Slashdot Mirror
More on MPEG4
ratajik writes: "Salon is running a story
about how MPEG-LA (the alliance of companies in charge of licensing MPEG4) are
planning on charging .25 cents for each copy they sell, and a .02 cent an hour
"use fee" for anyone viewing MPEG4. They have a interesting
slant on how this will make open-source alternatives much more attractive, and
will likely kill off use of the MPEG4 standard in the long run."
I have been working with a company that provides turn-key encoding solutions and the licensing issues with MPEG 4 are what has been delaying the next release of Quickimte (for those of us who like to watch trailers on Apple's Trailer site)
My little Universe is cool for the people who can fit inside it (being 250 6'4" there aren't that many who can)
This won't fly. No one will buy into it. Hell, Apple has already said that they won't release Quicktime 6 until the per use fees go away. I seriously doubt Apple will be the only one to puke on the fees.
SIGFEH
Oh yes, in case you haven't figured it out,
ParadoX = Emmett Plant
xiphmont = Colin Montgomerie
jack = Jack Moffitt
Better still. At least in Finland we have this thing called 'tv-license'. If you don't own one, you're not (legally) allowed to listen to the radio or watch TV (in your own appartment, casual hearing is *OK*).
This license is pretty hefty, but it funds 'state's tv station', which shows some very good programs, so I'm personally OK with that.
Of course we have ad-funded (did I mention that states tv-channel doesn't have ads?) channels too.
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
It looks like Divx5 is released, and DivXnetworks are resorting to implanting spyware (or charging $30 for the pro version) to offset the licensing costs. This might have some effect on the XviD (open sourced derivative of DivX) though, but looks like it will go the same way as the LAME MP3 encoder, as discussed in this thread
You don't actually send the video over the net in a multiplayer fps, you're sending like locations and vectors and shit. Did you think that a host computer processed all the video, compressed and then sent it to the others like a movie? That's just sad...
We've seen this with JPG, where as a result a lot of websites are switching to PGN, and now we will see this again with MPEG4.
You probably meant GIF (instead of JPG).
When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson
That's just wrong i'm afraid: I can think of at least one wildly succesful implementation of micropayments which is pay-as-you-go mobile phones in the UK.
Before pay-as-you-go all phones were contract based, ie flat rate (with small additional charges if you go over the limit). However this charging model didn't suit many people who would only use their phones occasionally, or wanted to keep a close eye on their expenses so the payg scheme was introduced. You can buy top up vouchers from shops and post offices, and then your phone shows you how much money you have in your account.
It's effectively a micropayment system, and it's in use by millions in this country every day.
Anyway, your assertion that micropayments didn't take off because there are a lot of commercial, proprietary implementations that didn't work is also rubbish - all that means is that those systems weren't up to the job.
You also neglect the fact that even in places where the utility companies aren't monopolies, micropayments are still the default
They agreed earlier this week on specifications for HD-DVD playback and recordable formats, and it is very possible that MPEG4 will be eliminated from the equation entirely. Check out: http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20020301S0091 I'm sure they are waiting for the announcement this summer on the "true" cost of the licensing before they pull the trigger, but it looks like MPEG2 will be the standard for HD-DVD recorders, and MPEG2 could remain the standard for HD-DVD playback.
After the previous /. article about MPEG4, I wrote to licensing@mpegla.com and said "if you want Windows Media to win the streaming war, then keep the per-use fee". Much to my amazement, they sent back a reply that was actually relevant to my concerns. It wasn't the answer I wanted, but at least they have good form letters.
Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx2del.umbc.eduX-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0
Subject: Your Recent Email
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:41:04 -0700
From: "MPEG-4 Visual Licensing" <MPEG-4VisualLicensing@mpegla.com>
Thanks for sharing your views with us regarding the reported MPEG-4 Visual licensing terms and your interest in using the MPEG-4 Visual Standard. I know this email may sound like a canned response, but since you took the time to write to us and others who wrote us raised similar concerns, we wanted to get back to you (and the others) to explain the situation. We understand that you have strong feelings about the MPEG-4 Visual licensing terms based on what you've heard, and we welcome your feedback. The license agreement is still in the process of being worked out, your views are important to us, and they will be taken into consideration. Similarly, I hope you will allow us this opportunity to clarify a few things that may have been misunderstood and to explain where this goes from here.
First, we would like to clarify the role of MPEG LA. MPEG LA's business is to make it possible for new technologies (like MPEG-4 Video) to enter the marketplace by making the essential intellectual property rights owned by many patent owners accessible to everyone on fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms under a single license. If there were no MPEG LA, the essential patent rights that made the MPEG-4 Visual technology possible would still have to be dealt with, but instead of having the opportunity to deal with one company for a single license that includes those rights, users' only option would be to deal with each patent holder individually. With MPEG LA, the marketplace is assured of ready access to MPEG-4 Visual essential patents owned by 18 different companies (soon there will be more, but our goal is to include as many essential patents as possible in one license; therefore, royalty rates will not increase during the term of the agreement even as new patent owners and more patents are included). What you've seen is the first step in that process.
We understand that the success of a licensing program relies on the success of the underlying technology. Therefore, our goal, like yours, is to promote the widest possible use of the MPEG-4 Visual standard, and we are sensitive to the need to structure a reasonable license that is consistent with marketplace conditions. To that end, we continue to work with the patent owners to assure that the license is responsive. Everything is in a state of constant review. If something isn't right, every effort is made to fix it. Because of MPEG LA's role, you have the opportunity to discuss your concerns with us, and we in turn can communicate them to the patent owners. We note that there are many different views to be considered, however, and that ultimately the marketplace will decide. We note also that there may be many reasons (having nothing to do with licensing terms) why someone may delay a product introduction or choose among competing alternatives. And, it would be a mistake to assume that any alternative is or will be free of patent licensing obligations or without additional charges of its own.
Finally, we understand that you do not agree with the implementation of a use fee. Given the nature of MPEG-4 Visual technology and the importance of encouraging the wide availability of MPEG-4 Visual decoders and encoders in the market, the patent owners' intention was that reasonable royalties should be shared among industry participants across the entire product chain and applies equally to both wired and wireless services (especially as the ability to distinguish between them disappears). The philosophy underlying the use fee was intended to be consistent with the expected flow of MPEG-4 video transactions so that those who can pay will and those who can't aren't expected to: thus, the use royalties to be paid by service providers are tied to remuneration - if service providers or content providers are paid for offering or providing MPEG-4 video, then patent holders are paid for the use of their patents; if service providers or content providers are not paid for offering or providing MPEG-4 video, then patent owners are not paid for the use of their patents. The entire license including the use fee, its application to broadcast/cablecast/multichannel environments, etc., is under study and will be the subject of further discussion.
This is just the beginning. The licensing terms were just announced on January 31, and the details of the MPEG-4 Visual license agreement are still being worked out. Because of the challenge posed by the effort to produce a joint licensing program requiring a consensus among at least 18 different patent owners and the yet undetermined future implementations and applications of the emerging MPEG-4 Visual technology, this may take several months to complete. There will be much discussion before all of this is sorted out, and changes may be expected. Again, we appreciate your contribution to this process and will keep you informed.
Sincerely, Larry Horn Vice President, LicensingIn the digital world this is often looked at as a solution but lossy compression is not like regular digital formats like MS Word documents or even programs. If you ocnvert from one compression format to another, it looks REALLY bad because both compression artifacts are there, and the size is only as good as the second compression technique used. Recompression unfortunatly is not an option at all.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
I'm the Ben Waggoner who was quoted in the article.
Actually, I wasn't saying it was TOO complex. While the entire standard certainly is complex, particular implementations only use a subset of those, based on a combination of Profiles and Levels.
The stuff most folks have been talking about, like the Simple Visual and Advanced Simple Visual used in the forthcoming QuickTime 6 and DivX 5.0 are only a really, really small part of the standard.
MPEG-4 is a big toolbox of features that can be used to build many different solutions, potentially competing or enhancing things like Flash, Shockwave, JPEG, streaming servers, movie projectors, video cameras, etcetera.
I view this as a real strength. Going forward anyone who needs to develop a new media tool can start with MPEG-4, instead of starting with scratch.
A good analogy would be how GNU and Linux are now a default port to all kinds of new and strange devices and tasks, because the building blocks are all there.
It's important that the open source community understand that building a real competitior to MPEG-4 is a task on the order of magnitude of building an OS from scratch.
Just being able to play a rectangular movie with audio isn't even scratching the surface.
My video compression blog
I think you're speaking of just the initial Simple Visual Profile. MPEG-4 is extremely extensible, and we can expect new profiles to be added with new video codecs.
Today, MPEG-4 also includes Advanced Simple, with global motion compensation and some other features.
Also, H.26L is around the corner, and should be in some new MPEG-4 profiles in 2003. This codec includes a whole smorgasboard of new compression techniques, very competitive with the best propritary codecs.
Remember, MPEG-4 isn't a codec, any more than Linux is a web server.
My video compression blog
The point everyone seems to be missing in and about this article is that it's totally erroneous and misleading. Salon spends all it's time discussing alternative codecs (the compression/decompression algorithms that work on tracks) when the debate is really over format (the way in which the various tracks and data of a file are stored and coordinated). The MPEG 4 architecture, like Quicktime and Video for Windows and to a lesser degree Real and Windows Media, can use many different codecs, including VP3, ogg, mp3, DivX, and so forth, in addition to the default codec (which is also called MPEG4). Designing and implementing a robust architecture that can handle many different classes and instances of data in many different ways is much more complex than writing a simple compression algorithm. VfW, WMP, and Real all have severe limitations, which is why MPEG4 was based on Quicktime. Indeed, if MPEG-LA doesn't get it's act together, they may find Apple pulling the rug out from under them with an updated version of Quicktime itself. Apple didn't spend all that time and effort developing Quicktime 6 around MPEG-4 for nothing, and the similarities between the two architectures would make switching relatively simple.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Rememer, USERS aren't going to be paying the use fee. It's the folks providing the commerical streams that pay it. It's up to them to figure out how to get paid for it. If they can make the money via advertising, it'd still be free content to you.
My video compression blog