mpegla.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Suggestion: Legit use for BT by tomhudson · 2005-03-15 12:00 · Score: 1 · on BitTorrent May Prove Too Good to Quash

The terms for licensing are here

Why would a cable company pay royalties when they can just increase their bandwidth, and then have more bandwidth to sell for all sorts of applications in addition to ppv movies? $100,000 per year doesn't sound like much, but it's a recurring cost. This represents capital of $2,000.000 at current interest rates. Better to spend the $2,000,000 bulking up the infrastructure.

Also note that the royalties are per subscriber, whether that subscriber uses ppv or not. They've copied the "Microsoft Tax".

Re:Not legal by Ohreally_factor · 2005-01-26 07:57 · Score: 1 · on Video Formats for non-Windows Users?

Here's something interesting from the MPEG LA site:

In addition to different licensing options, the License employs reasonable annual limitations to provide more cost predictability, threshold levels below which certain royalties will not be charged in order to encourage early-stage adopters and minimize the impact on lower volume users, and some licensing options with royalty choices that require no royalty reports.

What? by Wesley+Felter · 2005-01-24 08:51 · Score: 1 · on Real Pays For Legal MP3 Playback On Linux

That page says nothing about H.264. And RealNetworks doesn't own H.264 (these guys do), so Real can't give it to you for free.

Proprietary codecs in a standard are nothing new. by Hobart · 2004-11-29 07:54 · Score: 5, Insightful · on HD-DVD Wins Support of 4 Studios

Just a reminder: Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray now require the implementation of Windows Media 9 (now VC-9, or VC-1 depending on who you ask). This means that anyone using a computer to play DVDs may be subject to Microsoft licensing restrictions.
Just a reminder: DVD and ATSC (American digital television spec, mandated by law) require the implementation of Dolby Labs AC3. This means anyone using a computer to play DVDs, or using a computer to watch broadcast television may be subject to Dolby licensing restrictions.

Just a reminder: VideoCD (MPEG-1) requires the implementation of The Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Layer 3 algorithm. This means anyone using a computer to play Video CDs or listen to .MP3 music files may be subject to Fraunhofer licensing restrictions.

At the moment, Fraunhofer, for example, realize the futility of prosecuting implementations of software-only MP3 decoders. This does not mean they do not have the right to file lawsuits against the users and producers of such, even, should they so desire, to the point of requiring per-use license payments.

The ogg / vorbis / theora solutions that the industry is paying no attention to are the only specs that are free of this insanity. But don't get all worked up just because Microsoft was the company whose codec was chosen instead of one of the other evil companies in mpegla.com's portfolio, unless you want to be thought of as this guy.

Re:Not to worry... by deblau · 2004-11-16 18:56 · Score: 1 · on Is The Lone Coder Dead?

Actually, some of the essential algorithms used to implement MPEG-4 are patented. If you release a codec without paying license fees, they've got you by the short and curlies, no reverse engineering required.

MPEG2 and MPEG4 are patented too... by crt · 2004-09-01 04:20 · Score: 3, Informative · on Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players

Not sure what the big deal is. The other codecs that have already been selected are patent encumbered as well (http://www.mpegla.com).

Microsoft will likely have to submit to some kind of RAND licensing as part of the deal, which will probably still exclude free players, but last I checked there was no such think as a free MPEG4 patent license either (just plenty of unlicensed implementations).

Re:How is this news? by daveschroeder · 2004-09-01 04:06 · Score: 4, Informative · on Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players

Now you have to acquire IP rights from not only the MPEG people, but also from Microsoft. Think that'll be easy?

Yes. Because MPEG LA is handling licensing for them all, including VC-9, considering it has been submitted to SMTPE as a standard.

Um... by daveschroeder · 2004-09-01 04:01 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players

I think you're splitting semantic hairs here. I realize that it's mandated in playback devices/equipment. That's implicit in saying that HD DVD and BD support all of these codecs. In order to "support them", of course their inclusion will be required in playback devices. There is NO difference between "support" and "require" in this context (at least I didn't intend there to be).

I'm no fan of many of Microsoft's practices, but HD DVD already supported VC-9, and Microsoft did submit VC-9 to SMPTE for consideration as a standard, and MPEG LA, the same licensing authority that handles all of the MPEG family codecs including MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC), is handling the patent pool for VC-9.

Regardless, no matter which next-generation DVD spec wins out, VC-9 will be a part of it. More worrisome is the prospect of the content providers rallying around VC-9, abandoning H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, fundamentally strengthening Microsoft's position in that arena...

Um... by daveschroeder · 2004-09-01 04:01 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players

I think you're splitting semantic hairs here. I realize that it's mandated in playback devices/equipment. That's implicit in saying that HD DVD and BD support all of these codecs. In order to "support them", of course their inclusion will be required in playback devices. There is NO difference between "support" and "require" in this context (at least I didn't intend there to be).

I'm no fan of many of Microsoft's practices, but HD DVD already supported VC-9, and Microsoft did submit VC-9 to SMPTE for consideration as a standard, and MPEG LA, the same licensing authority that handles all of the MPEG family codecs including MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC), is handling the patent pool for VC-9.

Regardless, no matter which next-generation DVD spec wins out, VC-9 will be a part of it. More worrisome is the prospect of the content providers rallying around VC-9, abandoning H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, fundamentally strengthening Microsoft's position in that arena...

All modern codecs are patented by 4r0g · 2004-09-01 03:54 · Score: 2, Informative · on Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players

It's not just VC-1/VC-9/WMV9 that is patented, also MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 AVC include loads of patents, like most other modern and obsoleted codecs (maybe with the exception of Vorbis). The MPEG-LA is a licensing (patent) pool that tries to gather IP holders into a pool to negotiate lump sum payments for the rights. Of course, any IP holder may choose to stay out of this implementor-friendly pool and seek legal action on implementations.... which is what MS can also do with their codecs.

Developing the fancy algorithms behind codecs is expensive and at least I think that companies are entitled to protect their inventions. It's up to the standards bodies to define under what (fair) terms the IP must be licensed in order to be adopted into the specs. Some are stricter than others. I'd like to know what's the case here.

Re:Well, not the whole industry... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-13 17:13 · Score: 0 · on BBC Begins Open-Source Streaming Challenge

Apple might not charge per stream but the MPEG-LA does charge per stream for the necessary patent licenses. (Apple is one of the patent holders with a fairly pathetic patent).

Separate licences for video and the container (MPEG4 Systems).
http://www.mpegla.com/
In addition to the MPEGLA you might have to deal with Via to license the next gen MPEG4 part 10 aka H.264 video codec just coming available.
http://via-licensing.com/

Re:Darwin Streaming Server / QTSS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-13 15:34 · Score: 0 · on BBC Begins Open-Source Streaming Challenge

There are patent licenses you are expected/required to take out in order to do MPEG4 based audio and video streaming. These don't really apply for the small users (the first $50,000 worth is free or something like that) but do really kick in when the BBC is trying to stream to thousands of concurrent users now and perhaps many more in the future.

In order to use Darwin SS with Quicktime Broadcaster for internet video streaming you actually have to sign 2 licences. One for the video codec (MPEG4 Part 2 aka H.263)http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/ and one for the file format/streaming structure http://www.mpegla.com/m4s/.

The audio codec (AAC) is fortunately free for use and only charged for encoders and decoders. It is handled by Via Licensing (a Dolby spin off) http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/lice nse.terms.html

If you want to use the cutting edge MPEG4 video codec (MPEG4-Part 10 aka H.264) which is the target that Dirac is aiming at then you currently have to pick your way between the competing licensors as the MPEG-LA and Via Licensing have overlapping sets of patent holders so you may need two licenses.

As a side note the patents in the MPEG4-Systems bundle seem very week to me although I haven't had time to search for prior art. Many of them are either for fairly trivial ideas or for things that were used in the 80s on workstations that are now being reinvented for limited computing power set top boxes. The Apple patent on which is meant to cover the hinting of media files is probably especially weak as it has just a single, slightly convoluted claim.

Re:Darwin Streaming Server / QTSS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-13 15:34 · Score: 0 · on BBC Begins Open-Source Streaming Challenge

There are patent licenses you are expected/required to take out in order to do MPEG4 based audio and video streaming. These don't really apply for the small users (the first $50,000 worth is free or something like that) but do really kick in when the BBC is trying to stream to thousands of concurrent users now and perhaps many more in the future.

In order to use Darwin SS with Quicktime Broadcaster for internet video streaming you actually have to sign 2 licences. One for the video codec (MPEG4 Part 2 aka H.263)http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/ and one for the file format/streaming structure http://www.mpegla.com/m4s/.

The audio codec (AAC) is fortunately free for use and only charged for encoders and decoders. It is handled by Via Licensing (a Dolby spin off) http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/lice nse.terms.html

If you want to use the cutting edge MPEG4 video codec (MPEG4-Part 10 aka H.264) which is the target that Dirac is aiming at then you currently have to pick your way between the competing licensors as the MPEG-LA and Via Licensing have overlapping sets of patent holders so you may need two licenses.

As a side note the patents in the MPEG4-Systems bundle seem very week to me although I haven't had time to search for prior art. Many of them are either for fairly trivial ideas or for things that were used in the 80s on workstations that are now being reinvented for limited computing power set top boxes. The Apple patent on which is meant to cover the hinting of media files is probably especially weak as it has just a single, slightly convoluted claim.

You can already get VC-9's details by WARM3CH · 2004-07-26 19:39 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Longhorn To Support HD DVD Format

I don't understand what you are talking about. VC-9's details are already available. Take a look at http://www.mpegla.com/pid/vc9/.

Not "Apple's" H.264 by daveschroeder · 2004-07-26 12:22 · Score: 3, Informative · on Microsoft Longhorn To Support HD DVD Format

H.264 is an international standard from MPEG and ITU, sometimes known as MPEG-4 Part 10 or MPEG AVC (Advanced Video Codec).

And yes, if they're supporting HD DVD, they will be supporting H.264, since it's one of the required codecs for HD DVD, along with VC-9 and MPEG-2.

Re:Avoid proprietary codecs, use Blu-ray by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 11:34 · Score: 0 · on Microsoft Longhorn To Support HD DVD Format

Why YES they have their OWN set of proprietary codecs...

Also keep in mind that HP and Dell have a stake in bluray. Do not think MS will just ignor them.

Now if Sony and the HD-DVD crowd could just stop bitching and moaning and come up with 1 standard we will ALL be better off. Instead they are all jockeying around each other to see who can get the biggest piece of the pie.

Also MPEG-2 is hardly 'non proprietary'. There is a fleet of patents that go with that bad boy...

Also technicaly HD-DVD is a better standard as it supports more things such as MS's codec AND mpeg2. Now if they were to use the newer codecs and fold them into the bluray standard. But mostly it is a matter of size. BluRay discs are bigger. Thats it. They hold more. More bits WILL equal a better picture in the long run. However to ignor other newer codecs that do better things with the bits is stupid and short sighted.

Also NOT supporting things is what made tons of early DVD's not work right. The orginal matrix DVD which was a landmark DVD in its own right did not work on one of the top selling DVD players of the time. People skipped that and bought ones that can play their movie. Yet it was 'fuzzy' standards which hurt DVD sales in the early years. It was not until the all in one chip sets started coming out that the whole problem sort of 'went away'.

If there end up being 2 standards I predict there will suddenly grow a group of manufactures that play all 3 types of discs. Just as now you pretty much can not buy a DVD player that does not play DTS. Yet when that came out it was a 'bastard' version of the mpeg audio tracks. Yet it was quietly folded in and now its not that big of an issue. Yet at the time thousands of people had just upgraded their rigs to handle dolby 5.1 and then were told 'oh btw we have a better standard'. There were some PISSED people...

We all need 1 standard. 1 big disc. Plays TONS of different codecs. Give the people making the discs some room to create REALLY cool stuff. That is customer drivin not wallet drivin...

WMV9 by News+for+nerds · 2004-07-15 17:45 · Score: 1 · on Japanese FTC Warns Microsoft

Actually, Windows Media 9 codec (VC-9), which was adopted as one of codecs in HD-DVD, violates the patents of many Japanese electronics giants involved with H.264/AVC, but because of the NAP(non-assertion of patents), they couldn't sue Microsoft.

Re:commercial? by tepples · 2004-07-10 09:15 · Score: 2, Informative · on Commercial DVD Software Comes to Linux

It's not the software patent overloads as much as the DVD CCA and DMCA overlords.

DVD-Video uses MPEG-2 and Dolby Digital codecs, both of which are covered by U.S. patents and foreign counterparts. See also MPEG LA.

Re:Fighting a losing battle by zurab · 2004-06-15 17:49 · Score: 1 · on Theora I Bistream Format Frozen

Wanna create Sorenson 3 content? It's $29.95 for QuickTime Pro. ...
Honest to god, I don't know where these bullshit rumors get started. Sorenson 3 is NOT expensive.

This is not a bullshit rumor - read the discussion thread more carefully. If video creation and sharing is to become popular, then yes - that price is expensive. By this I mean the price will prevent the format from becoming "ubiquitous" as I was discussing in my parent reply. It's almost like the tools themselves have to be free or very close to it to really catch on - like MP3 licensing was (and still is) virtually ignored.

Imagine, if every MP3 encoder cost that much few years ago, MP3 would not have been a format of choice for many. Unless, of course, groups of developers create free unlicensed sorenson encoders and Apple and Sorenson choose not to pursue anything legally about it. But I don't think either is likely to happen.

Again, and as I said before, the market for video messaging or sharing or streaming has not reached the level of maturity that audio counterparts have - so all this is up in the air as far as which way not only the technology, but also its uses, will go.

Neither is MPEG-4.

Quote from the MPEG-LA licensing Q&A page:

Q: What are the royalties for the MPEG-4 Systems Patent Portfolio License (excluding those patents that are essential to the MPEG-J portion of the MPEG-4 Systems standard)?

A: For the right to manufacture, sell and use, one-time royalties to be paid by the manufacturer are US $0.15 per decoder and US $0.25 per encoder (except Stored Data encoders), but (a) only one royalty is payable on a single decoder product or a single encoder product that is licensed across one or more business categories and (b) decoders and encoders are each subject to a total annual cap of $100,000 per legal entity (Sections 3.1.1 - 3.1.9 and 3.3)

For the right to make, sell and use Stored Data encoders, royalties to be paid by the encoder or transmitter are (a) $0.001 per 30 minutes or part to a maximum of $0.004 per movie for each copy; (b) $0.0005 per 30 minutes or part thereof to a maximum of $0.002 per movie for each copy where the content of the Stored Video is 5 years or older, and (c) $0.0002 for each copy of Stored Video that is 12 minutes or less (Section 3.1.10).

Granted, this most likely refers to streaming content and movies, but they do charge royalties per content you make and its length. This is what I was referring to as being "absurd" in the original reply.

Re:DivX popularity by Wesley+Felter · 2004-03-22 07:24 · Score: 2, Informative · on Xiph Releases Ogg Theora Alpha-3

Nope, there is a royalty due on every encoder and decoder as well as every minute of content. Get the facts here.

Re:Three manditory playback modes means by Eric+Smith · 2004-02-28 12:26 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Code in Every HD-DVD Player

Vendors, of course, will have to pay royalties to MSFT if they want to be able to claim to support the standard

Vendors already pay royalties for MPEG 2 video to MPEG LA. Or don't pay them, as MPEG LA is alleging about Apex Digital.

Paying royalties to Microsoft for VC-9 won't bother the vendors much unless the royalty amount is substantially higher.

Re:XviD by molarmass192 · 2003-08-20 10:14 · Score: 4, Informative · on Divx Now Adware Supported Only

It's completely free and GPL'd

Not quite, you have to remember to send your payment to the MPEG LA group for a "Patent Portfolio License". There are a ton of patents in MPEG4. Here's an interesting link about a "per stream" fee MPEG LA is even considering

Ogg Theora also has patents on the VP3 video codec but the license agreement makes it clear there are no royalties due for using or repackaging VP3. One of the key reasons why it's "fringe" is because it's hasn't been released as anything other than developer builds on Linux as of yet so there are no tools other than proofs of concept for creating and playing Ogg Theora streams yet.

Re:XviD by molarmass192 · 2003-08-20 10:14 · Score: 4, Informative · on Divx Now Adware Supported Only

It's completely free and GPL'd

Not quite, you have to remember to send your payment to the MPEG LA group for a "Patent Portfolio License". There are a ton of patents in MPEG4. Here's an interesting link about a "per stream" fee MPEG LA is even considering

Ogg Theora also has patents on the VP3 video codec but the license agreement makes it clear there are no royalties due for using or repackaging VP3. One of the key reasons why it's "fringe" is because it's hasn't been released as anything other than developer builds on Linux as of yet so there are no tools other than proofs of concept for creating and playing Ogg Theora streams yet.

Re:Well by Small+Hairy+Troll · 2003-04-28 09:50 · Score: 1 · on First HDTV Camcorder

MPEG-LA, the body in charge of setting licensing/royalty payments are asking the concerned parties to submit all patents and IP relating to H.264. I guess this is to make sure that submarine patents can't emerge at a later date... If you are a patent holder and you miss the boat, tough luck for you I suppose.

What this means is that the licensing process will not trial the H.264 standardization process, as it did in MPEG4 by a couple of years.

However I am not yet aware of the type of licensing scheme they will come up with. I'm sure Microsoft are hoping that it will be similar to MPEG4, in which case people may jump ship from H.264 to Microsoft's WM 9.

Re:yes, exactly because of that by Phexro · 2003-04-08 09:08 · Score: 1 · on MPlayer 0.90 released; MPlayer Maintainer Leaves

And is a GPL'd implementation of a patented compresson algorithm, which you must still pay fees to use, in the form of royalties. Just like MPEG 1 Layer 3, and the situation with LAME or any other F/OSS MP3 encoder.

FFmpeg and XviD are great, but they are not "free" in the RMS sense of the word.

Here's why: by Kjella · 2003-04-07 21:04 · Score: 1 · on Windows Media Format Could Hit Linux-Based Devices

Scenario: I make a web site, I want to distribute media. Why not use DIVX? Or XVid? Those codecs are as easily available as any others, and I don't have to pay a fee to encode using them.

And unless you pay the MPEG4 patent licencing fees, you get sued by the following companies for violating the following patents:

Canon, Inc.
US 4,982,270
Curitel Communications, Inc.
US 6,215,905 - KR 303,685 - KR 211,917
France Télécom, société anonyme
US 4,796,087 - FR 2,599,577 - DE 3767919 - GB 248,711 - IT 248,711 - SE 248,711 - US 4,933,762
Fujitsu Limited
US 5,235,618
GE Technology Development, Inc.
US 4,706,260 - US 4,813,056 - DE 3855203 - FR 395,709 - GB 395,709
General Instrument Corporation
US 5,068,724
Hitachi, Ltd.
JP 2,998,741 - JP 3,092,610 - US 6,295,376
KDDI Corporation
JP 1,835,550
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
US 4,901,075
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
US Re. 35,910 - US 5,223,949 - US 5,937,095 - US 6,148,109 - JP 3,118,237 - JP 3,149,417 - JP 3,149,418 - JP 3,157,144 - JP 3,135,061 - JP 3,135,062 - JP 3,186,775 - JP 3,197,264
Microsoft Corporation
US 5,748,789
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
US 5,072,295 - US 6,097,759 - US 6,301,301 - JP 1,869,940
Oki Electric Industry Co.
JP 2,898,212
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
US 5,654,706 - US 6,002,812 - KR 252,010 - US 6,016,111 - KR 132,895
SANYO Electric Co., Ltd.
JP 2,812,446
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
US 5,815,601 - US 5,963,257 - US 5,978,515 - US 6,023,299
Sony Corporation
US Re. 37,222 - DE 69031107 - FR 424,026 - GB 424,026 - JP 2,712,645 - US 5,191,436 - DE 69127224 - FR 456,433 - GB 456,433 - JP 2,874,745 - JP 2,877,225 - JP 2,969,782 - KR 221,889 - US 5,298,991 - DE 69229153 - FR 527,011 - GB 527,011 - US 5,428,396 - US 5,481,553 - AT 185663 - BE 638,218 - CH/LI 638,218 - DE 69421135 - DK 638,218 - ES 2,137,358 - FR 638,218 - GB 638,218 - GR 3,032,133 - IE 638,218 - IT 638,218 - LU 638,218 - MC 638,218 - NL 638,218 - PT 638,218 - SE 638,218
Telenor Communication II AS
US 5,579,413
Toshiba Corporation
US 5,852,469 - US 5,930,395 - US 6,025,881 - US 6,052,150
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.
US Re. 34,965 - JP 2,072,546 - US Re. 35,158 - JP 2,137,325

In case you didn't feel that 2x4" cluestick, the copyright may be free (Xvid is "educational only", don't think the DivX licence lets you do commercial encoding) but the patents aren't. The only reason they wouldn't be going after you is because you don't have enough money to be worth suing.

Kjella

Re:Hi by David_Bloom · 2003-03-29 12:16 · Score: 1 · on First Certified DivX/DVD Player Released

Actually, I just use VP3. MPEG4 patents suck!

Re:paradox by homer_ca · 2003-03-27 12:54 · Score: 4, Informative · on Slashback: Revolutionism, Media, Oregon

Actually the MPEG2 codec is patented, so free DVD player software would be illegal in the US unless you paid your $2.50 to the MPEGLA.

Re:Warped Logic? by afidel · 2003-01-10 04:07 · Score: 2 · on MPEG 4, Windows Media 9 At War

The problem is proving that MS is intending to lose money on the codec, elsewise it is not dumping. If MS expects that the revenue received will be above the cost of development then they should legally be allowed to sell it at whatever price they wish. Now there is the abuse of monopoly position, but what monopoly does MS have in the media world? None, and I for one don't see how they can leverage their OS monopoly to gain a stanglehold on the media market since such a tiny fraction of media is consumed on pc's. Besides it's not like the MPEG-LA is made up of smalltime players, Canon, GE, Toshiba, Thomson, Sony, etc for a complete list of liscensing companies see This link

mpeg-4 patents by gooofy · 2002-10-13 03:30 · Score: 1, Offtopic · on Streaming DVD Video over the Internet

well, I guess this will add a few more entries to the mpeg-4 patentlist.

Let's just hope some day theora will be at least as good.

Java Media Framework (was Bob is a bit confused) by realinvalidname · 2002-09-13 07:31 · Score: 1 · on Open Source TV

I suspect that what we're talking about is:

Java Media Framework for the playback API
IBM AlphaWorks MPEG-4 decoder for JMF

JMF has an all-Java version, and the MPEG-4 player is all-java, so yes, you can create an applet that doesn't require WMP/QT/Real installed on the client. An app called jmfcustomizer trims the jar so that you only send the classes needed for your app.

That said, it seems like there is a risk of having to download the same .jar over and over again, unless your browser caches jars, or if they use something cool like Java Web Start (which isn't widely deployed).

Maybe they'll have seperate links for "self-contained applet" vs. "I already have an MPEG-4 player, thanks"

BTW, if Bob gets too many hits, won't he have to pay the content provider fee?

My only complaint about the IBM MPEG-4 support is that it only seems to support MPEG-4 video codec in .avi files (like DiVX), not the .mp4 files created by QuickTime.

--realinvalidname

MPEG-4 patent licensing out by The+Bastard · 2002-07-15 10:47 · Score: 4, Informative · on QuickTime 6 Is Out

Apple released on the same day MPEG-LA announced licensing fees for MPEG-4 Visual, Systems and MPEG-J patents. Details here.

Re:MPEG-4 codec will even the playing field by akb · 2002-06-21 11:00 · Score: 2 · on Native Sorenson Playback Comes to Linux

How can you say users should campaign for mpeg4 and ask about the licensing restrictions in the same post? I read what you wrote as "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but do this anyway."

The licensing terms specify a fee per stream, that is, for every user that connects the operator pays a fee. That's completely absurd. Only a few large players will be able to participate, small streaming shops won't.

But don't take me word for it, read for yourself.

Apple thinks they can change MPEG-LAs mind by Markonen · 2002-03-07 00:31 · Score: 2 · on More on MPEG4

Its significant to note that Apple seems to be fairly confident that theyll be able to turn MPEG-LAs head and ditch the per-use royalties. Apple is happy with the per-copy charges, though, so I'm not sure what the implications are for open source MPEG-4 implementations.

Apples QuickTime 6 press release

The press release does a pretty good job at describing the situation. Apple is also encouraging everyone to send their (constructive) views on the issue to licensing@mpegla.com.

Oh my! by macdaddy · 2002-02-13 02:52 · Score: 1, Offtopic · on Apple Delays QuickTime 6 Over Proposed MPEG-4 Licenses

Have any of you visited MPEG-LA's website, specifically the contact page? Do so and take a look at the employees' pictures. Wow. MPEG-LA employs some goodlookin' women. Check out Courtney Ford. Oh hell yeah! Check please!

Quicktime 6 Links by Metrollica · 2002-02-12 19:46 · Score: 2, Redundant · on Apple Delays QuickTime 6 Over Proposed MPEG-4 Licenses

Apple Press release

MPEG-4 licensing plan

Plan for fees

This is like IPIX. Send them a message. by mmerlin · 2002-02-12 19:42 · Score: 2, Informative · on Apple Delays QuickTime 6 Over Proposed MPEG-4 Licenses

The site seems to be all about MPEG-2...

But you can send them a message here explaining that a per-use licence is morally wrong and will stifle early adoption of MPEG-4

MPEG2 is the oldest codec EVER! by blazin · 2002-02-01 06:24 · Score: 4, Funny · on New MPEG-4 Licensing Scheme

According to the license info page the royalty scheme is determined by date, apparently starting on September 1, 1001 and going until March 1, 2003. Now I don't know a lot about patents, copyright law, and what not, but over 1001 years to be having all the rights on a patent seems a bit crazy...

<SNIP>
(5) For MPEG-2 Packaged Media, the royalty is US $0.04 before September 1, 2001/$0.035 from September 1, 1001 to March 1, 2003/$0.03 from March 1, 2003 for the first MPEG-2 Video Event, plus $0.01 for each additional 30 minutes or portion recorded on the same copy...

Here are the Licensing Terms by InfoVore · 2002-02-01 04:01 · Score: 4, Interesting · on New MPEG-4 Licensing Scheme

I found the following news release with the licensing terms here:

For Immediate Release
CONTACT:
Lawrence Horn
MPEG LA®
301.986.6660
301.986.8575 Fax
lhorn@mpegla.com

Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced

(Denver, Colorado, US - 31 January 2002) - MPEG LA, LLC today announced that it will offer fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, worldwide access to patents 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 ("License"). The License currently includes patents owned by the following companies: Canon Inc.; France Télécom; Fujitsu Limited; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hyundai Curitel, Inc.; KDDI Corporation; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Microsoft Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.; Philips Electronics; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha; Sony Corporation; Telenor AS; Toshiba Corporation; and Victor Company of Japan, Limited. MPEG LA convened these patent owners in December 2000 following an independent patent expert's finding that each of them owns one or more patents essential to the international MPEG-4 Visual Standard. The objective of the License is to include as much essential MPEG-4 Visual (Simple and Core) intellectual property as possible in one license for the convenience of all users. Patent holders are required to include all of their essential MPEG-4 Visual (Simple and Core) patents worldwide. In addition, new patent holders and their essential patents will continue to be added following a determination of essentiality.

"The essential patent owners are pleased that their intellectual property has made a substantial and essential contribution to the development of this exciting new technology," said MPEG LA Chief Executive Officer Baryn S. Futa. "The MPEG-4 (Visual) Patent Portfolio License manifests their desire to 'partner' with other industry participants to encourage widespread adoption of MPEG-4. The patent owners understand the risks inherent in a startup technology in which companies large and small are asked to make a pioneering investment and are sensitive to the role that their licensing model will play in that process. Therefore, the License has been specially designed so that reasonable royalties are shared fairly by a variety of industry participants in order to stimulate early, rapid and widespread MPEG-4 product investment, development, deployment and use."

Under the License terms, Licensees will pay the following royalty rates for MPEG-4 Simple or Core Products:
US $0.25 per decoder (in hardware or software) for a license to make and sell and for personal use in receiving private video (i.e., not video for which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed), subject to a cap of $1,000,000 per year/per legal entity.
US $0.25 per encoder (in hardware or software) for a license for personal use only to create private video data (i.e., not video for which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed), subject to a cap of $1,000,000 per year/per legal entity.
US $0.00033/minute or portion (equivalent to US $0.02/hour) based on playback/normal running time for every stream, download or other use of MPEG-4 video data in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed (including without limitation pay-per-view, subscription and advertiser/underwriter-supported services). This royalty, to be paid by entities that disseminate the MPEG-4 video data, is not subject to a cap. (In the case of MPEG-4 video for which the number of uses cannot be directly determined (e.g., video supplied as part of a basic cable service or to a transmitter for broadcasting), a surrogate (e.g., standard industry audience measurement) is under consideration.)
US $0.00033/minute or part (equivalent to US $0.02/hour) based on playback/normal running time of MPEG-4 video data encoded (for other than personal use) on each copy of packaged medium. This royalty, to be paid by the packaged medium replicator, is not subject to a cap.
For one year from the start date of the license program, parties that sign the license (or a memorandum of intent to sign a license) will be forgiven their payment of royalties for all MPEG-4 Visual Simple and Core products during and before that one year period.
The initial term of the License has not yet been finalized but when decided, will be subject to renewal on reasonable terms and conditions for the useful life of any patents in the Portfolio.

In agreeing to the foregoing terms, the patent holders considered the need for simplicity, promoting the widest possible use of MPEG-4, maximizing the opportunity for full efficient compliance with intellectual property licensing requirements and recognition of the likely business models for deploying MPEG-4 Visual Standard technology so as to assure that the License is aligned with the real-world flow of MPEG-4 commerce.
As the objective of the MPEG-4 (Visual) Patent Portfolio License is to include as much essential MPEG-4 Visual (Simple and Core) intellectual property as possible in one license, 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).

# # #
Overview of the MPEG-4 Standard

MPEG-4 is an ISO/IEC multi-media representation standard developed by its Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG). MPEG also developed MPEG-1, which makes possible interactive video on CD-ROM and is present on virtually every personal computer, and MPEG-2, the core compression technology underlying the efficient transmission, storage and display of digitized moving images and sound tracks on which high definition television (HDTV), Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB), direct broadcast by satellite (DBS), digital cable television systems, multichannel-multipoint distribution services (MMDS), personal computer video, digital versatile discs (DVD), interactive media and other forms of digital video delivery, storage, transport and display are based.

MPEG-4 is the result of yet another international effort involving hundreds of researchers and engineers from all over the world. Building on the successes of MPEG's earlier standards, MPEG-4 enables integration of the production, distribution and content access features of digital television, interactive graphics applications and interactive multimedia across internet protocol, wireless, low bitrate, broadcast, satellite, cable and mobile environments. With MPEG-4, all content elements can be maintained as discrete objects enabling richer interactivity and use across many different devices More information about MPEG-4 can be found at MPEG's home page http://www.cselt.it/mpeg and at the home page of the MPEG-4 Industry Forum http://www.m4if.org.

MPEG LA, LLC

MPEG LA successfully pioneered one-stop technology standards licensing, starting with a portfolio of essential patents for the international digital video compression standard known as MPEG-2, which it began licensing in 1997. One-stop technology standards licensing enables widespread technological implementation, interoperability and use of fundamental broad-based technologies covered by many patents owned by many different patent holders. MPEG LA provides users with fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to these essential patents on a worldwide basis under a single license. The MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License now has more than 360 licensees and includes more than 400 MPEG-2 essential patents in 39 countries owned by 20 patent holders. As the legal and business template for one-stop technology standards licensing, MPEG LA also provides an innovative way to achieve fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to patent rights for other technology standards - the high-speed transfer digital interconnect standard known as IEEE 1394 and the terrestrial digital television standard used in Europe and Asia known as DVB-T. In addition, MPEG LA has been asked to facilitate the development of joint licenses for other MPEG-4 technologies. The company is based in Denver, CO and has offices in Chevy Chase, MD (Washington DC metropolitan area), the greater San Francisco area and London, England. For more information, please refer to http://www.mpegla.com, http://www.dvbla.com, and http://www.1394la.com.