That is certainly a valid reading. We do
have licenses that cover everything including protected download and broadcast of
video. Also, when I get an appropriate license together it will be going
through the full process with the lawyers here. I promise it will be legible; I
also promise that it will be full and correct.
I never thought the questions were
negative. I honestly was pleased at how factual and based in reality they have
been.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Watkins
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005
5:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: MPEG
4 and H.264 Licenses
Cheers and thanks for answering my previosu questions. Im afraid I
usually sound a bit too negative when discussing
things, I just want
to get down to issues that sometimes arent all
that positiv or
interesting to talk about, but they have
implications that get me
thinking and then I start waffling and you see the
results ;)
Anyway yeah if I am understanding all this
licensing stuff properly,
the rights youve bought from MPEG-LA entitles you
to do what you do
with selling divx encoder/decoder, and giving DivX
users limited
rights to use the footage. If Im correct, the
absolute most rights you
could give the users, would be anything that is
listed as free in the
MPEG-LA mpeg4 license about content distributors.
Anything that starts
attracting additional mpeg4 fees, will require the
user to seek an
additional license.
If ths is correct, then my previous moan is about
whether DivX wants
to give us less rights than mpeg4 license would
allow. Im not trying
to kill DivX as a viable business, so Id expect
you to want to impose
an extra term or 2, its just the indie license
went too far for me.
Its great to hear you are working on different
license. This post is
mostly just a fear that youd go too far in the other
direction and
give us rights that you cant actually give us.
Ahh patents, dont you just love them, even if I
locked myself away for
20 years and wrote a new kind of video format from
scratch, it'd still
end up infringing god knows how many concepts.
Steve of Elbows
--- In [email protected],
"JV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I will make sure this is crystal clear in the
license I'm working on
> (started work after your last post). I
obviously can't speak to
> other companies, but we cover all mpeg-la
licenses relating to use
> of DivX video with mp3 audio.
>
>
> --- In [email protected],
"Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Im just bringing back this informative
post because the mpeg4
> license
> > issues relate to the DivX questions Ive
just been asking.
> >
> > Also unfortunately its of relevance to
the discussion about money,
> its
> > something people like Peter should
strictly speaking look at when
> > considering stuff like the PSP version
stuff (as thats mpeg4 or
> h24)
> > and whether it has implications for
subscription.
> >
> > Most of the rules strike me as just
perfect, they wont touch most
> > video creators unless they get popular
& rich enough to afford a
> fee.
> > For people running services like
mefeedia, ourmedia, archive.org,
> > blip.tv, the issue may require more
attention, I dunno, I havent
> > thought about that much yet.
> >
> > Anyway in addition to the excellent info
by people provided
> previously
> > (see below), here is a summary of the
H264 agreement.
> >
> > http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
> >
> > The first part is of interest to people
like 3ivx or divx (if they
> > used AVC h264 stuff). Indeed you can
find both these companies
> listed
> > on the standard mpeg4 licensee page,
along with the likes of Apple,
> > Sony, Nero, Mainconcept, Ulead, and
other companies that have
> products
> > that include mpeg 4 encoders and
decoders. This gives them the
> right
> > to sell products using mpeg4, and to
grant us users the right to
> make
> > stuff for personal use. The second part
deals with content creators
> > and services that make video available,
and is similar to the mpeg4
> > terms mentioned in the previous emails
below.
> >
> > The very reason I dont like the DivX
license is because its another
> > layer. If I just use a straight mpeg4 or
avc/h264 encoder then I
> know
> > if my stuff ever got popular or I sell
it, I can go to the mpeg
> body
> > and buy a license that covers me, and
that doesnt change terms for
> a
> > reasonable number of years. Wheras DivX
are far less clear, I have
> to
> > contact them to get a clue what their
commercial terms are, and
> their
> > indie license is too short term and
limited.
> >
> > Is .mov another licensing layer? Do
apple require any licencing for
> > heavy commercial use of mov files?
> >
> > At last Ive found out the reality behind
why things like mpeg
> > standards are a good idea. They still
arent free, but they enable
> > individuals or comapnies to easily
understand and license the
> rights
> > to use the technology. Just looking at
the list of how many
> companies
> > claim to have some of their intellectual
property used in mpeg4, it
> > would be a nightmare trying to license
it from all of them
> > individually, having to do a deal with
each of them individually in
> > order to be sure that you wouldnt be
sued later for using one of
> their
> > patents.
> >
> > Im definately not suggesting that most
videobloggers need to probe
> > deeply into ths stuff. For most it is
just a case of some basic
> > awareness about encoding license issues
(eg paying for 3ivx) and
> > remembering to come back to the issue if
you start getting insanely
> > popular and using subscription etc
models. People with content
> longer
> > than 12 minutes per video need to pay a
little more attention than
> > those doing short clips, especially if
you are trying to find a
> > business model for the future.
> >
> > Steve of Elbows
> >
> > --- In [email protected],
"nathan.freitas"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I dug around the MPEG4 LA website
and found this from a
> powerpoint on
> > > their FAQ page: http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-faq.cfm
> > >
> > > Here's my non-lawyer take on it:
> > > -If you are charging per title, and
content is less than 12
> minutes
> > > long, no royalty. Otherwise, its
something like 2 cents per
> title.
> > > -If you are charging via
subscription, and you have less than
> 100,000
> > > subs, no royalty.
> > > -If you are doing a "free
internet broadcast", then no royalty
> until
> > 2008
> > >
> > > Otherwise, once you have a decent
audience size and are making
> money,
> > > you'll have to pay up. Doesn't seem
too draconion to me, though
> it
> > could
> > > become a mild pain to worry about
for micro-commercial-content
> > producers.
> > >
> > > +Nathan
> > >
> > > ****************
> > > Where End User pays for MPEG-4
Video
> > > Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less
= no royalty; >12 minutes in
> length
> > > = lower of (a) 2% of first
Arm's-Length Sale
or (b) $0.02 per
> title.
> > > Licensees are (a) replicators of
physical media and (b) direct
> sellers
> > > of other media.
> > > Subscription (not Title-by-Title):
0-100,000 subs/year = no
> royalty;
> > > >100,000-250,000 subs/year
= $25,000; >250,000 – 500,000
> subs/year =
> > > $50,000; >500,000-1M subs/year =
$75,000; >1M – 5M subs/year =
> > $100,000;
> > > >5M – 25M subs/year
= $200,000; >25M subs = $300,000
> > > Where remuneration is from other
sources
> > > Free Television (not
Title-by-Title, Subscription or Free
> Internet
> > > Broadcast) - one-time fee of $2,500
per transmission encoder
> > > Free Internet Broadcast (not
Title-by-Title or Subscription) –
> no
> > > royalty during first term (through
2008; not greater than Free
> > > Television thereafter)
> > > Enterprise cap - $3 million per year
> > > Royalties payable on products from
January 1, 2004
> > > **************
> > >
> > > More here: http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-faq.cfm
> > >
> > >
> > > Verdi wrote:
> > >
> > > >For those of you using MPEG4 or
H.264 - check out the QuickTime
> user
> > > >agreement related to commercial
uses (if you are thinking of
> that):
> > > >
> > > >< http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/quicktime7.html
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >14. Use of MPEG-4. This product
is licensed under the MPEG-4
> Systems
> > > >Patent Portfolio License for
encoding in compliance with the
> MPEG-4
> > > >Systems Standard, except that
an additional license and payment
> of
> > > >royalties are necessary for
encoding in connection with (i)
> data
> > > >stored or replicated in
physical media which is paid for on a
> title
> > > >by title basis and/or (ii) data
which is paid for on a title by
> title
> > > >basis and is transmitted to an
end user for permanent storage
> and/or
> > > >use. Such additional license
may be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC.
> See
> > > >http://www.mpegla.com
for additional details.
> > > >
> > > >This product is licensed under
the MPEG-4 Visual Patent
> Portfolio
> > > >License for the personal and
non-commercial use of a consumer
> for (i)
> > > >encoding video in compliance
with the MPEG-4 Visual Standard
> ("MPEG-4
> > > >Video") and/or (ii)
decoding MPEG-4 video that was encoded by
> a
> > > >consumer engaged in a personal
and non-commercial activity
> and/or was
> > > >obtained from a video provider
licensed by MPEG LA to provide
> MPEG-4
> > > >video. No license is granted or
shall be implied for any other
> use.
> > > >
> > > >Additional information
including that relating to promotional,
> > > >internal and commercial uses
and licensing may be obtained from
> MPEG
> > > >LA, LLC. See http:
//www.mpegla.com. For answers to frequently
> asked
> > > >questions regarding use fees
under the MPEG LA Visual Patent
> > > >Portfolio License see
www.apple.com/mpeg4 or
> www.apple.com/quicktime/
> > > >pro/faq.html.
> > > >
> > > >15. H.264/AVC Notice. To the
extent that the Apple Software
> contains
> > > >AVC encoding and/or decoding
functionality, commercial use of
> H.264/
> > > >AVC requires additional
licensing and the following provision
> > > >applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY
IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED
> HEREIN
> > > >ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND
NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO
> (i)
> > > >ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO")
> AND/OR
> > > >(ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS
ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN
> A
> > > >PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL
ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS
> > > >OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER
LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO.
> > > >INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER
USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED
> FROM
> > > >MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > +my life: http://nathan.freitas.net
> > > +my videoblog: http://openvision.tv/itcamefrombrooklyn
> > > +my cause: http://tibetwillbefree.blogspot.com
> > > +my skype: nathanialfreitas
> > > --
> > >
> > > Find and watch unique internet
video through my original
> software:
> > > I/ON Internet Video Console at http://openvision.tv
> > >
> >
>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
