - from the "big three" - Apple, Real, MS as well as smaller players... we WILL get our internet A/V/G/I, hot-to-trot format - and maybe we'll have to suffer MS, Real and Apple battling out the container formats and maybe we'll have to suffer with On2, DivX, Pulsnat, DGFX, Real, MS, Sorensen, Apple and a dozen other garage-shops that have not yet appeared in public battling for compression "standards" History keeps teaching us a fundamental principle: Divide and Conquer. How do powerful interests prevent revolution? They keep those who seek to overthrow them, those who seek to ferment change, fighting amongst themselves... Dan writes: >If MPEG-4 really does become a standard (in the defacto, >near-universal-adoption sense as opposed to something agreed upon by a >standards body), it will be because it works in the marketplace, both >technically and businesswise. It needs to do so under the same legal and >regulatory constraints that any business venture must adhere to. >Otherwise, it will fail for the same reason every attempt to regulate >markets unnaturally fails -- because it is simply not possible to keep >consenting parties from making deals that make sense to them. Why is there even an interest in MPEG-4 today? Because it is a standard? Or is it because it "might" forge consensus among factions that seek to ferment change? MPEG-LA understands this. And they understand that they can create a win-win situation for the rights holders. IF MPEG-4 fails, the war continues and they keep milking MPEG-2 IF MPEG-4 succeeds, they win because they extend their control over the evolution of digital media. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:40 2003 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Thanks very much. Regards, Clover --------------------------------------------- Åwªï¨Ï¥ÎHongKong.com¶l¥ó¨t²Î Thank you for using hongkong.com Email system From mc fivebats.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: mc fivebats.com (Mike Coleman) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:41 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Streaming MPEG4 files In-Reply-To: <02fe01c2a803$76062e40$32e62a0f@nt23050> References: <02fe01c2a803$76062e40$32e62a0f@nt23050> Message-ID: "Kalpana R K" writes: > I would like to know if there are any license/patents required > to read MPEG4 file format and stream it. The only file format patent I'm aware of is Apple's patent on hint tracks. I believe it is US patent 6,134,243. You can license it by obtaining a license for MPEG-4 Systems. See mpegla.com for more information about that. -mc -- Mike Coleman Five Bats Research, Portland Oregon From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:44 2003 Subject: No subject Message-ID: usage fee doesn't make any sense. For example, you can produce a few = bytes long scene that can run indefinitely (animation loop). Downloading this would take a fraction of a second so what do pay for under the "usage = fee"? What does "usage" means in this case?=20 =20 Maybe an MPEG LA reprentative can explain us? =20 Kind regards, =20 Mike=20 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] = On Behalf Of Rob Koenen (M4IF) Sent: Monday, June 16, 2023 10:10 AM To: 'Holger Grahn - Bitmanagement'; M4IF Discussion List Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins Holger, =20 I wouldn't know; who pays licensing fees is none of my business.=20 =20 Some licenses have a threshold that may apply. Some information is on licensors' websites.=20 =20 You should ask the people that make software available if you really = want to know.=20 =20 Kind Regards, Rob -----Original Message----- From: Holger Grahn - Bitmanagement = [mailto:holger.grahn@bitmanagement.de]=20 Sent: Friday, June 13, 2023 14:02 To: rob.koenen@m4if.org; M4IF Discussion List Cc: M4IF news Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins =20 Hi Rob, =20 just curious, are all these companies/institutions/projects/individuals offering = public download MPEG-4 stuff paying MPEG-LA /System /Audio/Video fees ? =20 Or are these downloads are somehow illegal offerings, or will these free downloads stop at the end of the year because of the initial grace = periods and they all get sued ? What is for example with Divx Networks, MPEG4IP - mp4creator, IBM's Authoring tools ? and btw how to measure royalties for encoders, especially Systems = encoders producing scene graph files which can run an endless animations ? =20 Greetings =20 Holger =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Rob Koenen (M4IF)=20 To: M4IF Discussion List =20 Cc: M4IF news =20 Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2023 7:56 PM Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins I tired to send this message to the news list twice yesterday, but there = are some problems with that list.=20 Hopefully thisd does work.=20 Rob=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Rob Koenen (M4IF) [ mailto:rob.koenen@m4if.org]=20 Sent: Friday, June 06, 2023 11:16=20 To: 'M4IF news'=20 Subject: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins=20 M4IF News Readers,=20 The news that MPEG-4 Audio licensing has begun was just released on the = news wire.=20 I think this is great news for MPEG-4 Audio, which includes MPEG-4 AAC. = I hope - and expect - that this will enable deployment of many = interoperable services and devices with great audio quality.=20 Kind Regards,=20 Rob Koenen=20 President, M4IF=20 ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C333FA.57D085F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Those are good questions indeed. Note that the use fee is = *much* more=20 limited in the case of Systems than in the case of Visual, and in = many=20 cases it doesn't apply - such as your downloading example (I *believe* - = MPEG LA=20 to confirm or refute)
 
Interestingly MPEG-4 Systems can be used to loop an MPEG-4 = Visual clip -=20 and the same question *is* pertinent.
 
I=20 have asked similar questions in the past, such as what with two videos = that are=20 meant to run in parallel in two windows, but can also run = sequentially.=20
 
Holger's question seems to contain a misunderstanding on the = use fee,=20 namely that it applies to encoding. As I understand the license, this is = not the=20 case. Rather, the use fee applies to the content being transmitted, = served,=20 packaged, etc. Again, MPEG LA to confirm or correct.
 
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: = Mikael=20 Bourges-Sevenier [mailto:mikael@sevenier.com]
Sent: Monday, = June=20 16, 2003 11:19
To: rob.koenen@m4if.org; 'Holger Grahn -=20 Bitmanagement'; 'M4IF Discussion List'
Subject: RE: [M4IF = Discuss]=20 FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins

Rob,
 
even=20 if we can't answer for the licensing fees, Holger asks an = important=20 question (that was asked since early last year) regarding = Systems=20 licensing.
 
From=20 my understanding, Systems licensing follows Video licensing but the = usage fee=20 doesn't make any sense. For example, you can produce a few bytes long = scene=20 that can run indefinitely (animation loop). Downloading this would = take a=20 fraction of a second so what do pay for under the "usage fee"? What = does=20 "usage" means in this case?
 
Maybe an MPEG LA reprentative can explain = us?
 
Kind regards,
 
Mike 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] = On=20 Behalf Of Rob Koenen (M4IF)
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2023 = 10:10=20 AM
To: 'Holger Grahn - Bitmanagement'; M4IF Discussion=20 List
Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing=20 begins

Holger,
 
I wouldn't know; who pays licensing fees is none of my = business.=20
 
Some licenses have a threshold that may apply. Some = information is on=20 licensors' websites.
 
You should ask the people that make software available if = you really=20 want to know.
 
Kind Regards,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: = Holger Grahn=20 - Bitmanagement [mailto:holger.grahn@bitmanagement.de] =
Sent:=20 Friday, June 13, 2023 14:02
To: rob.koenen@m4if.org; = M4IF=20 Discussion List
Cc: M4IF news
Subject: Re: = [M4IF=20 Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins

 
Hi Rob,
 
just curious,
are all these=20 companies/institutions/projects/individuals offering public = download=20 MPEG-4 stuff paying
MPEG-LA /System /Audio/Video fees = ?
 
Or are these downloads are = somehow illegal=20 offerings, or will these free downloads stop at the end of the=20 year because of the initial grace periods and they all get = sued=20 ?
What is for example with Divx = Networks,=20 MPEG4IP - mp4creator, IBM's Authoring tools ?
and btw how to measure royalties = for=20 encoders, especially Systems encoders producing scene graph=20 files
which can run an endless = animations=20 ?
 
Greetings
 
Holger
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Rob=20 Koenen (M4IF)
Sent: Saturday, June 07, = 2003 7:56=20 PM
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] = FW: MPEG-4=20 Audio Licensing begins

I tired to send = this message=20 to the news list twice yesterday, but there are some problems = with that=20 list.
Hopefully thisd=20 does work.

Rob =
 -----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20   Rob Koenen (M4IF) = [mailto:rob.koenen@m4if.org]
Sent:   Friday,=20 June 06, 2023 11:16
To:     'M4IF news'
Subject:       =20 MPEG-4 Audio Licensing = begins

M4IF News Readers,

The news that MPEG-4 Audio = licensing has=20 begun was just released on the news wire.

I think this is great news for = MPEG-4=20 Audio, which includes MPEG-4 AAC. I hope - and expect - that = this will=20 enable deployment of many interoperable services and devices = with great=20 audio quality.

Kind Regards,

Rob Koenen
President, M4IF=20

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C333FA.57D085F0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:44 2003 Subject: No subject Message-ID: usage fee doesn't make any sense. For example, you can produce a few = bytes long scene that can run indefinitely (animation loop). Downloading this would take a fraction of a second so what do pay for under the "usage = fee"? What does "usage" means in this case?=20 =20 Maybe an MPEG LA reprentative can explain us? =20 Kind regards, =20 Mike=20 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] = On Behalf Of Rob Koenen (M4IF) Sent: Monday, June 16, 2023 10:10 AM To: 'Holger Grahn - Bitmanagement'; M4IF Discussion List Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins Holger, =20 I wouldn't know; who pays licensing fees is none of my business.=20 =20 Some licenses have a threshold that may apply. Some information is on licensors' websites.=20 =20 You should ask the people that make software available if you really = want to know.=20 =20 Kind Regards, Rob -----Original Message----- From: Holger Grahn - Bitmanagement = [mailto:holger.grahn@bitmanagement.de]=20 Sent: Friday, June 13, 2023 14:02 To: rob.koenen@m4if.org; M4IF Discussion List Cc: M4IF news Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins =20 Hi Rob, =20 just curious, are all these companies/institutions/projects/individuals offering = public download MPEG-4 stuff paying MPEG-LA /System /Audio/Video fees ? =20 Or are these downloads are somehow illegal offerings, or will these free downloads stop at the end of the year because of the initial grace = periods and they all get sued ? What is for example with Divx Networks, MPEG4IP - mp4creator, IBM's Authoring tools ? and btw how to measure royalties for encoders, especially Systems = encoders producing scene graph files which can run an endless animations ? =20 Greetings =20 Holger =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Rob Koenen (M4IF)=20 To: M4IF Discussion List =20 Cc: M4IF news =20 Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2023 7:56 PM Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins I tired to send this message to the news list twice yesterday, but there = are some problems with that list.=20 Hopefully thisd does work.=20 Rob=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Rob Koenen (M4IF) [ mailto:rob.koenen@m4if.org]=20 Sent: Friday, June 06, 2023 11:16=20 To: 'M4IF news'=20 Subject: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins=20 M4IF News Readers,=20 The news that MPEG-4 Audio licensing has begun was just released on the = news wire.=20 I think this is great news for MPEG-4 Audio, which includes MPEG-4 AAC. = I hope - and expect - that this will enable deployment of many = interoperable services and devices with great audio quality.=20 Kind Regards,=20 Rob Koenen=20 President, M4IF=20 ------=_NextPart_000_035B_01C333F9.1C554750 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Rob,
 
even=20 if we can't answer for the licensing fees, Holger asks an important = question (that was asked since early last year) regarding = Systems=20 licensing.
 
From=20 my understanding, Systems licensing follows Video licensing but the = usage fee=20 doesn't make any sense. For example, you can produce a few bytes long = scene that=20 can run indefinitely (animation loop). Downloading this would take a = fraction of=20 a second so what do pay for under the "usage fee"? What does "usage" = means in=20 this case?
 
Maybe=20 an MPEG LA reprentative can explain us?
 
Kind regards,
 
Mike 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On = Behalf=20 Of Rob Koenen (M4IF)
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2023 10:10=20 AM
To: 'Holger Grahn - Bitmanagement'; M4IF Discussion=20 List
Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing=20 begins

Holger,
 
I=20 wouldn't know; who pays licensing fees is none of my business.=20
 
Some licenses have a threshold that may apply. Some = information is on=20 licensors' websites.
 
You should ask the people that make software available if you = really=20 want to know.
 
Kind Regards,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: = Holger Grahn -=20 Bitmanagement [mailto:holger.grahn@bitmanagement.de] =
Sent:=20 Friday, June 13, 2023 14:02
To: rob.koenen@m4if.org; M4IF=20 Discussion List
Cc: M4IF news
Subject: Re: [M4IF = Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins

 
Hi Rob,
 
just curious,
are all these=20 companies/institutions/projects/individuals offering public download = MPEG-4=20 stuff paying
MPEG-LA /System /Audio/Video fees=20 ?
 
Or are these downloads are somehow = illegal=20 offerings, or will these free downloads stop at the end of the=20 year because of the initial grace periods and they all get sued = ?
What is for example with Divx = Networks, MPEG4IP=20 - mp4creator, IBM's Authoring tools ?
and btw how to measure royalties = for encoders,=20 especially Systems encoders producing scene graph files
which can run an endless animations = ?
 
Greetings
 
Holger
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Rob Koenen=20 (M4IF)
Sent: Saturday, June 07, = 2003 7:56=20 PM
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: = MPEG-4=20 Audio Licensing begins

I tired to send = this message to=20 the news list twice yesterday, but there are some problems with = that=20 list.
Hopefully thisd=20 does work.

Rob =
 -----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20   Rob Koenen (M4IF) = [mailto:rob.koenen@m4if.org]=20
Sent:   Friday, June 06, 2023 11:16 =
To:     = 'M4IF news'
Subject:        = MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins

M4IF News Readers,

The news that MPEG-4 Audio = licensing has=20 begun was just released on the news wire.

I think this is great news for = MPEG-4 Audio,=20 which includes MPEG-4 AAC. I hope - and expect - that this will = enable=20 deployment of many interoperable services and devices with great = audio=20 quality.

Kind Regards,

Rob Koenen
President, M4IF=20

------=_NextPart_000_035B_01C333F9.1C554750-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:45 2003 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Maybe an MPEG LA reprentative can explain us? Kind regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Rob Koenen (M4IF) Sent: Monday, June 16, 2023 10:10 AM To: 'Holger Grahn - Bitmanagement'; M4IF Discussion List Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins Holger, I wouldn't know; who pays licensing fees is none of my business. Some licenses have a threshold that may apply. Some information is on licensors' websites. You should ask the people that make software available if you really want to know. Kind Regards, Rob -----Original Message----- From: Holger Grahn - Bitmanagement [mailto:holger.grahn@bitmanagement.de] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2023 14:02 To: rob.koenen@m4if.org; M4IF Discussion List Cc: M4IF news Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins Hi Rob, just curious, are all these companies/institutions/projects/individuals offering public download MPEG-4 stuff paying MPEG-LA /System /Audio/Video fees ? Or are these downloads are somehow illegal offerings, or will these free downloads stop at the end of the year because of the initial grace periods and they all get sued ? What is for example with Divx Networks, MPEG4IP - mp4creator, IBM's Authoring tools ? and btw how to measure royalties for encoders, especially Systems encoders producing scene graph files which can run an endless animations ? Greetings Holger ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Koenen (M4IF) To: M4IF Discussion List Cc: M4IF news Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2023 7:56 PM Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins I tired to send this message to the news list twice yesterday, but there are some problems with that list. Hopefully thisd does work. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen (M4IF) [mailto:rob.koenen@m4if.org] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2023 11:16 To: 'M4IF news' Subject: MPEG-4 Audio Licensing begins M4IF News Readers, The news that MPEG-4 Audio licensing has begun was just released on the news wire. I think this is great news for MPEG-4 Audio, which includes MPEG-4 AAC. I hope - and expect - that this will enable deployment of many interoperable services and devices with great audio quality. Kind Regards, Rob Koenen President, M4IF From caogd irercn.com Mon Jul 7 10:50:04 2003 From: caogd irercn.com (=?GB2312?Q?=B2=DC=B9=FA=B6=B0?=) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:46 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the feasibility of mpeg4 in the embedded-system Message-ID: <200307070151.h671pV718851@lists1.magma.ca> I want to discuss the feasibility of mpeg4 in the embedded-system. The embedded system is a real-time system, and some algorithmics, such as Shape Code, are too complex to realize real-time compression and transport in most occasions. Does this mean the application of mpeg4 in the real-time system is still immature? And what is the basic requirement of the DSP hardware in order to resolve the above problem? Could you give me some advice about this? From h.pasternak sympatico.ca Sun Jul 6 23:31:54 2003 From: h.pasternak sympatico.ca (hp) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:46 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Is there a Beta version of MPEG4/H.264 available In-Reply-To: <200307070151.h671pV718851@lists1.magma.ca> Message-ID: <2C72619C-B023-11D7-86FB-00306546A9E8@sympatico.ca> Hi Folks Is there a Beta version of MPEG4/H.264 available to play with that runs on Linux, and/or Windows and/or Apple? - Harry Pasternak Thousand Islands Institute Canada's Independent Centre For Research and Education On Progressive Urban Design From oamato wanadoo.fr Mon Jul 7 09:38:01 2003 From: oamato wanadoo.fr (Olivier Amato) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:46 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Is there a Beta version of MPEG4/H.264 available References: <2C72619C-B023-11D7-86FB-00306546A9E8@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <002201c34452$52deb540$0a00000a@beck> > Is there a Beta version of MPEG4/H.264 available to play with that runs > on Linux, and/or Windows and/or Apple? You can maybe check following links : - http://www.vsofts.com/codec/h264.html - http://www.envivio.com/news/news/030407_h264live.html - http://bs.hhi.de/~suehring/tml/ - http://sourceforge.net/projects/hdot264/ Regards, Olivier From h.pasternak sympatico.ca Mon Jul 7 08:48:01 2003 From: h.pasternak sympatico.ca (hp) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:46 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Is there a Beta version of MPEG4/H.264 available In-Reply-To: <002201c34452$52deb540$0a00000a@beck> Message-ID: Olivier Amato wrote: > > You can maybe check following links : > - http://www.vsofts.com/codec/h264.html > - http://www.envivio.com/news/news/030407_h264live.html > - http://bs.hhi.de/~suehring/tml/ > - http://sourceforge.net/projects/hdot264/ > > Olivier Thanks for the info. The vsofts web site is quite good and even included step by step tutorials. My current Windows box is only a 300 MHZ speed demon. Waiting for a dual 64 bit AMD, 17" laptop to come out (from BOXX?). - Harry Pasternak Thousand Islands Institute Canada's Independent Centre For Research and Education On Progressive Urban Design From rob.koenen m4if.org Mon Jul 7 11:37:04 2003 From: rob.koenen m4if.org (Rob Koenen (M4IF)) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:46 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Is there a Beta version of MPEG4/H.264 available In-Reply-To: <002201c34452$52deb540$0a00000a@beck> Message-ID: hp, I guess this question is more one for the Technotes list. This list is for non-technical issues, like the news release that was issued on progress in AVC licensing today: http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_03-07-07_avc.html I personally think this is positive news, although Q4 is a bit late for many imortant potential licensees. If, however, the group could announce some news about a global license structure before Q4, then this could be a siginificant step in helping potential licensees understand what to expect. That said, http://www.m4if.org/resources.php gives 2 out of the 3 references given by Olivier mentioned below (thanks Olivier!). The 3rd (Envivio) reference is linked here: http://www.m4if.org/newsarchive/ Best - Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier Amato [mailto:oamato@wanadoo.fr] > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2023 23:38 > To: hp; discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Is there a Beta version of > MPEG4/H.264 available > > > > Is there a Beta version of MPEG4/H.264 available to play > with that runs > > on Linux, and/or Windows and/or Apple? > > You can maybe check following links : > - http://www.vsofts.com/codec/h264.html > - http://www.envivio.com/news/news/030407_h264live.html > - http://bs.hhi.de/~suehring/tml/ > - http://sourceforge.net/projects/hdot264/ > > Regards, > > Olivier > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From caogd irercn.com Wed Jul 16 15:36:44 2003 From: caogd irercn.com (ahan) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:46 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] Why not bring forward another recommendatory standards for the real-time multimedia system? Message-ID: <200307160638.h6G6cRa00367@lists1.magma.ca> discuss Recently, I came to an exhibition and found a type of MPEG-4 encoder products, which had implemented Simple Profile@level 3, along with G.729 audio and UDP transport. "It could transmit DVD images within the speed of 500kbits/s." He told me. And I asked how coule it implemented so high compression ratio? The answer is that all the coding algorithms came from Standard MPEG-2, and only one rectangular VO. Of course, the image quality was worse than the DVD source. So I have one question: It seems hard to implement the advanced MPEG-4 algorithms in real-time,embedded MPEG-4 encoder products unless the performance of chips will enhance greatly. Why not bring forward another recommendatory standards for the real-time multimedia system? How do you think about this problem? Thanks a lot. guodong From chiyan79 rediffmail.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: chiyan79 rediffmail.com (Chiyan Vikram vikram) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:46 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] H263 + slice structered Mode Message-ID: <20030716082630.14829.qmail@webmail24.rediffmail.com> Dear Experts, Please send me H263+ slice structered mode enabled streams. It would be of great help for me, thank you all Regards Chiyan ___________________________________________________ Click below to experience Sooraj Barjatya's latest offering 'Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon' starring Hrithik Roshan, Abhishek Bachchan & Kareena Kapoor http://www.mpkdh.com From chiyan79 rediffmail.com Wed Jul 23 13:50:48 2003 From: chiyan79 rediffmail.com (Chiyan Vikram vikram) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:46 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] H263 + slice structered Mode Message-ID: <20030716082852.7531.qmail@mailweb33.rediffmail.com> Dear Experts, Please send me H263+ slice structered mode enabled streams. It would be of great help for me, thank you all Regards Chiyan ___________________________________________________ Click below to experience Sooraj R Barjatya's latest offering 'Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon' starring Hrithik, Abhishek & Kareena http://www.mpkdh.com From garysull windows.microsoft.com Wed Jul 16 11:21:13 2003 From: garysull windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:46 2003 Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] H263 + slice structered Mode Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24602A347B4@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Chiyan, I think you're asking in the wrong place. I suggest trying VCEG (starting at http://mail.imtc.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=vceg) Best Regards, Gary Sullivan +> -----Original Message----- +> From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org +> [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Chiyan +> Vikram vikram +> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2023 1:29 AM +> To: discuss@lists.m4if.org +> Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] H263 + slice structered Mode +> +> +> Dear Experts, +> +> Please send me H263+ slice structered mode enabled streams. It +> would be of great +> help for me, thank you all +> +> Regards +> Chiyan +> ___________________________________________________ +> Click below to experience Sooraj R Barjatya's latest offering +> 'Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon' starring Hrithik, Abhishek +> & Kareena http://www.mpkdh.com +> +> _______________________________________________ +> Discuss mailing list +> Discuss@lists.m4if.org +> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss +> From rob.koenen mpegif.org Thu Jul 31 14:36:33 2003 From: rob.koenen mpegif.org (Rob Koenen (MPEGIF)) Date: Thu Jul 31 16:48:06 2003 Subject: [Discuss] Changes in MPEGIF's mailing lists Message-ID: Dear people, As you may have noticed through some subscription messages, the MPEG Industry Forum is changing the domain name for its lists. We have just completed the move from @lists.m4if.org to @lists.mpegif.org This applies to both our public mailing and our member-only mailing lists. There are three reasons for doing this: 1. M4IF has become MPEGIF 2. The list names are too popular among spammers (even though you don't notice this because we have effective filtering, but the administrators certainly do know). 3. On the new domain, we have an archiving system that allows us to hide the sender's email address, which should mean less spam and more protection for you as participant. What has just happened is the following: * All lists (member-only and public) are now at lists.mpegif.org * All subscriptions have been carried over to the new lists --> You do NOT NEED TO RE-SUBSCRIBE! * Technotes has been renamed to MP4-Tech@..., in anticipation of similar MPEG-7 and MPEG-21 related lists; * News@... and Discuss@... are now for MPEG-4, MPEG-7 and MPEG-21 discussions and news; * Postings to the old lists will be forwarded to the new ones for a limited time. Please use the new addresses from now on. Let me and Peter (CC) know in a private mail If you have any questions. Kind Regards, Rob Koenen tel. +1 408 855 6891 gsm. +1 408 823 7512