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."

Comments

What the hell are they thinking?

[x136]

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.

Re:And how are they supposed to measure this?

[psavo]

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.

Re:in the long run?

[tangent3]

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

Re:Yeah right!!

[andyh1978]

So are you telling me FF10 did not have pre-rendered MPEG-2 cutscenes? How about GTA3?

No, GTA3 doesn't have any pre-rendered MPEG cutscenes, they're all done quite nicely with the 3D engine.

Reply from MPEG4 Licensing Association

[frankie]

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.edu
X-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, Licensing

Re:reverse engineer a compatible player

[donglekey]

In 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.

Re:I hope MPEG-4 fails

[benwaggoner]

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.