Re: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

[Paul Dupuis via use-livecode]

This may help explain the absurdly complex MPEG4 licensing model:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M4V/Documents/m4vweb.pdf

On 7/24/2017 3:54 AM, Tiemo Hollmann TB via use-livecode wrote:
> Last year I asked Sorenson media if I have to pay license fees, using the 
> h.264 codec and got the following answer from Sorenson:
> "No, you do not need to pay any license fees to use any codecs included in 
> Squeeze. Sorenson Media pays any license fees necessary for all the codecs 
> contained in Squeeze. Once you have encoded your video with a licensed 
> product, like Squeeze, you will never need to pay any licensing fees again."
> I assume that’s the same using other compressing tools
> Tiemo
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] Im Auftrag 
> von Colin Holgate via use-livecode
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juli 2017 21:58
> An: How to use LiveCode 
> Cc: Colin Holgate 
> Betreff: Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives
>
> Are you sure that a license is needed for H.264 playback? That could 
> seriously impact the viability of YouTube or Vimeo, if all users had to pay a 
> license fee.
>
> My hope is that the license is just paid by the encoder tool maker. If you’re 
> using Adobe Media Encoder you don’t have to pay a license, Adobe already did.
>
> In the hope that playback doesn’t involve paying a fee, you could use 
> non-H.264 encoders that make videos that are played back by anything that can 
> handle H.264. That might allow you to use your own tool without a license 
> fee, and still make videos that can play back everywhere.
>
> Here is an article that talks about how to solve a gamma/contrast issue that 
> happens with most H.264 encoders:
>
> https://myth.li/2010/07/how-to-fix-the-h264-gamma-brightness-bug-in-quicktime/
>
> The solution they have is to use an x264 encoder, and the article has links 
> to a QuickTime component, so that you could export to x264 from anything that 
> uses QuickTime. The results are better looking than regular H.264.
>
>> On Jul 19, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Seems most folks use h.264 for encoding video, but being patent-encumbered 
>> it requires negotiating a license with MPEGLA for commercial use.
>>
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

[Warren Samples via use-livecode]

On 07/24/2017 02:54 AM, Tiemo Hollmann TB via use-livecode wrote:

Last year I asked Sorenson media if I have to pay license fees, using the h.264 
codec and got the following answer from Sorenson:
"No, you do not need to pay any license fees to use any codecs included in Squeeze. 
Sorenson Media pays any license fees necessary for all the codecs contained in Squeeze. 
Once you have encoded your video with a licensed product, like Squeeze, you will never 
need to pay any licensing fees again."
I assume that’s the same using other compressing tools
Tiemo



There is so much confusion regarding licenses! Ironically one of the 
main purposes of the MPEG-LA group is to simplify licensing for users 
and distributors by centralizing the process.


From suspect amateur legal advice from internet forum "experts", opaque 
and/or seemingly non-complimentary statements from software distributors 
and MPEG-LA itself, and the lack of comprehensive definitive 
information, it's really hard for someone interested in getting it 
"right" to know what to do without hiring expensive attorneys.


Regarding the ENCODER distributed with device OSs and software, 
including professional software, whose EULAs state that use of the 
encoder has only been licensed for personal and non-commercial use; it 
seems from what the MPEG-LA says that this does not mean there is 
another level of license required to use the software in professional 
production. It points to the possible necessity of royalty payments for 
finished content distribution. Please see:




 and:

 
(This is a very long back and forth, you have to read all of it to 
gather all the information.)


The distribution of encoded content is completely separate from the 
encoder issue. Content distributors might be wise to request a license 
even if their usage does not trigger royalty payments. 
http://www.mpegla.com/main/default.aspx


Sorenson has not paid, nor could it begin to calculate how to pay any 
royalties due on content distributed by its own users, but it is clear 
you don't have to pay any additional fee simply to use Squeeze to 
produce content for paid distribution. (According to the MPEG-LA 
licensing associate.) You could be required to pay to distribute that 
content depending on your circumstances.


When distributing content via YouTube for exaqmple, MPEG-LA view YouTube 
as the distributor and liable for any licensing fees, not the content 
creator. (Again, according to the MPEG-LA licensing associate.)


I hope this was helpful but I make no promises :)

Warren


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Tiemo Hollmann wrote:

> Last year I asked Sorenson media if I have to pay license fees, using
> the h.264 codec and got the following answer from Sorenson:
> "No, you do not need to pay any license fees to use any codecs
> included in Squeeze. Sorenson Media pays any license fees necessary
> for all the codecs contained in Squeeze. Once you have encoded your
> video with a licensed product, like Squeeze, you will never need to
> pay any licensing fees again."
> I assume that’s the same using other compressing tools

It would be the same where the product's EULA says it's the same.  But 
for products whose EULAs explicitly say otherwise, the situation would 
be otherwise:


See links to the FinalCut Pro and Adobe Premier EULAs in this post:


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Tiemo Hollmann wrote:

> Keep in mind, that h.264 is not natively supported by Windows 10 (and
> not by 8 I think). You need to install a h.264 filte

Thanks, Tiemo. That's a serious bummer.

It's 2017. Is there really no single codec available for Mac, Windows, 
Linux, iOS, and Android which allows playback of a single video file?


Are we stuck in the yesteryear of having to query the user-agent and 
serve different files according to the user's OS?


Extra bonus points if it's no patent-encumbered, but at this point I'll 
take what I can get.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode