subject:"Re\: \[Wikimedia\-l\] RfC\: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites\?"

On 17 January 2014 14:19, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote:

 FYI it's against the bylaws of at least 4 chapters (Argentina, Chile,
 Uruguay and Venezuela) to promote content in non-free formats.



Do you have the precise wording handy? e.g. What constitutes promotion?


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Fajro

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:24 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 17 January 2014 14:19, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote:

 Do you have the precise wording handy? e.g. What constitutes promotion?


From Wikimedia Argentina bylaws:

 *The Association's goals are:*
 To actively contribute to the diffusion, improvement and progress of the
 knowledge and culture through the development and distribution of
 encyclopedias, collections of quotes, educational books and other document
 compilations; the diffusion of information and diverse data bases,
 especially in the languages spoken in the Argentine territory, which:

1. are available through technologies as Internet or similar, provided
that: (a) the source of the data is available (for works resulting from the
compilation or processing of other works), (b) are given in a freely
available format (defined as those that can be implemented by anyone, are
based in publicly available and documented specifications, and whose
implementation or use does not require the payment of any royalties), and
the availability of the work is not restricted by technical measures.


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina/Bylaws
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chile/Bylaws
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Uruguay/Bylaws/en
http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/Estatutos_sociales_de_Wikimedia_Venezuela (in
spanish)
-- 
Fajro
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Ted Chien

From my knowledge when I was working as an engineer in the multimedia
software company back in 2006, if there's no transcoding to MP* formats, no
patent fee is required. So if you upload MP4 files then download them
without any transcoding it should be fine (correct me if I'm wrong). We'd
only been charged by MPEG LA for encoding the MPEG-4 video at that time.

Personally I would support to include MP4 in Wikimedia projects if no
patent fee is required, since it's already widely used in user's daily
life.

Regards,
Ted Chien
-- Sent from my HTC New One
2014/1/17 下午10:16 於 Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 寫道：

 On Jan 16, 2014 11:05 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 
  On 17/01/14 01:14, Todd Allen wrote:
   This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content
 will
   be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque
 license,
   it may not even be possible to tell).
 
  I don't really understand this argument. It's not like there are video
  cameras that record directly to Theora. So presumably, most videos
  uploaded to Commons start life as H.264 or some other proprietary
  format, and are transcoded to Theora before they are uploaded to Commons.
 
  The proposal is to make it possible to upload the source file and have
  the server do the transcode, whereas currently, the source file is
  private and thus not distributed under a free license. Currently, if
  you want to reuse an H.264 source file, you have to somehow contact
  the author, beg for a copy of the file, and hope that they haven't
  deleted it. With this proposal, if you want to reuse an H.264 file
  without a patent license, you can just download the Theora transcode
  from the server.
 
  I am having trouble thinking of a scenario where the current situation
  would be better for reuse than the proposed situation. If you can
  think of one, please tell me.
 
  -- Tim Starling
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 If the server does the transcode and ultimately makes available only a
 video file in a free format, and WMF doesn't have to pay the patent holders
 to make that happen, then I would have no objection.

 If, however, the nonfree format is made available for download, or WMF
 funds would be supporting a software patent, those are clear negatives.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On 17 January 2014 15:03, Ted Chien hsiangtai.ch...@gmail.com wrote:

 From my knowledge when I was working as an engineer in the multimedia
 software company back in 2006, if there's no transcoding to MP* formats, no
 patent fee is required. So if you upload MP4 files then download them
 without any transcoding it should be fine (correct me if I'm wrong). We'd
 only been charged by MPEG LA for encoding the MPEG-4 video at that time.



So we'd be fine transcoding *from* MPEG4?


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Chad Horohoe

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:

 2014/1/16 Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com:
  As much as I am pushing for MP4 adoption in Wikimedia to help our lagging
  video efforts, MPEG-4 patent holders/licensors are not helping their
 case:
  [snip]

 I worry more about the no, because that would mean more video content
 uploaded to commons votes (see Rilke, Turelio). I find it disturbing
 that we got to a point were we basically *refuse* new contributions.


Me too. Anytime I see a but it will enable bad contributions argument for
reasons not to do things I get a little sad. Every well-meaning contribution
should be valued, IMHO.

-Chad
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread The Cunctator

Given that allowing mp4 would be an act of commercial expedience at the
expense of core Wikipedia principles, let me make the modest suggestion of
introducing mp4 in concert with a name change to Encarta.
On Jan 16, 2014 5:15 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 Great post Manuel, and I wholeheartedly agree, including the final
 recommendation. I, instead, voted for full MP4 support on the RfC to draw
 the center of gravity towards accepting MP4, but I would be happy even with
 a partial solution.

 Some points:

 1. The video project in English Wikipedia is:
 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video]] We certainly welcome more than
 just English Wikipedians there! We've had several university classes use
 this, and I think a pretty good set of example videos and guidelines
 including many videos shot by journalism and media studies students:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video

 2. I talked recently with the Mozilla Popcorn folks, and they seem to have
 the best OSS, online video editing system today with Popcorn Maker. You can
 actually paste in URLs of Commons video and start splicing them together.
 Just make sure to use an Ogg/WebM friendly browser. I encourage you to try
 it out.

 https://popcorn.webmaker.org/

 They said they would be thrilled if Popcorn became part of the editing
 solution for Wikimedia. One problem is that they right now only manage an
 EDL of edits, so embedding an edited video together requires an online
 Javascript environment -- there is no provision for re-compressing and
 outputting the video to a standalone Ogg or WebM file. But this is OSS so
 adding this functionality should be possible with the right resources.

 3. Perhaps we should do several sessions at Wikimedia in succession,
 including a workshop on how to shoot and make video? I teach video shooting
 and editing to students each year, so this would be quite an easy thing for
 me to pitch in on.

 -Andrew





 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Manuel Schneider 
 manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch wrote:

  Hi Fabrice,
 
  interesting question!
 
  I'd like to remind of a discussion we had at last year's Wikimania in
  Hong Kong concerning tools for the video community.
 
  Yet we do not really have a video community but scattered small groups
  or individuals doing some work. I try to coordinate this in the
  german-speaking world and we do this via Wikipedia, then there are
  people in the Czech Republic doing videos on national parks, Andrew did
  some great stuff in the US, there is a british initiative as well. We
  all face similar challenges. One things - which is off-topic here - is
  that I have in mind to connect these groups to an internationl video
  community, maybe by having a WikiVideo (or whatever the name might be)
  project.
 
  But back to the RfC: One of the challenges is that we need a solution for
 
  * storing the raw video material allowing people to re-use, re-edit
  etc., also most volunteers don't have the storage capacity to store all
  their raw material
 
  * collaborative editing - hard to do technically and it mostly implies
  that raw material is being shared - hard for people that can meet each
  other as these files are big, fast storage is needed etc. and it is even
  harder for people working online
 
  * upload of high-quality, finished video projects is a pain. They mostly
  have more than 1 GB, you need to have another server to upload and share
  it, make a bug report, find a server admin who downloads and imports it
  etc.
 
  My idea which we talked about briefly at Wikimania was a server where
  people could upload there raw material, it gets transcoded into smaller
  proxy clips everyone can easily download, edit and then upload the EDL
  (edit decision list = video editing project file, which just holds the
  operations). The server would then use the EDL on the raw material
  stored there and render the final video. The upload process can then be
  automated between this server and Commons.
 
  The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
  trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
  material.
 
  So my take on this topic is a compromise:
 
  * allow MP4 / H.264 as a source codec
 
  * deliver everything in WebM / Ogg Theora (or other free codecs)
 
  Especially with WebM I see no reason why people really need H.264. Ogg
  Theora is somewhat exotic but WebM isn't.
  And once we have solved the legal problem around this RfC nothing is
  stoping us to implement the video editing server, right?
 
 
  /Manuel
  --
  Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
  Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread The Cunctator

He wasn't assuming bad faith; he was accurately describing the situation
without ascribing intent.
On Jan 16, 2014 7:36 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

  There aren't two principles in conflict here.
 
  This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content
 will
  be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque
 license,
  it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that
 change,
  but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As
 such
  it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
  change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a
 question
  about format support.


 As much as I hate how MPEG-LA and MPEG-4 creates a non-free climate for our
 video, it's unfair to use backdoor to characterize intent of either
 community members or WMF employees in this area.

 Video has been a big shortcoming in Wikipedia and in the FLOSS community in
 general. Overcoming means we need to consider the unique nature of the
 problem with some possible new solutions. That's not backdooring -- that's
 directly addressing the needs of content creation given the current legal
 and IP situation.

 Let's debate the merits of the case and not assume bad faith of the folks
 putting it forward.

 -Andrew
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

There's an article about the debate up from yesterday on Ars:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/wikimedia-considers-supporting-h-264-to-boost-accessibility-content/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

A pile of press is linked at the top of the talk page.


- d.

On 17 January 2014 16:43, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 There's an article about the debate up from yesterday on Ars:
 http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/wikimedia-considers-supporting-h-264-to-boost-accessibility-content/
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann

* Andrew Lih wrote:
BTW, Luis from WMF has put a very lengthy and detailed analysis of the
legal issues that does help quite a bit, at the end of the RFC:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Commercial_use_and_h264

I note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not really have to obtain a
license to use H.264 encoders and decoders, users could do the format
conversions elsewhere and the Wikimedia Foundation could then merely
distribute the files. As the RfC notes, Merely distributing MP4 files
never requires a patent license. That would spare us problems like the
secret contract issue.

Why does the proposal, instead, suggest the Foundation should engage in
the practise of, not just mere distribution, but Internet Broadcasting?
That apparently requires a patent license. For that matter, would users
who download video automatically obtain Internet Re-Broadcasting rights?

I do note that according to MPEG LA there are only about 1300 entities
with relevant license agreements, if putting a H.264 video on my web
site whether people can download it is Internet Broadcasting and I do
not obtain an Internet Broadcasting license by pressing the record
button on my camera, or some other automatic process, then that figure
is several orders of magnitude too small, or patent holders tolerate a
lot of infringement (for the moment).

Would it really make sense to label video files as freely shareable if
forms of sharing like Internet Broadcasting need additional licenses?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing on
our own base of uploaded videos is the approach best calibrated to serving
Wikimedia's mission?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
 Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
 enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
 6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing on
 our own base of uploaded videos is the approach best calibrated to serving
 Wikimedia's mission?


Actually it did come up, allow me to reproduce the comment in a vote posted
by Brad Patrick (former WMF general counsel):

I agree that the dominant file format means we need to be able to
comprehend what is ingested. But it is not okay to ingest and spew using
that file format if it means we are putting on someone else's intellectual
property yoke. Commons' great benefit to the world is no-questions-asked
reusability, and I don't want to see it compromised in this fashion,
license freebie or otherwise. I'm with User:David
Gerardhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard
 on this. On the whole it is of far less importance to me as there is no
guiding principal or idea that WMF is intended to be an *exclusive*
repository of anything. Others do nothing but video, and that's great. I
want there to be video, *but it is not part of a grant vision to
out-YouTube YouTube, or Vimeo, or any other huge site with billions of
hours of video*. User:Fuzheadohttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fuzheado
 is right - we lack the present toolset to be able to address such volumes
of video, and I'm not sure that's a bad
thing.--BradPatrickhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick
 (talk https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BradPatrick) 14:45,
16 January 2014 (UTC)

Emphasis is mine. I'm sure smart people have debated this before, can
anyone point me to it?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On 17 January 2014 17:12, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 property yoke. Commons' great benefit to the world is no-questions-asked
 reusability, and I don't want to see it compromised in this fashion,
 license freebie or otherwise. I'm with User:David
 Gerardhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard
  on this. On the whole it is of far less importance to me as there is no


Note that my favoured option is actually ingestion of MP4 (and of
anything, really), but not serving it. Ideally you should be able to
get a video on your phone of that UFO that just flew by and upload it
in your Wikimedia Commons uploader app without having to faff around
with dodgy shareware wrappers around FFmpeg on a computer first, or
attempt to run a slow and battery-hungry conversion on your phone
itself.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Emmanuel Engelhart

Le 16/01/2014 20:13, geni a écrit :
 On 16 January 2014 13:02, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote:
 
 Dirac, a free codec developed by the BBC, seems to be a good solution.
 Do people have some experiences with Dirac?


 No. BBC managed to get it working dedicated machines a few years back and I
 think there is an alpha trans-coder out there but people have lost
 interest.

Indeed, it seems the development of Dirac is pretty slow/frozen :(
But, I have tested it with ffmpeg: the lossless compression seems to work.

 Theora is good enough for the no compromise on freedom mob and
 development interest is moving towards webM.

Please refer to the original question, we speak here about lossless
codecs and AFAIK neither VP8 nor Theora are lossless (or have lossless
options).

But it seems that VP9 has one and that last month ffmpeg has started to
merge patches to support lossless VP9 transcoding... This might be the
best approach to deal with raw video material on Commons:
https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2013-November/150547.html

Emmanuel
-- 
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline  more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Ted Chien

Hi David,

We were selling video editing softwares at that time, and that's what I
remebered for the MPEG-4 royalties. But MPEG LA would do the license thing
case by case, maybe my information is not correct now.

I just found that MPEG LA has announced in 2010 that it will not charge
royalties from Internet video that is free to users from the lifetime of
the license, maybe WMF projects can fit the requirement? I think it needs
the legal team to do the investigation.

The MPEG LA press release for free Internet Video:
http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/74/n-10-08-26.pdf

Regards,
Ted Chien
-- Sent from my HTC New One
2014/1/17 下午11:29 於 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 寫道：

 On 17 January 2014 15:03, Ted Chien hsiangtai.ch...@gmail.com wrote:

  From my knowledge when I was working as an engineer in the multimedia
  software company back in 2006, if there's no transcoding to MP* formats,
 no
  patent fee is required. So if you upload MP4 files then download them
  without any transcoding it should be fine (correct me if I'm wrong). We'd
  only been charged by MPEG LA for encoding the MPEG-4 video at that time.



 So we'd be fine transcoding *from* MPEG4?


 - d.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.netwrote:

 * Andrew Lih wrote:
 BTW, Luis from WMF has put a very lengthy and detailed analysis of the
 legal issues that does help quite a bit, at the end of the RFC:
 
 
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Commercial_use_and_h264

 I note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not really have to obtain a
 license to use H.264 encoders and decoders, users could do the format
 conversions elsewhere and the Wikimedia Foundation could then merely
 distribute the files. As the RfC notes, Merely distributing MP4 files
 never requires a patent license. That would spare us problems like the
 secret contract issue.


That would be the status quo. But that's also the problem -- the conversion
tools are lacking and serve as a choke point for contributions. Right now
the most ubiquitous MP4 creation devices (your mobile phone) cannot
directly upload to Commons because of this issue. (Disappointingly, this is
a reason for some Commons users to cheer/vote who simply don't like ease of
video contribution.)

Requiring users to do format conversion on their side also it makes it
extremely hard for remixing, since popular video editors don't ingest Ogg
or WebM as downloaded from Commons. You would have a situation of
MP4-Ogg/WebM conversion; upload to Commons; next user downloads Commons
Ogg/WebM; Ogg/WebM-MP4 conversion; ingest to video editor. That means
there's undesirable generation loss.


 Why does the proposal, instead, suggest the Foundation should engage in
 the practise of, not just mere distribution, but Internet Broadcasting?
 That apparently requires a patent license. For that matter, would users
 who download video automatically obtain Internet Re-Broadcasting rights?


Read the details and you'll see that free (as in beer) Internet Broadcast
video doesn't need a license.

SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

In the case of Internet Broadcast AVC Video (AVC Video that is delivered
via the Worldwide Internet to an End User for which the End User does not
pay remuneration for the right to receive or view, i.e., neither
Title-by-Title nor Subscription), there will be no royalty for the life of
the License.



 I do note that according to MPEG LA there are only about 1300 entities
 with relevant license agreements, if putting a H.264 video on my web
 site whether people can download it is Internet Broadcasting and I do
 not obtain an Internet Broadcasting license by pressing the record
 button on my camera, or some other automatic process, then that figure
 is several orders of magnitude too small, or patent holders tolerate a
 lot of infringement (for the moment).


Yes, this is what's confusing about MPEG-LA's stance -- basically it wants
to rich entities with deep pockets near the end of the distribution chain
to pay.

This article might help, but it's still confusing:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-2101-264.html

-Andrew
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
 Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
 enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
 6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing on
 our own base of uploaded videos is the approach best calibrated to serving
 Wikimedia's mission?


In general, downloading videos that other people have posted on YouTube is
not allowed.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/56100?hl=en

Most folks have concluded it's a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service.

So much for the remix part if you want to do it outside of YouTube's own
editor.

More here in the comments:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27533
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

I'm not sure what debate you're referring to. If it's about whether video
belongs in Wikipedia, I don't think it's even in question.

Wikipedia started in 2001 as all text.

It didn't have photos then, we now have photos.
It didn't have audio then, we now have audio.
It didn't have video then, we now have video (albeit not that much).

Video shouldn't need special justification to be a full-fledged part of
Wikiepdia's content.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

  One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
  Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem.
 YouTube
  enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
  6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing
 on
  our own base of uploaded videos is the approach best calibrated to
 serving
  Wikimedia's mission?
 

 Actually it did come up, allow me to reproduce the comment in a vote posted
 by Brad Patrick (former WMF general counsel):

 I agree that the dominant file format means we need to be able to
 comprehend what is ingested. But it is not okay to ingest and spew using
 that file format if it means we are putting on someone else's intellectual
 property yoke. Commons' great benefit to the world is no-questions-asked
 reusability, and I don't want to see it compromised in this fashion,
 license freebie or otherwise. I'm with User:David
 Gerardhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard
  on this. On the whole it is of far less importance to me as there is no
 guiding principal or idea that WMF is intended to be an *exclusive*
 repository of anything. Others do nothing but video, and that's great. I
 want there to be video, *but it is not part of a grant vision to
 out-YouTube YouTube, or Vimeo, or any other huge site with billions of
 hours of video*. User:Fuzheado
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fuzheado
  is right - we lack the present toolset to be able to address such volumes
 of video, and I'm not sure that's a bad
 thing.--BradPatrickhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick
  (talk https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BradPatrick) 14:45,
 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Emphasis is mine. I'm sure smart people have debated this before, can
 anyone point me to it?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm not sure what debate you're referring to. If it's about whether video
 belongs in Wikipedia, I don't think it's even in question.

 Wikipedia started in 2001 as all text.

 It didn't have photos then, we now have photos.
 It didn't have audio then, we now have audio.
 It didn't have video then, we now have video (albeit not that much).

 Video shouldn't need special justification to be a full-fledged part of
 Wikiepdia's content.



More specifically, if growing Commons as a repository for video in the same
way it is for images is the best use of Wikimedia resources. I'd think
lobbying Google to be more expansive in its license permissions for cc-by
YouTube videos, curating existing educational video content, etc. might
bear more fruit. Not to say that using video from Commons to illustrate
other projects isn't valuable, but hosting millions of videos not used on
any projects (as it is with images on Commons) seems like a misuse of time
and effort given the far more popular alternatives.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Ah. Well if you're not even buying into the legitimacy of photos on
Commons, I'm not sure there's a way to have a productive discussion about
video.

-Andrew



On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

  I'm not sure what debate you're referring to. If it's about whether video
  belongs in Wikipedia, I don't think it's even in question.
 
  Wikipedia started in 2001 as all text.
 
  It didn't have photos then, we now have photos.
  It didn't have audio then, we now have audio.
  It didn't have video then, we now have video (albeit not that much).
 
  Video shouldn't need special justification to be a full-fledged part of
  Wikiepdia's content.
 
 
 
 More specifically, if growing Commons as a repository for video in the same
 way it is for images is the best use of Wikimedia resources. I'd think
 lobbying Google to be more expansive in its license permissions for cc-by
 YouTube videos, curating existing educational video content, etc. might
 bear more fruit. Not to say that using video from Commons to illustrate
 other projects isn't valuable, but hosting millions of videos not used on
 any projects (as it is with images on Commons) seems like a misuse of time
 and effort given the far more popular alternatives.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 Ah. Well if you're not even buying into the legitimacy of photos on
 Commons, I'm not sure there's a way to have a productive discussion about
 video.

 -Andrew


No, I think the vast repository of images, properly curated, is valuable
and useful. But Commons is still pretty close to square one with video, so
it seems natural to discuss whether it can fulfill the same role for video
content that it does for images, and whether there exists out there enough
interested reusers to make large investments worthwhile.

Reading the multimedia vision and watching the video answers some of my
questions, in that it seems the goal for videos is more limited than it is
for images. I don't think it would be of much value to have 100 million
videos where only 50,000 are used in another Wikimedia project, but judging
by the video presentation that clearly is not the WMF's goal or direction.
Some of the comments in the RFC seemed to suggest that as an object and I'm
glad that isn't the case.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Michael Peel


On 17 Jan 2014, at 19:11, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
 Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
 enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
 6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing on
 our own base of uploaded videos is the approach best calibrated to serving
 Wikimedia's mission?
 
 
 In general, downloading videos that other people have posted on YouTube is
 not allowed.
 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/56100?hl=en
 
 Most folks have concluded it's a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service.
 
 So much for the remix part if you want to do it outside of YouTube's own
 editor.
 
 More here in the comments:
 https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27533

Doesn’t that break the terms of the CC-BY license, if not legally then at least 
ethically? The right to distribute copies is built into the license, no?

Thanks,
Mike


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Samuel Klein

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
 be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse


I'm not sure this is correct.

There are two different implementations possible.
* Accept MP4 and support a transcoding toolchain, but only show readers and
editors patent-unencumbered* formats.
I think this is an excellent idea, and something we should implement.

* Accept MP4 and support transcoding as above, show readers and editors
patent-unencumbered formats by default, and allow them to download the
original file if they wish.  This would allow people using toolchains that
only support MP4 to continue to edit one another's work without themselves
having to implement a transcoding toolchain on the client side. Again, the
default presentation for anyone who doesn't know what they are doing would
be unencumbered, but we would be more extensively providing a server-side
transcoding toolchain for users who do not or cannot [depending on whether
they have full control over the hardware they use].

Lionel writes:
 Most of the time it is a bad idea to upload a video without any form of
editing. Most of the time you need to
 remove at least the begining and the end of a video file.

Just because that video is incomplete doesn't mean it is a bad idea to
share.  As with text, we should be able to upload drafts and work on them
online.  This sort of basic editing is something we should support online
post-upload.  Forcing uploaders to have an offline editing toolchain in
order to be able to share material is unnecessary; the uploader doesn't
have to be the one to refine the result.

Sam.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Victor Grigas

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

  This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content
 will
  be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse


 I'm not sure this is correct.

 There are two different implementations possible.
 * Accept MP4 and support a transcoding toolchain, but only show readers and
 editors patent-unencumbered* formats.
 I think this is an excellent idea, and something we should implement.

+1



 * Accept MP4 and support transcoding as above, show readers and editors
 patent-unencumbered formats by default, and allow them to download the
 original file if they wish.  This would allow people using toolchains that
 only support MP4 to continue to edit one another's work without themselves
 having to implement a transcoding toolchain on the client side. Again, the
 default presentation for anyone who doesn't know what they are doing would
 be unencumbered, but we would be more extensively providing a server-side
 transcoding toolchain for users who do not or cannot [depending on whether
 they have full control over the hardware they use].

 Lionel writes:
  Most of the time it is a bad idea to upload a video without any form of
 editing. Most of the time you need to
  remove at least the begining and the end of a video file.

 Just because that video is incomplete doesn't mean it is a bad idea to
 share.  As with text, we should be able to upload drafts and work on them
 online.  This sort of basic editing is something we should support online
 post-upload.  Forcing uploaders to have an offline editing toolchain in
 order to be able to share material is unnecessary; the uploader doesn't
 have to be the one to refine the result.

 Sam.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 

*Victor Grigas*
Storyteller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nTVAmstteM
Wikimedia Foundation
vgri...@wikimedia.org
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread MZMcBride

David Gerard wrote:
Given Commons' attitude on even incredibly unlikely copyright risks
... it's just ridiculous to assume such a provision on a format would
be allowed to pass.

I see at least one person has deemed it a snowball-pass after just a
few hours. I find this ... unlikely.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video

Looking at the discussion, there are currently approximately 105 users
under general support, 167 users under general oppose, and 34 users under
partial support (contributions only). The few other sections have a
negligible amount of activity.

There's already discussion on the talk page about how to close what will
inevitably be a very long and contentious discussion. If we avoid treating
this RFC as a vote, there's possibly hope for a reasonable compromise.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-17 Thread Samuel Klein

Yes.  The current discussion has confused people about the things that are
not very contentious:
* Ingesting and converting out of more formats is good: we should start
ingesting MP4 and converting on the fly.  There are no major legal risks to
our doing so.
* We have a tiny video community; even so we are one of the largest
collection of WebM videos on the web.  We should try to increase the global
population of WebM videos so that there is more incentive for remixers and
videographers to start playing with and using compatible tools.
* We should increase our support for toolchains for WebM and similar
unencumbered formats: by helping the major clients implement support.

If we clarify those things, a new RFC that focuses on implementing MP4
autoconversion would have more support.  It would be easier  faster if the
RFC creators chose to close discussion for now while reframing  revising
the focus of discussion.

SJ


On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:18 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 David Gerard wrote:
 Given Commons' attitude on even incredibly unlikely copyright risks
 ... it's just ridiculous to assume such a provision on a format would
 be allowed to pass.
 
 I see at least one person has deemed it a snowball-pass after just a
 few hours. I find this ... unlikely.

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video

 Looking at the discussion, there are currently approximately 105 users
 under general support, 167 users under general oppose, and 34 users under
 partial support (contributions only). The few other sections have a
 negligible amount of activity.

 There's already discussion on the talk page about how to close what will
 inevitably be a very long and contentious discussion. If we avoid treating
 this RFC as a vote, there's possibly hope for a reasonable compromise.

 MZMcBride



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann

* Fabrice Florin wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team (1) seeks your guidance on a 
proposal to support the MP4 video format. As you know, this digital 
video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch 
videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is 
also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC. (2)

Actually, MP4 is a container format and H.264 a video codec, and it is
quite normal to use variants of H.264 with other container formats like
AVI. Likewise, MP4 does not imply using AAC as audio codec, MP3 could
be used instead, for instance. An analysis why AAC is being proposed may
be useful here.

However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary 
format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting 
open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have 
acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required. 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=114053933 notes Though
the full license agreements cannot be disclosed in public. That is not
very helpful in analysing claims later on like Merely distributing MP4
files never requires a patent license.

What is the exact language to be used to inform anyone handling H.264
video downloaded from Wikimedia Foundation servers of their rights and
restrictions, specifically with regards to the relevant patent porfolio?
Making it abundantly clear what users can and cannot do with such files
should be considered a pre-condition for considering such a proposal.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread James Salsman

Why would we promote patent- and secrecy-encumbered formats when Google has
spent so much on opening WebM?

Also, why does the Multimedia Team care about video when most Wiktionary
headwords don't have uploaded audio exemplars yet?

Where are our priorities?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread Emmanuel Engelhart

Le 16/01/2014 12:54, Manuel Schneider a écrit :
 The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
 trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
 material.

We have now a pretty good support of TIFF for pictures and FLAC for
audio streams; but there is still no solution to store lossless (raw)
video material. This problem is a real one like have underlined Manuel.

The following Wikipedia article proposes a list of lossless video codecs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs#Lossless_compression_2

Dirac, a free codec developed by the BBC, seems to be a good solution.
Do people have some experiences with Dirac?

Regards
Emmanuel
-- 
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline  more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Great post Manuel, and I wholeheartedly agree, including the final
recommendation. I, instead, voted for full MP4 support on the RfC to draw
the center of gravity towards accepting MP4, but I would be happy even with
a partial solution.

Some points:

1. The video project in English Wikipedia is:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video]] We certainly welcome more than
just English Wikipedians there! We've had several university classes use
this, and I think a pretty good set of example videos and guidelines
including many videos shot by journalism and media studies students:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video

2. I talked recently with the Mozilla Popcorn folks, and they seem to have
the best OSS, online video editing system today with Popcorn Maker. You can
actually paste in URLs of Commons video and start splicing them together.
Just make sure to use an Ogg/WebM friendly browser. I encourage you to try
it out.

https://popcorn.webmaker.org/

They said they would be thrilled if Popcorn became part of the editing
solution for Wikimedia. One problem is that they right now only manage an
EDL of edits, so embedding an edited video together requires an online
Javascript environment -- there is no provision for re-compressing and
outputting the video to a standalone Ogg or WebM file. But this is OSS so
adding this functionality should be possible with the right resources.

3. Perhaps we should do several sessions at Wikimedia in succession,
including a workshop on how to shoot and make video? I teach video shooting
and editing to students each year, so this would be quite an easy thing for
me to pitch in on.

-Andrew





On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Manuel Schneider 
manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch wrote:

 Hi Fabrice,

 interesting question!

 I'd like to remind of a discussion we had at last year's Wikimania in
 Hong Kong concerning tools for the video community.

 Yet we do not really have a video community but scattered small groups
 or individuals doing some work. I try to coordinate this in the
 german-speaking world and we do this via Wikipedia, then there are
 people in the Czech Republic doing videos on national parks, Andrew did
 some great stuff in the US, there is a british initiative as well. We
 all face similar challenges. One things - which is off-topic here - is
 that I have in mind to connect these groups to an internationl video
 community, maybe by having a WikiVideo (or whatever the name might be)
 project.

 But back to the RfC: One of the challenges is that we need a solution for

 * storing the raw video material allowing people to re-use, re-edit
 etc., also most volunteers don't have the storage capacity to store all
 their raw material

 * collaborative editing - hard to do technically and it mostly implies
 that raw material is being shared - hard for people that can meet each
 other as these files are big, fast storage is needed etc. and it is even
 harder for people working online

 * upload of high-quality, finished video projects is a pain. They mostly
 have more than 1 GB, you need to have another server to upload and share
 it, make a bug report, find a server admin who downloads and imports it
 etc.

 My idea which we talked about briefly at Wikimania was a server where
 people could upload there raw material, it gets transcoded into smaller
 proxy clips everyone can easily download, edit and then upload the EDL
 (edit decision list = video editing project file, which just holds the
 operations). The server would then use the EDL on the raw material
 stored there and render the final video. The upload process can then be
 automated between this server and Commons.

 The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
 trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
 material.

 So my take on this topic is a compromise:

 * allow MP4 / H.264 as a source codec

 * deliver everything in WebM / Ogg Theora (or other free codecs)

 Especially with WebM I see no reason why people really need H.264. Ogg
 Theora is somewhat exotic but WebM isn't.
 And once we have solved the legal problem around this RfC nothing is
 stoping us to implement the video editing server, right?


 /Manuel
 --
 Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
 Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

James,

This is the first time I've ever heard the phrase Wiktionary headwords in
my life :)

I'm partial, but there's a very strong case that video in Wikipedia has a
large impact and interest level that justifies this much time on it.

-Andrew



On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:16 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Why would we promote patent- and secrecy-encumbered formats when Google has
 spent so much on opening WebM?

 Also, why does the Multimedia Team care about video when most Wiktionary
 headwords don't have uploaded audio exemplars yet?

 Where are our priorities?
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

As much as I am pushing for MP4 adoption in Wikimedia to help our lagging
video efforts, MPEG-4 patent holders/licensors are not helping their case:

1. The consumer licensing agreement from ATT is scary and weird, and
Geni's first NO vote has set the tone for many to follow.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#No_MP4_support

2. The secrecy around the the full license agreements cannot be disclosed
in public sounds bad and we'd have to trust WMF's legal team to find it
acceptable. Wikimedians hate non transparency. Some folks are voting NO
because of this.

3. The CNET interview with MPEG-LA's legal folks seems to indicate a
bizarre stance: Yes, they intentionally have scary, inconsistent and
confusing licensing terms. This is to make sure people with deep pockets
wind up paying the patent pool lots of money. For smaller users? Those
onerous terms sound like they apply to you but you can disregard them. This
is NOT a good state of affairs for a conscientious, detail-oriented free
culture contributors.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-2101-264.html

4. One of the better resources to explains things is in this post from
LibreVideo.org, but even then there are many unanswered questions:
http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/

-Andrew

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:

* Fabrice Florin wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team (1) seeks your guidance on a
proposal to support the MP4 video format. As you know, this digital
video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch
videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is
also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC. (2)

Actually, MP4 is a container format and H.264 a video codec, and it is
quite normal to use variants of H.264 with other container formats like
AVI. Likewise, MP4 does not imply using AAC as audio codec, MP3 could
be used instead, for instance. An analysis why AAC is being proposed may
be useful here.

However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary
format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting
open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have
acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=114053933 notes Though
the full license agreements cannot be disclosed in public. That is not
very helpful in analysing claims later on like Merely distributing MP4
files never requires a patent license.

What is the exact language to be used to inform anyone handling H.264
video downloaded from Wikimedia Foundation servers of their rights and
restrictions, specifically with regards to the relevant patent porfolio?
Making it abundantly clear what users can and cannot do with such files
should be considered a pre-condition for considering such a proposal.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.orgwrote:

 Le 16/01/2014 12:54, Manuel Schneider a écrit :
  The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
  trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
  material.

 We have now a pretty good support of TIFF for pictures and FLAC for
 audio streams; but there is still no solution to store lossless (raw)
 video material. This problem is a real one like have underlined Manuel.

 The following Wikipedia article proposes a list of lossless video codecs:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs#Lossless_compression_2

 Dirac, a free codec developed by the BBC, seems to be a good solution.
 Do people have some experiences with Dirac?


I actually looked into this last year, but it seems there has been little
to no development of this since two years ago.

-Andrew
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On 16 January 2014 13:37, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 3. The CNET interview with MPEG-LA's legal folks seems to indicate a
 bizarre stance: Yes, they intentionally have scary, inconsistent and
 confusing licensing terms. This is to make sure people with deep pockets
 wind up paying the patent pool lots of money. For smaller users? Those
 onerous terms sound like they apply to you but you can disregard them. This
 is NOT a good state of affairs for a conscientious, detail-oriented free
 culture contributors.
 http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-2101-264.html


Given Commons' attitude on even incredibly unlikely copyright risks
... it's just ridiculous to assume such a provision on a format would
be allowed to pass.

I see at least one person has deemed it a snowball-pass after just a
few hours. I find this ... unlikely.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread Todd Allen

There aren't two principles in conflict here.

Rather, there is a proposed very major shift in mission and method. Right
now, when we say Wikimedia content is free, we mean free to fork, reuse,
use however the viewer sees fit.

We support that objective with freely licensed content stored in free and
unencumbered formats. We support educational content on our sites so long
as it is free. Those principles are dual requirements. They are additive,
not conflicting. To be acceptable for a Wikimedia project, content must be
both within that project's educational scope and be free. If it is one but
not the other, we cannot accept it.

This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As such
it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
about format support.

Liam said:

Or better yet... elaborate on your reasons on the RfC page. https://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video
I think it is commendable that the WMF legal team is proposing this
discussion in such an open and honest way. It is a discussion that has been
bubbling away for a long time and it is perfectly sensible that we should
address it formally every now and then. Even if we come up with the same
answer it is important to revisit major policy decisions periodically in
case the situation has changed.

I think we can all acknowledge that this particular issue is a good example
of where two of our deeply held principles are somewhat conflicting. On the
one hand we hold firm to the idea that our purpose is to share information
as widely as possible, and on the other we also are very committed to the
principles of open source. These are both real, valid, principles and it is
important that we look at the ways that we can balance the competing
choices that these principles force upon us without pre-judging the
outcome.

- Liam / Wittylama

On 16 January 2014 14:28, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:


 On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote:

  No.

 I think you should probably include a reason why you feel this
 way.  A one-word answer doesn’t leave room for conversation.

 ---
 Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On 16 January 2014 14:14, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
 be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
 it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
 but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As such
 it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
 change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
 about format support.


And with a secret licence agreement. What on earth.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread Lionel Allorge

Hi,

Todd Allen said:
...
 This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
 be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
 it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
 but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As such
 it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
 change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
 about format support.

I agree with Todd that the support of MP4 would be loosing the freedom that is 
at the heart of the Wikimedia projects.

There is also a problem with the idea that it will allow people to directly 
upload the videos made by their camcorder. Most of the time it is a bad idea 
to upload a video without any form of editing. Most of the time you need to 
remove at least the begining and the end of a video file. It will result in 
many very bad videos.

On the contrary, we should encourage people to edit their videos with 
tutorials and to render the final edit in a free file format.

Best regards.

-- 
Lionel Allorge
April : http://www.april.org
Lune Rouge : http://www.lunerouge.org
Wikimedia France : http://wikimedia.fr


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread Todd Allen

On Jan 16, 2014 8:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 16 January 2014 15:36, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com
wrote:

  This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content
will
  be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque
license,
  it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that
change,
  but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As
such
  it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
  change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a
question
  about format support.

  As much as I hate how MPEG-LA and MPEG-4 creates a non-free climate for
our
  video, it's unfair to use backdoor to characterize intent of either
  community members or WMF employees in this area.


 I think it's quite fair to note, loudly and often, that *functionally*
 it creates a backdoor for nonfree content.

 This is a major, major change, being posited as allowing a format.

 Furthermore, this has been discussed before, and the proponents *are
 fully aware* that it is a major, major change that they are positing
 as allowing a format.

 So claiming that it's assuming bad faith to notice this and say so
 comes across as disingenuous.


 - d.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

That is exactly my intent. I don't mean to imply WMF is acting with malice
here. However, in this instance, a technological change would cause a
significant shift in the principles and ethics behind what we do. So rather
than focusing on technology, the question should be whether free content
should be removed as a fundamental principle of our movement. Functionally,
that is what this proposal, if implemented, would do.

Otherwise, exactly as David explained, corrosion to that principle slips in
by the back door, whether by accident or design. If we want to ask that
question, ask it directly.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

You know I think you're awesome David, so I take your words to heart.
You're right about the magnitude of the decision.

I can see how backdoored was not meant to ascribe a motive or
underhandedness, but to alert the community that we're allowing a practice
we may not completely grasp in terms of a culture change.

Instead, I'd neutralize backdoored to something like, unwittingly shifting
our cherished values for the worse.

I voted to go with MP4 but my skepticism is high -- I'm still not satisfied
we have deciphered all the legal aspects to our satisfaction:
- Confusing consumer electronics MPEG-4 ATT license for personal and
non-commercial activity as brought up by User:Geni
- Secret non-public licenses WMF would need to purchase, and the community
wouldn't understand
- What happens after 2016 when the secret license fees could arbitrarily
rise?
- What happens with CC-BY-SA MPEG-4 content downloaded from Commons if it's
used in a commercial setting? Have we sprung a surprise gotcha on creators
of derivative works?

These are not easy, but I'd like to explore them, cautiously, even for a
limited trial.

-Andrew



On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 16 January 2014 15:36, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content
 will
  be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque
 license,
  it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that
 change,
  but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As
 such
  it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
  change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a
 question
  about format support.

  As much as I hate how MPEG-LA and MPEG-4 creates a non-free climate for
 our
  video, it's unfair to use backdoor to characterize intent of either
  community members or WMF employees in this area.


 I think it's quite fair to note, loudly and often, that *functionally*
 it creates a backdoor for nonfree content.

 This is a major, major change, being posited as allowing a format.

 Furthermore, this has been discussed before, and the proponents *are
 fully aware* that it is a major, major change that they are positing
 as allowing a format.

 So claiming that it's assuming bad faith to notice this and say so
 comes across as disingenuous.


 - d.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:


 
  So claiming that it's assuming bad faith to notice this and say so
  comes across as disingenuous.
 

 That is exactly my intent. I don't mean to imply WMF is acting with malice
 here. However, in this instance, a technological change would cause a
 significant shift in the principles and ethics behind what we do. So rather
 than focusing on technology, the question should be whether free content
 should be removed as a fundamental principle of our movement. Functionally,
 that is what this proposal, if implemented, would do.

 Otherwise, exactly as David explained, corrosion to that principle slips in
 by the back door, whether by accident or design. If we want to ask that
 question, ask it directly.

 Thanks for the clarification. I hereby withdraw my issue about motives.

It is indeed a good question. It just stinks it's happening in so many
places :)

There is a video RFC office hours today (Thursday) at 1900 UTC! Please do
join.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours

Unfortunately I have another engagement or I'd absolutely be there.

-Andrew
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On 16 January 2014 16:02, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 Instead, I'd neutralize backdoored to something like, unwittingly shifting
 our cherished values for the worse.


This is about the fourth time this has come around; I hope you can
understand that it's harder to credit unwittingly than if it were
the first.


 I voted to go with MP4 but my skepticism is high -- I'm still not satisfied
 we have deciphered all the legal aspects to our satisfaction:
 - Confusing consumer electronics MPEG-4 ATT license for personal and
 non-commercial activity as brought up by User:Geni
 - Secret non-public licenses WMF would need to purchase, and the community
 wouldn't understand
 - What happens after 2016 when the secret license fees could arbitrarily
 rise?
 - What happens with CC-BY-SA MPEG-4 content downloaded from Commons if it's
 used in a commercial setting? Have we sprung a surprise gotcha on creators
 of derivative works?
 These are not easy, but I'd like to explore them, cautiously, even for a
 limited trial.


WMF has been very bad at making limited trials that are in fact
limited. (We're been in the limited trial of anons not being able to
create articles on en:wp since 2007, for instance.)


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)


David Gerard, 16/01/2014 17:05:

WMF has been very bad at making limited trials that are in fact
limited. (We're been in the limited trial of anons not being able to
create articles on en:wp since 2007, for instance.)


2005 as an experiment, actually. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Newly_registered_user


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Lionel Allorge 
lionel.allo...@lunerouge.org wrote:

 Hi,

 On the contrary, we should encourage people to edit their videos with
 tutorials and to render the final edit in a free file format.


Agree. As part of Wiki Makes Video, we've done some of this already,
including videos about making videos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video/Shoot

I welcome other contributions and feedback to the project.

-Andrew
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 There aren't two principles in conflict here.

 This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
 be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
 it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
 but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As such
 it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
 change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
 about format support.


As much as I hate how MPEG-LA and MPEG-4 creates a non-free climate for our
video, it's unfair to use backdoor to characterize intent of either
community members or WMF employees in this area.

Video has been a big shortcoming in Wikipedia and in the FLOSS community in
general. Overcoming means we need to consider the unique nature of the
problem with some possible new solutions. That's not backdooring -- that's
directly addressing the needs of content creation given the current legal
and IP situation.

Let's debate the merits of the case and not assume bad faith of the folks
putting it forward.

-Andrew
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On 16 January 2014 15:36, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
 be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
 it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
 but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As such
 it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
 change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
 about format support.

 As much as I hate how MPEG-LA and MPEG-4 creates a non-free climate for our
 video, it's unfair to use backdoor to characterize intent of either
 community members or WMF employees in this area.


I think it's quite fair to note, loudly and often, that *functionally*
it creates a backdoor for nonfree content.

This is a major, major change, being posited as allowing a format.

Furthermore, this has been discussed before, and the proponents *are
fully aware* that it is a major, major change that they are positing
as allowing a format.

So claiming that it's assuming bad faith to notice this and say so
comes across as disingenuous.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread Andrew Gray

On 16 January 2014 16:05, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 16 January 2014 16:02, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 Instead, I'd neutralize backdoored to something like, unwittingly shifting
 our cherished values for the worse.

 This is about the fourth time this has come around; I hope you can
 understand that it's harder to credit unwittingly than if it were
 the first.

It's certainly come around a lot, but it's never really been put to
the question.

I've seen we should support mp3/mp4/mpeg/flash a lot - skimming my
mailing list archives, it was brought up in 2005 (already as a
perennial suggestion), 2007, 2008, 2009, and early 2013. None of these
actually resulted in a formal proposal or anything other than a flurry
of discussion (though in 2008 there was a draft board resolution which
would have explicitly ruled out patent-encumbered formats...)

To me, this seems to be one of those decisions that we made years and
years ago and have never really thrashed out properly and widely,
rather than just saying well, we said no. As such, I think a clearly
structured community-wide discussion is a definite advance - and if
it's a firm no, and we remain in the status quo, we'll have a firm
basis for that in future rather than a sort of decision-by-inertia.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen

Hoi,
This is a truly divisive issue. For many people the notion that you do not
need anything proprietary is a powerful motivator to participate. Promoting
a stack of software that cannot be taken away because of the whims of a
company or country is an integral part to it.

From my perspective the lack of clarity in the license of the MP* codes
makes them really suspicious. Once we start using content in MP* we cannot
turn back. So if things go south we will be royally screwed.

The other argument I see is that there is a lot out there in these codecs.

When we do not accept the use of proprietary codecs, it does not mean that
we have no options. The only thing is we will have to do more stuff that is
considered to be basic. That may not seem sexy to some and that is not
really relevant.

I prefer for us to remain on the path where our whole stack of both content
and software is unencumbered.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 16 January 2014 19:05, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:

 On 16 January 2014 16:05, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 16 January 2014 16:02, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Instead, I'd neutralize backdoored to something like, unwittingly
 shifting
  our cherished values for the worse.
 
  This is about the fourth time this has come around; I hope you can
  understand that it's harder to credit unwittingly than if it were
  the first.

 It's certainly come around a lot, but it's never really been put to
 the question.

 I've seen we should support mp3/mp4/mpeg/flash a lot - skimming my
 mailing list archives, it was brought up in 2005 (already as a
 perennial suggestion), 2007, 2008, 2009, and early 2013. None of these
 actually resulted in a formal proposal or anything other than a flurry
 of discussion (though in 2008 there was a draft board resolution which
 would have explicitly ruled out patent-encumbered formats...)

 To me, this seems to be one of those decisions that we made years and
 years ago and have never really thrashed out properly and widely,
 rather than just saying well, we said no. As such, I think a clearly
 structured community-wide discussion is a definite advance - and if
 it's a firm no, and we remain in the status quo, we'll have a firm
 basis for that in future rather than a sort of decision-by-inertia.

 --
 - Andrew Gray
   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

On 01/16/2014 01:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
 I prefer for us to remain on the path where our whole stack of both content
 and software is unencumbered.

I'd really hope we're not setting up a false dichotomy in our
discussion; nobody has been argued about supporting MP4 containers in
replacement of open formats, but of allowing uploads and transcoding to
open format alongside the ability to view videos in those encumbered
formats.

Ultimately, our primary mission remains to collect *make available* the
knowledge; that we do so in a way that never *requires* proprietary
tools of format is necessary -- but doesn't imply we can't make it
/also/ available in some encumbered formats when it increases how many
people can effectively get access to it.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?