No subject

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