From igino.manfre@shs.it Fri Feb 1 12:11:37 2002 Received: from dns.mmm.it ([213.140.0.124]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g11HBboc002596 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:11:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from caronte ([217.59.125.133]) by dns.mmm.it (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 638-61880U1500L100S0V35) with SMTP id it for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:28:55 +0100 Message-ID: <00c901c1ab43$a074c410$d2050dac@caronte> Reply-To: "Igino Manfre'" From: igino.manfre@shs.it (Igino Manfre) To: Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:12:25 +0100 Organization: SHS Multimedia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Subject: [Discuss] 2 cent per hour with no limit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF General Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I've got the news of MPEGLA as a joke. Is it ? If it is not is dramatic. Let's think it's not. Anyone has the right to get from his invention a proper fee, but this is "out of time". Trying to realize money "now" in this way is a dirty suicide of the entire technology, with the overall result to istigate to the "crime". Do we need to put a taxameter on the pc ? Can you imagine a royalty on internet usage ? Who can put more money on a "free" parallel technology can easily win this fightless match. Who ? ----------------------------- Igino Manfre' - igino.manfre@shs.it SHS Multimedia - http://www.shsgroup.net Rome Branch Office 60, Via Alessandro De Stefani I 00137 ROMA - ITALY Tel. (+39) 06.820805.317 Fax (+39) 06.82003157 Mobile (+39) 335.1200220 From rkoenen@intertrust.com Fri Feb 1 12:38:23 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g11HcKoc006758; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:38:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g11HWWh26906; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:32:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:33:36 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591876ED@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "M4IF news (E-mail)" , "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:33:35 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Discuss] Discussion list Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF General Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: People, the subscriptions on the M4IF Discussion list are pouring in right now. We will hold all posts (except for this one :-) over the weekend, and turn them all loose on Monday, so that we will have a good crowd. Meantime - add the discussion mail address to your Address Book! Best, Rob From rkoenen@intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 01:07:28 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1467S9h007302 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1461dh14361 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:01:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:07:26 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187753@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:07:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Discussions started Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: People, The discussions on this list will start shortly. The subscription response has been huge, which is a sign that there is a large and growing interest in MPEG-4 deployment. After this mail, I will "turn loose" the other mails that have been waiting to get sent out since last Friday. This is an open list, accessible to members and non-members of M4IF alike. I look forward to an open-minded discussion on all issues regarding the uptake of MPEG-4 in the market. I look forward to participation of *ALL* parties affected. I look forward to these discussions benefiting the uptake of MPEG-4. Let's have the facts, discuss the consequences and have an open-minded discussion. Let's refrain from abusive or insulting language. The mailing list is non-moderated at the moment, and I hope and expect we can keep it that way. We do reserve the right to moderate the list if messages appear that the Board of M4IF deems inappropriate. Best Regards, Rob Koenen President, M4IF (Note that technical disussions take place on a different list: technotes@lists.m4if.org Subscribe at http://www.m4if.org/public/publiclistreg.html ) From yuval@envivio.com Fri Feb 1 12:45:08 2002 Received: from orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.17]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g11Hj7oc007685 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:45:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from envivio.com (sc-66-74-249-175.socal.rr.com [66.74.249.175]) by orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g11HhVo09144 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:43:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C5AD3EB.207CE7F1@envivio.com> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 09:44:11 -0800 From: Yuval Fisher X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: So.... does M4IF have any influence over, opening with, connections to MPEGLA ? Are they soliciting industry comments about their licensing. There seems to be a general feeling that the license is a good start on killing MPEG-4. Best, Yuval Envivio From dim@psytel-research.co.yu Fri Feb 1 13:50:43 2002 Received: from mx1.verat.net (mx1.verat.net [217.26.64.139]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g11Iogoc016679 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:50:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from hal (ppp65-020.verat.net [217.26.65.20]) by mx1.verat.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with SMTP id g11IpO9J008056 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:51:24 +0100 Message-ID: <018501c1ab51$61c14000$e635fea9@hal> From: "Ivan Dimkovic" To: References: <994284AE-16F8-11D6-9E2B-00039358A5A2@lostboys.nl> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:50:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual License scheme announced Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Dear Rob, All - Is there any way to invite someone responsible for MPEG-4 visual licensing (MPEG-LA) to the board. We need urgent clarification of the licensing process as one of our licensing agreements is completely depending on some important clarifications of the fees and payments. Best Regards, ************************************************* Ivan Dimkovic, Technical Manager PsyTEL Research Multimedia Coding Solutions Belgrade Yugoslavia phone: +381 63 264 334 phone: +381 64 11 40 600 fax: +381 11 32 25 275 email: dim@psytel-research.co.yu www: http://www.psytel-research.co.yu ************************************************* This e-mail may contain confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is solely for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us by return e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. From jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com Fri Feb 1 16:14:06 2002 Received: from mranderson.divxnetworks.com (mranderson.divxnetworks.com [64.132.39.178]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g11LE2wg014502 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 16:14:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9754 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 15:57:00 -0000 Received: from mrsmith.divxnetworks.com (64.132.39.170) by mranderson.divxnetworks.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 15:57:00 -0000 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:12:33 -0800 Message-ID: <11CD90EDC5439A4AB30C7C13C314DDEE7B3EDF@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis Thread-Index: AcGrTvAY4B2H74v+QUiRtpmdvuJysgAAGTyAAAV0f1A= From: "Jordan Greenhall" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g11LE2wg014502 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: [M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: -----Original Message----- From: Jordan Greenhall Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:48 AM To: 'Rob Koenen' Subject: RE: [M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis Rob, In reference to your call for responses from service providers, DivXNetworks cuts the gamut. We are a technology provider, but we are also a service provider (we actually deliver quite a bit of content over the Internet right now for our content partners). In this light, here are my immediate thoughts: 1. Current license is a sweetheart deal for the Enterprise space. Unless the "use fees" somehow apply to teleconferencing and "e-learning", you are looking at a very cheap license in that space. 2. Current license effectively kills broadcast and "streaming" markets, possibly excluding VOD. By example, an MSO using MPEG-4 to deliver 100 channels to 500,000 subs would run roughly $1.5M in "use fees" alone - or roughly 9% of their gross margin. Not a chance. What is particularly concerning as a service provider is the lack of distinction between different content-monetization models. Ad-supported broadcast video monetizes viewers very differently than, say, VOD. More specifically, a $0.02 per hour fee has much less of an impact on a $20 per viewer WWF Smackdown PPV than it has on a $0.30 per viewer ad-supported episode of Smallville. This lack of distinction in the license could have profound negative effects on the entire market. 3. The decoder fee for software decoders is a big problem. The model is straight-forward: big companies (companies that can afford to pay a $1M cap per year) can attempt to promote their MPEG-4 decoders in software. Everyone else is more or less out of the game. I share the concern that when the competition is proprietary technologies such as WMA and Real that give away their software decoders for free, it is going to be difficult for MPEG-4 vendors to establish an adequate footprint to jumpstart the market. I also find it odd that the licensing fees are identical for encoders and decoders when margins for those products are certainly *not* the same in the market. In general, I match the consensus that licensing fees arranged more around encoding than decoding or content would be considerably more likely to promote the standard and generate the kinds of synergies necessary to ensure its comprehensive success. I look forward to the committee's release of additional licensing models as the market develops over the coming year. Jordan Greenhall CEO DivXNetworks From dim@psytel-research.co.yu Mon Feb 4 03:43:59 2002 Received: from mx1.verat.net (mx1.verat.net [217.26.64.139]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g148hw9h024650 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 03:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from hal (ppp65-102.verat.net [217.26.65.102]) by mx1.verat.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with SMTP id g148ic9J029186; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:44:38 +0100 Message-ID: <004301c1ad58$2419ea50$e635fea9@hal> From: "Ivan Dimkovic" To: "Jordan Greenhall" , References: <11CD90EDC5439A4AB30C7C13C314DDEE7B3EDF@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] FW: [M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:44:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Dear Jordan, All, > > 1. Current license is a sweetheart deal for the Enterprise space. Unless the > "use fees" somehow apply to teleconferencing and "e-learning", you are > looking at a very cheap license in that space. That's the right question - we are having problems in unederstanding whether "use fee" applies to e-learning solutions. We are also technology provider, and our possible partner have asked Larry Horn from MPEG-LA about this issue. However, Larry was on the business trip, so I suppose we will have answers today on in the next few days. I will send more details to this group when I get more answers. Kind Regards, ************************************************* Ivan Dimkovic, Technical Manager PsyTEL Research Multimedia Coding Solutions Belgrade Yugoslavia phone: +381 63 264 334 phone: +381 64 11 40 600 fax: +381 11 32 25 275 email: dim@psytel-research.co.yu www: http://www.psytel-research.co.yu ************************************************* This e-mail may contain confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is solely for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us by return e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. From jeffh@bisk.com Mon Feb 4 09:32:36 2002 Received: from mail.corp.bisk.com ([208.51.230.71]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14EWa9h004740 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:32:36 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:32:35 -0500 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A09376108@mail.corp.bisk.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Where does this leave education? Thread-Index: AcGthu1TjJXmW58gSa2H3sSH1cwwwAAAbCFw From: "Jeff Handy" To: "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g14EWa9h004740 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Where does this leave education? Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Its certainly a new licensing model. I'm not sure how it affects our work in education. Can someone enlighten me on this? Our content is all educational and only part of our learning environment. We've not had to pay any royalties of any sort to serve our Windows Media and QuickTime content. Is that going to change now? We already pay Akamai for streaming service. Does that just mean the cost will be built into our monthly service? Our stuff also ships out on CD. Do we have to pay royalties for each student's set of CDs depending on the length of content? Etc... Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education - Technology Development World Headquarters - Tampa, FL 800-874-7877 x360 jeffh@bisk.com http://www.bisk.com Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner From rkoenen@intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 12:45:03 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14Hj39h025082 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:45:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g14HcQh18939; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:38:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:44:12 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918775E@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Yuval Fisher'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:44:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi Yuval, > So.... does M4IF have any influence over, opening with, connections to > MPEGLA ? Are they soliciting industry comments about their licensing. MPEGLA acts as an administrator of the license holders. Many of these are M4IF members, and so is MPEGLA. While M4IF cannot determine licensing in any way, it can of course convey, to the licensors and MPEGLA, the opinion of its members and of potential MPEG-4 users beyond its membership. This is precisely why this discussion list was created. I am sure licensors are willing to listen to comments about the announced licensing scheme. > There seems to be a general feeling that the license is a > good start on killing MPEG-4. It would be good for this discussion if you could explain why. Rob From kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com Mon Feb 4 13:25:31 2002 Received: from mail.dvd.panasonic.com ([207.215.53.98]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14IPV9h029569 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:25:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from dvd.panasonic.com (207.215.53.98 [207.215.53.98]) by mail.dvd.panasonic.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id DZB5M0FM; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:24:34 -0800 Message-ID: <3C5ED2CB.43EBD897@dvd.panasonic.com> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 10:28:27 -0800 From: Sanjay Kulkarni X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: discuss@lists.m4if.org References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918775E@exchange.epr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Deal All: I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt about using the MPEG-4 format for streaming media. I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for consumers and am considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and MPEG4. What is the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming media solution? Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that licensing would be the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media formats). Not to mention that the rest of the players are already popular in the market and their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Sanjay Kulkarni Senior Software Engineer Panasonic Disc Services Corp. From ramakrishna_kakarala@agilent.com Mon Feb 4 13:45:08 2002 Received: from msgbas1.cos.agilent.com (msgbas1x.cos.agilent.com [192.25.240.36]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14Ij89h001966 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:45:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from msgrel1.cos.agilent.com (msgrel1.cos.agilent.com [130.29.152.77]) by msgbas1.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FD82FAA for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:45:07 -0700 (MST) Received: from axcsbh1.cos.agilent.com (axcsbh1.cos.agilent.com [130.29.152.143]) by msgrel1.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DEE331 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:45:07 -0700 (MST) Received: by axcsbh1.cos.agilent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:45:07 -0700 Message-ID: <999F6F1E8EB8D311AC190090277A77260C4CF64C@axcs08.cos.agilent.com> From: "KAKARALA,RAMAKRISHNA (A-SantaClara,ex1)" To: "'discuss@lists.m4if.org'" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:45:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Dear Sanjay, all The real advantage MPEG-4 simple profile has over the others (real networks, windows media, quicktime) is that the hardware implementation is relatively straightforward. MPEG-4 codec chips are simple and cheap enough to make sense for inclusion in cellphones, where the battery power and unit cost are serious constraints. Therefore, there will be MPEG-4 content that both comes from mobile appliances, and can be decoded on mobile appliances. These other formats don't comparable hardware solutions. Ram Deal All: I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt about using the MPEG-4 format for streaming media. I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for consumers and am considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and MPEG4. What is the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming media solution? Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that licensing would be the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media formats). Not to mention that the rest of the players are already popular in the market and their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Sanjay Kulkarni Senior Software Engineer Panasonic Disc Services Corp. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramakrishna Kakarala | ramakrishna_kakarala@agilent.com Agilent Technologies | (408) 970-2467 3175 Bowers Av, MS 87H | Santa Clara, CA 95054 | USA From ramizer@wmr.com Mon Feb 4 14:04:47 2002 Received: from enterprise.vistapointe.com ([209.133.25.53]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14J4kd8004239 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:04:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from wmr.com ([209.133.25.171]) by enterprise.vistapointe.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59514U1000L100S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:04:44 -0800 Message-ID: <3C5EDB91.5CF23A84@wmr.com> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:06:04 -0800 From: richard mizer Reply-To: ramizer@wmr.com Organization: digital ventures diversified X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Koenen CC: "'Yuval Fisher'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918775E@exchange.epr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: My comments on the licensing arrangement revolves around enforcibility and privacy. It is easy in the MPEG2 world to assess manufacturers of chips the appropriate fees for encoders and decoders (software encoders are probably easily collected as well, but perhaps not all software decoders, if they can be downloaded) It would be relatively straight forward to assess manufacturers of MPEG-4 hardware encoders/decoders the appropriate fees, and probably software encoders, but downloaded software decoders may be a little difficult to enforce. But the question of enforcing content playback on a per minute basis, first requires a sophisticated tracking system, that even with IPMP may not be enforceable on shared content...but also puts MPEGLA in the position of invading the privacy of viewers by knowing what content they have viewed, and when and how long, etc. While I know it is every patent holders dream to get a piece of the content pie, the current proposed arrangement will kill MPEG-4, since even if it is technically doable, it is an invasion of privacy and will cause Windows and Real to remain the most desirable options where no such invasion is required. Rob Koenen wrote: > > There seems to be a general feeling that the license is a > > good start on killing MPEG-4. > > It would be good for this discussion if you could explain why. > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jeffh@bisk.com Mon Feb 4 15:06:57 2002 Received: from mail.corp.bisk.com ([208.51.230.71]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14K6ud8011594 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:06:57 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:06:56 -0500 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3B8@mail.corp.bisk.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff Thread-Index: AcGtsMuhJKGW6oFoSt2ZpUJCspGzqgABYkAw From: "Jeff Handy" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g14K6ud8011594 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > While I know it is every patent holders dream to get a piece > of the content pie, That's just it. In our case, we don't charge for content. Its part of the whole package. Then there comes the question of: how important is that piece? If we have to pay a use fee every time someone wants to view their lectures, we'll end up sticking with QuickTime. I really don't want that. I want my cake and to eat it in one big gulp. Why not use the same licensing model as MPEG-2? Its not perfect, but it works well enough for the bandwagon to move. Or why not limit the use charge to a percentage rather than a flat rate - say .0002 percent of proceeds? But then I can see objections there too. How did MPEG-2 ever make it off of the ground?? Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education - Technology Development World Headquarters - Tampa, FL 800-874-7877 x360 jeffh@bisk.com http://www.bisk.com Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner From rkoenen@intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 15:27:12 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14KRBd8014153 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:27:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g14KL7h22162; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:21:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:26:52 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187770@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Ivan Dimkovic'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual License scheme a nnounced Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:26:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > Is there any way to invite someone responsible for MPEG-4 > visual licensing > (MPEG-LA) to the board. We need urgent clarification of the licensing > process as one of our licensing agreements is completely > depending on some > important clarifications of the fees and payments. There is definitely such a need, and I think that MPEG-LA is aware of it. I hope and believe they will take part in the discussions on this list. Rob From rkoenen@intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 15:53:19 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14KrId8017108 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:53:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g14Kjxh22472; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:45:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:51:45 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187773@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'craig@pcube.com'" , jmcclenny@sandstream.com, OpenDTV Mail List , "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:51:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio Licen se Announced Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > The fee would be prohibitively expensive IF calculated based on: > [Channels] X [programming hours] X [total subscribers] X > [$0.02/hr] = usage fees While not passing any judgement on the announced scheme at this moment, the press release makes it somewhat clear that this is not the way things will be calculated. "[... a surrogate (e.g., standard industry audience measurement) is under consideration." http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html But this is far from conclusive; what exactly the calculation *will* look like is unclear - and MPEG-4's future depends on it. It should also be noted that (AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT) you pay *either* the encoder/decoder fee *or* the use fee, not both. You pay a use fee for use of MPEG-4 "[...] in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed (including without limitation pay-per-view, subscription and advertiser/underwriter-supported services)." To me that seems to include all free-to-air broadcasts ... You pay encoder/decoder fees for other services. All this seems to imply a one-to-one link between the decoder and the service, which is not going to exist in this context of an open standard where any player can play any content -- so I wonder how this is going to be detailed. Rob From rkoenen@intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 15:53:51 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14Krpd8017117 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:53:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g14Km2h22498; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:53:48 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187774@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Jordan Greenhall'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] FW: [M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:53:47 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Thanks for your comments Jordan. > 1. Current license is a sweetheart deal for the Enterprise > space. Unless the > "use fees" somehow apply to teleconferencing and "e-learning", you are > looking at a very cheap license in that space. > > 2. Current license effectively kills broadcast and "streaming" markets, > possibly excluding VOD. By example, an MSO using MPEG-4 to deliver 100 > channels to 500,000 subs would run roughly $1.5M in "use fees" alone - or > roughly 9% of their gross margin. Not a chance. It's these calculations and arguments that we need to discuss. For instance: are fees only due when programs are watched or are they due when delivered? The release gives some clues (looks like actual audience is the key, not the streaming itself), but we need more information. > What is particularly concerning as a service provider is the lack of distinction > between different content-monetization models. Ad-supported broadcast video > monetizes viewers very differently than, say, VOD. More specifically, a $0.02 > per hour fee has much less of an impact on a $20 per viewer WWF Smackdown PPV > than it has on a $0.30 per viewer ad-supported episode of Smallville. This lack of > distinction in the license could have profound negative effects on the entire > market. > > 3. The decoder fee for software decoders is a big problem. The model is > straight-forward: big companies (companies that can afford to pay a $1M cap > per year) can attempt to promote their MPEG-4 decoders in software. Everyone > else is more or less out of the game. I share the concern that when the > competition is proprietary technologies such as WMA and Real that give away > their software decoders for free, it is going to be difficult for MPEG-4 > vendors to establish an adequate footprint to jumpstart the market. This is an important point. If service providers choose a different format because MPEG-4 is not competitive, then we have a problem ... > I also > find it odd that the licensing fees are identical for encoders and decoders > when margins for those products are certainly *not* the same in the market. That depends on which market. Much more expensive encoders would be prohibitive for mobile 2-way communication. > In general, I match the consensus that licensing fees arranged more around > encoding than decoding or content would be considerably more likely to > promote the standard and generate the kinds of synergies necessary to ensure > its comprehensive success. I look forward to the committee's release of > additional licensing models as the market develops over the coming year. Just to be sure we are all on the same page: "the committee" means "the license holders". (And to explain the obvious one more time: M4IF has no say in licensing, it can only make its opinions known to licensors. But as M4IF represents the view of the MPEG-4 supporting community, I think license holders will take these opinions into account). Best, Rob From rkoenen@intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 16:33:35 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14LXZd8021696 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g14LRPh23283; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:27:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:33:10 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918777C@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Sanjay Kulkarni'" Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:33:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: It is an open standard, anyone can create technology supporting it, and many are in fact doing that. The competition among the various providers will ensure quality products, be they encoders, decoders, authoring tools, etc. Using such an open format, the need for supporting multiple proprietary formats, in many cases a burden, will disappear. Licensing -- the absence thereof -- has so far been the blocking factor for MPEG-4's adoption. Now that it will become available, It will determine the viability of the standard in the various application spaces. How this plays out will be greatly dependent on the application and its underlying business model. In the case of, e.g., a DVD, I see it working like this (BUT THIS IS ONLY MY INTERPRETATION OF MPEGLA'S PRESS RELEASE!) * encoders and decoders are free, because there is a renumeration for the content, and hence a use fee; * use fee is based on the playtime of the DVD. If there is 90 minutes of MPEG-4 programming, then the use fee would be 3 cents. Best, Rob ps: interestingly, MPEG-4 is great for authoring non-linear content, and for such content the concept "play time" may be very hard to establish for such material. What would you do, e.g., with a game in which you can spend hours and hours or get "killed" in 5 minutes? > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjay Kulkarni [mailto:kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:28 > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > Deal All: > > I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt > about using the > MPEG-4 format for streaming media. > > I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for > consumers and am > considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and > MPEG4. What is > the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming > media solution? > Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that > licensing would be > the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a > comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media > formats). Not to > mention that the rest of the players are already popular in > the market and > their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. > > Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! > > Regards, > Sanjay Kulkarni > Senior Software Engineer > Panasonic Disc Services Corp. > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From craig@pcube.com Mon Feb 4 16:49:57 2002 Received: from imf05bis.bellsouth.net (mail205.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.145]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14Lnvd8023618 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:49:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([216.78.160.82]) by imf05bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020204215113.OJTH27472.imf05bis.bellsouth.net@[192.168.1.103]>; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:51:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: craig@mail.lw.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3B8@mail.corp.bisk.com> References: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3B8@mail.corp.bisk.com> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:15:19 -0500 To: "Jeff Handy" , From: Craig Birkmaier Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] sniff sniff Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: At 3:06 PM -0500 2/4/02, Jeff Handy wrote: > > While I know it is every patent holders dream to get a piece >> of the content pie, > > >That's just it. In our case, we don't charge for content. Its part of >the whole package. Then there comes the question of: how important is >that piece? If we have to pay a use fee every time someone wants to >view their lectures, we'll end up sticking with QuickTime. I really >don't want that. I want my cake and to eat it in one big gulp. Why not >use the same licensing model as MPEG-2? Its not perfect, but it works >well enough for the bandwagon to move. Or why not limit the use charge >to a percentage rather than a flat rate - say .0002 percent of proceeds? >But then I can see objections there too. How did MPEG-2 ever make it >off of the ground?? > There was a high level of commitment (and involvement) among companies that needed MPEG-2 to realize the benefits of digital compression. Many of the companies involved with commercial implementations also participated in the development process and have essential IP in the royalty pool. There were two key areas that helped get MPEG-2 off the ground: 1. DBS, which needed the bandwidth conservation benefits to compete with cable. 2. DVD-V which needed the bandwidth conservation benefits to fit a high quality movie onto an optical disc. In both cases, the tools in MPEG-2 to encode interlaced ITU-R BT 601 source was a key consideration. With DBS it was quite simple to deal with the decoder royalty as it was collected by the chip vendors. This was also true for DVD-V players. And with DVD, the "usage fee" is collected by the disc replicators, which is quite easy to administer. It is also worth noting that the CE manufacturers who have used MPEG-2 have long been accustomed to paying royalties for essential patents. In fact, it is part of the culture. We have seen this time and again with VHS, CD-Audio, DVD, video games, etc. It is also worth noting that cable, DBS and DTV broadcasters have never paid usage fees for a basic video distribution technology (they have paid Dolby royalties on some essential audio technology - but not usage fees). But the Internet and streaming media have evolved in a much different culture. One way of portraying this is that essential technology is frequently offered on a royalty free basis - at least for the mass market components; compensation for these essential patents is generally obtained via royalties on encoders and tools, or simply from the profits generated by reaching critical market mass. MPEG-4 is thus caught in the middle of a cultural war. The old business model of licensing may no longer be an effective approach; the success of MPEG-4 is not assured, as there are competitive options. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From craig@pcube.com Mon Feb 4 16:55:22 2002 Received: from imf26bis.bellsouth.net (mail026.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.66]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14LtMd8024303 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:55:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([216.78.160.82]) by imf26bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020204215640.ELUI15827.imf26bis.bellsouth.net@[192.168.1.103]> for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:56:40 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: craig@mail.lw.net Message-Id: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:55:16 -0500 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Craig Birkmaier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Calculating IP Multicase usage fees Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: John McClenny posed another interesting question about the MPEG-4 usage fee on OpenDTV today: >So, if I commercially encode MPEG-4 and multicast it over an IP >network, does this count as one copy or multiple copies :)? Isn't >this going to keep everyone on either MPEG-2 or some other >proprietary encoder? -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen@intertrust.com Mon Feb 4 17:19:32 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g14MJVd8027158 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:19:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g14MDCh24043; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:13:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:18:58 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187782@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Craig Birkmaier'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Calculating IP Multicase usage fees Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:18:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Good question. Let's distinguish: 1) no renumeration 2) users don't pay but content provider collects some (modest) advertising revenue on the website that this stream is linked from 3) users pay per view. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig@pcube.com] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 13:55 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Calculating IP Multicase usage fees > > > John McClenny > > posed another interesting question about the MPEG-4 usage fee > on OpenDTV today: > > > >So, if I commercially encode MPEG-4 and multicast it over an IP > >network, does this count as one copy or multiple copies :)? Isn't > >this going to keep everyone on either MPEG-2 or some other > >proprietary encoder? > > > -- > Regards > Craig Birkmaier > Pcube Labs > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From sm@dicas.de Tue Feb 5 14:00:47 2002 Received: from moutvdom01.kundenserver.de (moutvdom01.kundenserver.de [195.20.224.200]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g15J0ld8020274 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:00:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from [195.20.224.219] (helo=mrvdom03.kundenserver.de) by moutvdom01.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 16YApi-0005WR-00 for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:00:46 +0100 Received: from [194.93.143.187] (helo=oemcomputer) by mrvdom03.kundenserver.de with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 16YApd-0001su-00 for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:00:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c1ae76$51db8740$bb8f5dc2@oemcomputer> From: "Moeritz, Sebastian" To: Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:52:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C1AE76.509C9EA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] e-inSITE - The Electronics Industry Knowledge Network Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C1AE76.509C9EA0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000B_01C1AE76.50A43FC0" ------=_NextPart_001_000B_01C1AE76.50A43FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Another article on the subject = http://www.e-insite.net/index.asp?layout=3Darticle&articleid=3DCA194886&t= itle=3DArticle&spacedesc=3Dnews ------=_NextPart_001_000B_01C1AE76.50A43FC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Another article on the=20 subject

 http://www.e-insite.ne= t/index.asp?layout=3Darticle&articleid=3DCA194886&title=3DArticle= &spacedesc=3Dnews ------=_NextPart_001_000B_01C1AE76.50A43FC0-- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C1AE76.509C9EA0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="e-inSITE - The Electronics Industry Knowledge Network.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="e-inSITE - The Electronics Industry Knowledge Network.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.e-insite.net/index.asp?layout=3Darticle&articleid=3D= CA194886&title=3DArticle&spacedesc=3Dnews [InternetShortcut] URL=3Dhttp://www.e-insite.net/index.asp?layout=3Darticle&articleid=3DCA19= 4886&title=3DArticle&spacedesc=3Dnews Modified=3DC0A0E02B76AEC10151 ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C1AE76.509C9EA0-- From jeffh@bisk.com Tue Feb 5 14:44:52 2002 Received: from mail.corp.bisk.com ([208.51.230.71]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g15Jind8025313 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:44:51 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1AE7D.92190E95" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:44:48 -0500 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937612B@mail.corp.bisk.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Here's a thought Thread-Index: AcGueReQutWUFlwbS0ymSxfSRCyEbwAA9niw From: "Jeff Handy" To: Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Here's a thought Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AE7D.92190E95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What's to stop us from forming an MPEG-4 coalition where all members coop the cost of the $1mil caps for the encoders and decoders? Maybe then, the use fee wouldn't hurt so badly. If there were enough corporate and private members, it might make sense. Your thoughts? =20 =20 Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist=20 Bisk Education - Technology Development=20 World Headquarters - Tampa, FL=20 800-874-7877 x360=20 jeffh@bisk.com=20 http://www.bisk.com =20 Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader=20 http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=3Dcleaner=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AE7D.92190E95 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
What's=20 to stop us from forming an MPEG-4 coalition where all members coop the = cost of=20 the $1mil caps for the encoders and decoders?  Maybe then, the use = fee=20 wouldn't hurt so badly.  If there were enough corporate and private = members, it might make sense.  Your thoughts?
 
 

Jeff Handy - = Senior Digital=20 Media Specialist
Bisk Education - Technology Development
World Headquarters - = Tampa,=20 FL
800-874-7877 x360
jeffh@bisk.com
http://www.bisk.com

Cleaner Forum = COWmunity=20 Leader
http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=3Dcleaner=20

=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AE7D.92190E95-- From ben@interframemedia.com Tue Feb 5 16:24:26 2002 Received: from 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com [216.99.212.226]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g15LOQd8006645 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:24:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.99.197.202] by 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (AppleMailServer 10.1.0.0) id 29450u via TCP with SMTP; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:20:20 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 09:18:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? From: Ben Waggoner To: CC: Sanjay Kulkarni Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3C5ED2CB.43EBD897@dvd.panasonic.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Sanjay, The critical feature of MPEG-4 is interoperability. Content created by any compliant tool can be served by any compliant server and play back in any compliant player, even if they're all from different vendors (within the same Profile@Level). Proprietary formats obviously can't offer this. How important the interoperability is relative to player ubiquity and encoder cost will vary hugely by the industry. MPEG-4's first big successes are unlikely to be in head to head competition against QuickTime, Windows Media, and RealVideo. MPEG-4's initial wins will be in areas where those technologies don't provide a complete solution today. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/4/02 10:28 AM, Sanjay Kulkarni at kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com wrote: > I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt about using the > MPEG-4 format for streaming media. > > I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for consumers and am > considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and MPEG4. What is > the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming media solution? > Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that licensing would be > the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a > comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media formats). Not to > mention that the rest of the players are already popular in the market and > their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. > > Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! From rkoenen@intertrust.com Tue Feb 5 16:53:51 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g15Lrod8009973 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:53:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g15Lm0h08003; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:48:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:53:45 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877E8@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Ben Waggoner'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Cc: Sanjay Kulkarni Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:53:45 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Ben is exaclty right. Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:19 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Cc: Sanjay Kulkarni > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > Sanjay, > > The critical feature of MPEG-4 is interoperability. > Content created by > any compliant tool can be served by any compliant server and > play back in > any compliant player, even if they're all from different > vendors (within the > same Profile@Level). > > Proprietary formats obviously can't offer this. > > How important the interoperability is relative to player > ubiquity and > encoder cost will vary hugely by the industry. > > MPEG-4's first big successes are unlikely to be in head to head > competition against QuickTime, Windows Media, and RealVideo. MPEG-4's > initial wins will be in areas where those technologies don't provide a > complete solution today. > > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > on 2/4/02 10:28 AM, Sanjay Kulkarni at > kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com wrote: > > > I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt > about using the > > MPEG-4 format for streaming media. > > > > I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for > consumers and am > > considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and > MPEG4. What is > > the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming > media solution? > > Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that > licensing would be > > the killer to launching this format in the market (again, this is a > > comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media > formats). Not to > > mention that the rest of the players are already popular in > the market and > > their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. > > > > Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From trbarry@trbarry.com Tue Feb 5 18:23:15 2002 Received: from demai05.mw.mediaone.net (demai05.mw.ipsvc.net [24.131.1.56]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g15NNFd8020226 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:23:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from robot (bgp01031348bgs.sothfd01.mi.comcast.net [68.41.232.65]) by demai05.mw.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g15NNLN14004; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:23:26 -0500 (EST) From: "Tom Barry" To: "Rob Koenen" , "'Ben Waggoner'" , Cc: "Sanjay Kulkarni" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:21:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c1ae9b$dcc8de00$9100a8c0@com.robot> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877E8@exchange.epr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: | Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working | at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. | Yes, it may be they have implemented a licensing structure where everyone is willing to implement support but no one is willing to create and transmit content. - Tom | -----Original Message----- | From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org | [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen | Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 4:54 PM | To: 'Ben Waggoner'; discuss@lists.m4if.org | Cc: Sanjay Kulkarni | Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? | | | Ben is exaclty right. | | Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working | at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. | | Rob | | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] | > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:19 | > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org | > Cc: Sanjay Kulkarni | > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? | > | > | > Sanjay, | > | > The critical feature of MPEG-4 is interoperability. | > Content created by | > any compliant tool can be served by any compliant server and | > play back in | > any compliant player, even if they're all from different | > vendors (within the | > same Profile@Level). | > | > Proprietary formats obviously can't offer this. | > | > How important the interoperability is relative to player | > ubiquity and | > encoder cost will vary hugely by the industry. | > | > MPEG-4's first big successes are unlikely to be in head to head | > competition against QuickTime, Windows Media, and | RealVideo. MPEG-4's | > initial wins will be in areas where those technologies | don't provide a | > complete solution today. | > | > | > Ben Waggoner | > Interframe Media | > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding | > | > | > | > on 2/4/02 10:28 AM, Sanjay Kulkarni at | > kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com wrote: | > | > > I would like to use this board to clarify my basic doubt | > about using the | > > MPEG-4 format for streaming media. | > > | > > I am doing a study to provide streaming media solutions for | > consumers and am | > > considering formats like Windows Media, QuickTime, Real and | > MPEG4. What is | > > the real advantage of providing an MPEG-4 based streaming | > media solution? | > > Quality/bandwidth issues apart, I am of the opinion that | > licensing would be | > > the killer to launching this format in the market (again, | this is a | > > comparative statement to the rest of the streaming media | > formats). Not to | > > mention that the rest of the players are already popular in | > the market and | > > their codecs are cheaply (if not freely) available. | > > | > > Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! | > | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Discuss mailing list | > Discuss@lists.m4if.org | > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss | > | _______________________________________________ | Discuss mailing list | Discuss@lists.m4if.org | http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss | From rkoenen@intertrust.com Tue Feb 5 18:28:40 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g15NSed8020805 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:28:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g15NMOh09865; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:28:09 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877F9@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Tom Barry'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:28:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > | Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working > | at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. > | > > Yes, it may be they have implemented a licensing structure where > everyone is willing to implement support but no one is > willing to create > and transmit content. > That is a good comment, and one that I would like to see supported or refuted by the facts. Let's try to understand how it works out for specific use cases. I have invited the people that know to explain the scheme in more detail, and also to explain where the details still need to be worked out. It will greatly help if we get concrete examples of where licensing supposedly works and where it allegedly doesn't. Rob From kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com Tue Feb 5 18:51:18 2002 Received: from mail.dvd.panasonic.com ([207.215.53.98]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g15NpHd8023336 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:51:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from dvd.panasonic.com (207.215.53.98 [207.215.53.98]) by mail.dvd.panasonic.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id DZB5NGQB; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:50:59 -0800 Message-ID: <3C6070C6.96F7140F@dvd.panasonic.com> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:54:46 -0800 From: Sanjay Kulkarni X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877F9@exchange.epr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Oh, I would be willing to develop MPEG4 content and distribute it, as long as it is accepted in the market. In that case, I would be responsible for content conversion and licensing issues. But then, I'd like see more and more consumers having MPEG4 decoders to view my content. As someone on this list rightly pointed out (I miss the name), it is going to be hard to get popular support for MPEG4 for markets in which Windows Media, RealVideo, etc are popular - such as PC based streaming content - but for areas where there are no solutions as yet, MPEG4 has a big chance. Examples - streaming media over Internet connected STBs and TVs or mobile commn. Sanjay P.S. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT MY COMPANY IN ANY WAY Rob Koenen wrote: > > | Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working > > | at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. > > | > > > > Yes, it may be they have implemented a licensing structure where > > everyone is willing to implement support but no one is > > willing to create > > and transmit content. > > > > That is a good comment, and one that I would like to see supported > or refuted by the facts. Let's try to understand how it works out > for specific use cases. I have invited the people that know to explain > the scheme in more detail, and also to explain where the details still > need to be worked out. It will greatly help if we get concrete > examples of where licensing supposedly works and where it allegedly > doesn't. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Senior Software Engineer Panasonic Disc Services Corp. 525 Maple Ave, Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: 310-783-4800 x674 Fax: 310-783-4849 Email: kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com From ben@interframemedia.com Tue Feb 5 19:45:38 2002 Received: from 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com [216.99.212.226]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g160jbd8029499 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 19:45:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.99.192.238] by 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (AppleMailServer 10.1.0.0) id 30266u via TCP with SMTP; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:43:01 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:45:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? From: Ben Waggoner To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591877E8@exchange.epr.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Rob, Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working > at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. From i.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk Wed Feb 6 03:46:15 2002 Received: from av1.rgu.ac.uk (av1.rgu.ac.uk [194.66.84.69]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g168kEd8022519 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 03:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk BY av1.rgu.ac.uk ; Wed Feb 06 08:45:41 2002 0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:45:17 -0000 Message-ID: <9B4C0CE0F5BE4E4F83226707BFA0D1B42D06CB@EXVS001.rgu.ac.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Details of patent claims Thread-Index: AcGu6ppl82q1Sbe2QsCW0BOM7b9/9g== From: "Iain Richardson (ensigr)" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g168kEd8022519 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Details of patent claims Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Is there a statement available giving the details of the claims made by the MP4 Visual patent holders ? For example, the short header mode is identical to baseline H.263 which (as far as I'm aware) isn't covered by a licensing scheme. Is there evidence that an MPEG4 Visual codec operating in this mode actually requires licensing ? Thanks Iain Richardson Scotland, UK From adrockus@earthlink.net Wed Feb 6 12:09:40 2002 Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16H9ed8024363 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:09:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from nycmny1-ar1-4-3-093-043.elnk.dsl.gtei.net ([4.3.93.43] helo=eve) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16YVZi-00046c-00 for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:09:38 -0800 From: "Adam Siegel" To: Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:10:24 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and servers, it is still not clear to me that supporting exclusively MPEG-4 will provide adequate cost savings or other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 of the Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with really large amounts of content will save on storage costs, but is this significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to make the user choose a format or try to detect the user's installed players. But are these benefits enough to justify the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and publishing systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing issues...Then there will probably also be inconsistencies in the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we will be limited to the functionality supported by all. I really want to see MPEG-4 happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the market to be ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. Adam Siegel ex-cubed media minds -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Ben Waggoner Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 7:46 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Rob, Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support working > at NAB last year, and Real has announced it too. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From yuval@envivio.com Wed Feb 6 13:13:30 2002 Received: from orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.17]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16IDTd8001726 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from envivio.com (sc-66-74-249-175.socal.rr.com [66.74.249.175]) by orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g16IBto07411 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:11:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C616C36.17ADEBAC@envivio.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:47:34 -0800 From: Yuval Fisher X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their players, at least > to some extent. Even if it subtracts $1 million from their bottom line ? That's the cap on the recently released visual license outline. Yuval From Bill@streamingmedia.com Wed Feb 6 13:23:13 2002 Received: from MAILSRV (64-48-113-162.customer.algx.net [64.48.113.162]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16INCd8002838 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:23:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by MAILSRV with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:16:41 -0800 Message-ID: <0BC3DFA40E5BD511919800B0D0D0893B3A089C@MAILSRV> From: Bill Bernat To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:16:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Internet streaming is only one part of a much bigger MPEG-4 picture, and for much of that picture the recently proposed Visual licensing terms are perhaps excellent. For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) and it's understood that marketplace adoption will take time; however, assuming the big three were willing to pay the $1 cap on the decoder, and in some cases perhaps on the encoder, to allow unlimited distribution, would they be subject to the content use fee of $0.02 per hour played if the content were downloaded and not streamed? For some content only? Also, would they be willing to then include server support as well, and include technology to enable webcasters to track and pony up the $0.02 for each unicast hour? Would a webcaster see enough benefit in MPEG-4 that he/she would pay the $0.02 per hour. What other questions do people have about the licensing agreement? -billb > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Siegel [mailto:adrockus@earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:10 AM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their > players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players > support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or > else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the > case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that > there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing > in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. > > Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and > servers, it is still not clear to me that supporting > exclusively MPEG-4 will provide adequate cost savings or > other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 of the > Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with > really large amounts of content will save on storage costs, > but is this significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to > make the user choose a format or try to detect the user's > installed players. But are these benefits enough to justify > the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and > encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and > publishing systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing > issues...Then there will probably also be inconsistencies in > the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we will be limited to the > functionality supported by all. I really want to see MPEG-4 > happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the > market to be ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. > > Adam Siegel > ex-cubed media minds > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On > Behalf Of Ben > Waggoner > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 7:46 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > Rob, > > Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would > play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > > > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support > working at NAB > > last year, and Real has announced it too. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rsaintjohn@LIGOS.COM Wed Feb 6 13:35:25 2002 Received: from red.ligos.com (red.ligos.com [207.238.131.190]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g16IZPd8004224 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7434 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2002 18:26:15 -0000 Received: from sf-mail.ligos (192.168.1.4) by red.ligos.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 18:26:15 -0000 Received: by SF-MAIL.ligos with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1J3JKYSA>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:35:24 -0800 Message-ID: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F6D@SF-MAIL.ligos> From: Robert Saint John To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:35:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I think it's worth pointing out that when it comes to "the big 3", history is probably a good indicator of how this will work out. Supporting a codec/architecture is not the same thing as including it. In the example of MPEG-1, each of the big three support it "out of the box" by including the codec. The one exception to this might be Real; I can't recall if the Real Players include the MPEG-1 decoder (by Digital Bitcasting/EMC?) by default. But in general, I think one reason that there is such a great deal of content in MPEG-1 format is because there is true support for it for every player on every OS and platform. The same cannot be said of MPEG-2. MS supports MPEG-2 by including hooks that allow DVD Video players from different vendors to operate. There are some straightforward MPEG-2 decoder options available for Windows, but it is unlikely that MS will ever license or distribute MPEG-2. I believe Apple only recently started supporting MPEG-2 out of the box (also for DVD), but does not include an MPEG-2 codec with QuickTime. And Real has no support for MPEG-2 whatsoever. I firmly believe (actually, I've been told) that this is due to the cost of licensing. MPEG-2 became a victim of sorts (on the PC platform) of the chicken and the egg syndrome. The Big 3 don't fully support it because the content is not there. The content is not there because there is no ubiquitous support. There are other reasons certainly (average stream size of MPEG-2 for instance), but the licensing issue associated with decoders is certainly a contributing factor. Of course, it didn't stop MPEG-2 from becoming the most successful codec of all time (without any help from the PC). I see few reasons why it should be any different with MPEG-4. Any success on the PC platform (if that matters) will be directly related to its full support by the Big 3. And I really don't see that happening. More likely that MPEG-4 will become near and dear to one of the Big 3, and that's how it will establish itself on the PC. But I think we need to keep perspective about how important that really is. If we look at this from a PC-Internet-Media Player -centric point of view, we're missing one of the key points of MPEG-4 in the first place. Robert -- Robert W. Saint John - rsaintjohn@ligos.com Director of Technical Marketing Ligos Corporation - http://www.ligos.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Adam Siegel [mailto:adrockus@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:10 AM Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and servers, <...snipped...> From kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com Wed Feb 6 13:41:31 2002 Received: from mail.dvd.panasonic.com ([207.215.53.98]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16IfUd8004911 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:41:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from dvd.panasonic.com (207.215.53.98 [207.215.53.98]) by mail.dvd.panasonic.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id DZB5NKAC; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:41:04 -0800 Message-ID: <3C61798F.782868C4@dvd.panasonic.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:44:31 -0800 From: Sanjay Kulkarni X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: <0BC3DFA40E5BD511919800B0D0D0893B3A089C@MAILSRV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I have a similar question. If I were to bundle some MPEG4 content on my DVD (as ROM content), who would pay for the viewership? The player manufacturer for supplying the decoder, me for encoding the content, or the disc replicator for replicating N discs with MPEG4 content on it? What baffels me more is if part of my content is on the disc and some content is streamed from the Server. What kind of licensing would I be looking at in these cases? ...should I be thinking about copy-protection issues too? Sanjay Bill Bernat wrote: > Internet streaming is only one part of a much bigger MPEG-4 picture, and for > much of that picture the recently proposed Visual licensing terms are > perhaps excellent. > > For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) > and it's understood that marketplace adoption will take time; however, > assuming the big three were willing to pay the $1 cap on the decoder, and in > some cases perhaps on the encoder, to allow unlimited distribution, would > they be subject to the content use fee of $0.02 per hour played if the > content were downloaded and not streamed? For some content only? Also, > would they be willing to then include server support as well, and include > technology to enable webcasters to track and pony up the $0.02 for each > unicast hour? Would a webcaster see enough benefit in MPEG-4 that he/she > would pay the $0.02 per hour. What other questions do people have about the > licensing agreement? > > -billb > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Siegel [mailto:adrockus@earthlink.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:10 AM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > > > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their > > players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players > > support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or > > else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the > > case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that > > there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing > > in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. > > > > Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and > > servers, it is still not clear to me that supporting > > exclusively MPEG-4 will provide adequate cost savings or > > other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 of the > > Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with > > really large amounts of content will save on storage costs, > > but is this significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to > > make the user choose a format or try to detect the user's > > installed players. But are these benefits enough to justify > > the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and > > encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and > > publishing systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing > > issues...Then there will probably also be inconsistencies in > > the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we will be limited to the > > functionality supported by all. I really want to see MPEG-4 > > happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the > > market to be ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. > > > > Adam Siegel > > ex-cubed media minds > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On > > Behalf Of Ben > > Waggoner > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 7:46 PM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > Rob, > > > > Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would > > play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. > > > > Ben Waggoner > > Interframe Media > > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > > > > > on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > > > > > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support > > working at NAB > > > last year, and Real has announced it too. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen@intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 13:51:22 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16IpKd8006068 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:51:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g16IjPh20438; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:45:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:51:09 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918783B@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Bill Bernat'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:51:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Bill, > For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) > and it's understood that marketplace adoption will take time; I exect Systems to come along, I am more worried about Audio. My expectations may be proven wrong. > however, assuming the big three were willing to pay the $1 cap on the $1? That would be great for users. M$1 is more like it:-) > decoder, and in some cases perhaps on the encoder, to allow unlimited > distribution, would > they be subject to the content use fee of $0.02 per hour played if the > content were downloaded and not streamed? AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND the difference between streaming and downloading is moot. What counts is: is there renumeration for the content. If there is, I read the release as saying that the use-fee applies. In that case the ENcoder would be royalty free (but hey, what is 25 cts on a professional encoder anyway?) > For some content only? Also, > would they be willing to then include server support as well, and include > technology to enable webcasters to track and pony up the $0.02 for each > unicast hour? Would a webcaster see enough benefit in MPEG-4 that he/she > would pay the $0.02 per hour. What other questions do people have about the > licensing agreement? That is indeed where there are big question marks. * How does it work in the case of 1 to many? (broadcast and webcast) * How does it work when there is no direct renumeration like 5 USD per user per hour, but indirect, e.g. through advertising? (and maybe not all that much either?) Rob From adrockus@earthlink.net Wed Feb 6 13:55:00 2002 Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16It0d8006422 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:55:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from nycmny1-ar1-4-3-093-043.elnk.dsl.gtei.net ([4.3.93.43] helo=eve) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16YXDf-0005Nm-00 for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:54:59 -0800 From: "Adam Siegel" To: Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:55:45 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: <3C616C36.17ADEBAC@envivio.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Let's put it this way: I don't think $1 million is going to keep Microsoft, Real and Apple from any market that is worth being in. So if they decide not to pay the money, this will be a good indication about the nature of the opportunity for all of us. I mean, think about how much the telcos paid for 3G licenses... To Bill's questions, I think there would be great benefit to all if there were some excel spreadsheet or some other computational model based on the licensing terms that we could use to determine costs related to offering MPEG-4 content and related solutions/services. Any volunteers? ;-) Adam -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Yuval Fisher Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:48 PM Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their players, at least > to some extent. Even if it subtracts $1 million from their bottom line ? That's the cap on the recently released visual license outline. Yuval _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From yuval@envivio.com Wed Feb 6 14:10:17 2002 Received: from orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.16]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16JAGd8008319 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:10:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from envivio.com (sc-66-74-249-175.socal.rr.com [66.74.249.175]) by orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g16J8dD10003 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:08:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C617F7A.595AEE18@envivio.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:09:46 -0800 From: Yuval Fisher X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F6D@SF-MAIL.ligos> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > Of course, it didn't stop MPEG-2 from becoming the most successful codec of > all time (without any help from the PC). I see few reasons why it should be > any different with MPEG-4. I disagree. I think it will be very different for MPEG-4. The existing investment in MPEG-2 will not go away. Content owners do not want to live on the bleeding edge at all. As happened with mp3, the hardware and consumer markets will follow wide spread adoption only, and this can only happen over PCs. The success of MPEG-4 depends on adoption on PCs. (Wireless is another argument, which I'll avoid now). y From yuval@envivio.com Wed Feb 6 14:18:57 2002 Received: from orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.16]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16JIud8009246 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from envivio.com (sc-66-74-249-175.socal.rr.com [66.74.249.175]) by orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g16JHJD13504 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:17:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C61817E.EF72DB9A@envivio.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:18:22 -0800 From: Yuval Fisher X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > Let's put it this way: I don't think $1 million is going to keep Microsoft, > Real and Apple from any market that is worth being in. So if they decide not > to pay the money, this will be a good indication about the nature of the > opportunity for all of us. This seems to suggest that these 3 have crystal balls that tell them what markets will emerge and which won't. That's simply silly. You can review initiatives by all three and see successes and failures. The fact is that no one has consistantly predicted adoption or rejection of technology. The adoption of MPEG-4 *may* happen if it is coddled and promoted in a way that compensates for the dominance of other technologies. MPEG-4 will not be adopted if it is hampered by fees just as it emerges. (The 1 year grace period is insufficient time for a variety of reasons....) From rsaintjohn@LIGOS.COM Wed Feb 6 14:47:57 2002 Received: from red.ligos.com (red.ligos.com [207.238.131.190]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g16Jlud8012879 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:47:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7635 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2002 19:38:47 -0000 Received: from sf-mail.ligos (192.168.1.4) by red.ligos.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 19:38:47 -0000 Received: by SF-MAIL.ligos with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1J3JKY4Y>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:47:56 -0800 Message-ID: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F70@SF-MAIL.ligos> From: Robert Saint John To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:47:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Sorry, I should have left that sentence with the previous paragraph. When I said "I see few reasons why it should be any different with MPEG-4", I simply meant that I felt MPEG-4 support would evolve on the PC in a path similar to MPEG-2 support, for many of the same reasons. I think it's way too early to tell if MPEG-4 will become the most successful codec/architecture, and didn't mean to imply that. My turn to disagree now . I sincerely hope that the success of MPEG-4 does *not* depend on the PC. We can debate (somewhere else) what a "PC" is and what it might evolve into. But if the consensus is that the current Internet-connected PC is the only platform and market that could establish some "killer app" of MPEG-4 that leads it to widespread adoption (within 1 year!), then I find it hard to understand what "the REAL advantage" (the original question) is, and I think we're all in trouble. If that's really the case, then the combination punch of the Big 3 and the licensing scheme will be enough to knock out MPEG-4 in the first round, IMHO. I hope we won't have to depend on the PC alone, and again I really don't think we can ask these questions with only the "streaming media for PCs" market in mind. MPEG and MPEG-LA deal with a much larger world, and the proposal reflects that. I don't think it's likely that MPEG-LA can come up with one set of rules for PC-based implementations, and another set of rules for the rest of the world (wireless, CE, telematics, etc.). Discussions and decisions based upon a single market POV risk damaging the chances of MPEG-4's success in other markets, and success overall. If MPEG-4 is just going to be a "me too" for the PC, then we've already decided that our future depends exclusively on one or more of the Big 3. ugh. BTW, only speaking for me, not my company, who would probably say I should get back to work. Robert -- Robert W. Saint John - rsaintjohn@ligos.com Director of Technical Marketing Ligos Corporation - http://www.ligos.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Yuval Fisher [mailto:yuval@envivio.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:10 AM > Of course, it didn't stop MPEG-2 from becoming the most successful codec of > all time (without any help from the PC). I see few reasons why it should be > any different with MPEG-4. I disagree. I think it will be very different for MPEG-4. The existing investment in MPEG-2 will not go away. Content owners do not want to live on the bleeding edge at all. As happened with mp3, the hardware and consumer markets will follow wide spread adoption only, and this can only happen over PCs. The success of MPEG-4 depends on adoption on PCs. (Wireless is another argument, which I'll avoid now). y _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com Wed Feb 6 14:50:36 2002 Received: from atvl10.pav.research.panasonic.com (atvl10.pav.research.panasonic.com [150.169.164.10]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16Joad8013292 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:50:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from dhcp150.pav.research.panasonic.com (dhc2161.pav.research.panasonic.com [150.169.162.161]) by atvl10.pav.research.panasonic.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21686 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:51:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020206143942.00b138c0@mailhost.pav.research.panasonic.com> X-Sender: vasanth@mailhost.pav.research.panasonic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:50:49 -0500 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Vasanth Shreesha Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_21887772==_.ALT" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=====================_21887772==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello all, How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 cents/hour license fee? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http://www.pavcal.com --=====================_21887772==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Hello all,
        How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content
and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 cents/hour license fee?

-vasanth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vasanth Shreesha                                
Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. 
http://www.pavcal.com --=====================_21887772==_.ALT-- From singer@apple.com Wed Feb 6 15:09:22 2002 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16K9Jd8016454 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:09:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g16K9J728529 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:08:57 -0800 Received: from [17.202.35.52] (singda.apple.com [17.202.35.52]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g16K9HG17140; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:09:17 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: singer@mail.apple.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918783B@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918783B@exchange.epr.com> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:08:17 -0800 To: Rob Koenen , "'Bill Bernat'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Dave Singer Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: At 10:51 -0800 2/6/02, Rob Koenen wrote: >Bill, > > >> For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) actually, it's just the profiles of visual that include the video codec, right, so it's not even FBA or still coding. So it's really two profiles of video only, as I understand. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From LHorn@mpegla.com Wed Feb 6 15:25:56 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16KPud8018585 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:25:56 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:25:51 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Thread-Index: AcGvPkt5Lt83U3BaQMq2RfEvLQSwUgADMDGg From: "Larry Horn" To: "Sanjay Kulkarni" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g16KPud8018585 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello, Sanjav. 1) Under last week's announcement, the license would have the disc replicator pay for each packaged medium with MPEG-4 data. 2) For streaming content, a royalty would apply to the use of MPEG-4 video in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed. Regards, Larry Horn MPEG LA -----Original Message----- From: Sanjay Kulkarni [mailto:kulkarniS@dvd.panasonic.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 1:45 PM Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? I have a similar question. If I were to bundle some MPEG4 content on my DVD (as ROM content), who would pay for the viewership? The player manufacturer for supplying the decoder, me for encoding the content, or the disc replicator for replicating N discs with MPEG4 content on it? What baffels me more is if part of my content is on the disc and some content is streamed from the Server. What kind of licensing would I be looking at in these cases? ...should I be thinking about copy-protection issues too? Sanjay Bill Bernat wrote: > Internet streaming is only one part of a much bigger MPEG-4 picture, and for > much of that picture the recently proposed Visual licensing terms are > perhaps excellent. > > For Internet streaming, I know this is just Visual (not audio and systems) > and it's understood that marketplace adoption will take time; however, > assuming the big three were willing to pay the $1 cap on the decoder, and in > some cases perhaps on the encoder, to allow unlimited distribution, would > they be subject to the content use fee of $0.02 per hour played if the > content were downloaded and not streamed? For some content only? Also, > would they be willing to then include server support as well, and include > technology to enable webcasters to track and pony up the $0.02 for each > unicast hour? Would a webcaster see enough benefit in MPEG-4 that he/she > would pay the $0.02 per hour. What other questions do people have about the > licensing agreement? > > -billb > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Siegel [mailto:adrockus@earthlink.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:10 AM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > > > Makes sense that the "Big 3" would support MPEG-4 in their > > players, at least to some extent. And once all 3 players > > support it, won't that force all 3 servers to support it or > > else be at a competitive disadvantage? But until this is the > > case - I project maybe by Q2 '03 - I agree with Ben that > > there really does not seem to be much of a point to investing > > in creating MPEG-4 content for the Web. > > > > Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and > > servers, it is still not clear to me that supporting > > exclusively MPEG-4 will provide adequate cost savings or > > other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 of the > > Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with > > really large amounts of content will save on storage costs, > > but is this significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to > > make the user choose a format or try to detect the user's > > installed players. But are these benefits enough to justify > > the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and > > encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and > > publishing systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing > > issues...Then there will probably also be inconsistencies in > > the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we will be limited to the > > functionality supported by all. I really want to see MPEG-4 > > happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the > > market to be ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. > > > > Adam Siegel > > ex-cubed media minds > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On > > Behalf Of Ben > > Waggoner > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 7:46 PM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > Rob, > > > > Great point. I'd expect that a ISMA Profile 1 file would > > play unmodified in all three major players by the end of this year. > > > > Ben Waggoner > > Interframe Media > > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > > > > > on 2/5/02 1:53 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > > > > > Moreover, QuickTime has already showed MPEG-4 support > > working at NAB > > > last year, and Real has announced it too. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From LHorn@mpegla.com Wed Feb 6 15:41:36 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16Kfad8020578 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:41:36 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:41:35 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Thread-Index: AcGvSGC5C5nysAJfRx+n+veLh/sHUgABA2TQ From: "Larry Horn" To: "Vasanth Shreesha" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g16Kfad8020578 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello, Vasanth. In the case of the so-called "use" fees, royalties follow remuneration: If a service provider or content provider/owner receives remuneration in connection with offering/providing the MPEG-4 video for viewing or having the video viewed, then royalties are charged for the use of such MPEG-4 video data. If there is no remuneration to the service provider or content provider/owner in connection with offering/providing the MPEG-4 video for viewing or having the video viewed as in the case of the private communications that you describe, however, then the use fee does not apply; rather, the encoder that encodes such content must be licensed and the applicable royalty paid. Regards, Larry Horn MPEG LA -----Original Message----- From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:51 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Hello all, How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 cents/hour license fee? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http://www.pavcal.com From adrockus@earthlink.net Wed Feb 6 15:45:45 2002 Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16Kjjd8021137 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:45:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from nycmny1-ar1-4-3-093-043.elnk.dsl.gtei.net ([4.3.93.43] helo=eve) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16YYwr-0001T6-00 for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:45:45 -0800 From: "Adam Siegel" To: Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:46:30 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: <3C61817E.EF72DB9A@envivio.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Well, the big 3 do not need a crystal ball to figure out how to deal with MPEG-4. They can afford to embrace and extend early on if they wish. They ARE the Web streaming market as it exists today - they have the customers and the users and the channels. That puts them in the best position to project what the market will need moving forward. Sure they can be wrong, but they can also afford to be wrong or even just wait and see what happens and then decide to join in if it looks like it is getting interesting. They can always join the game a bit late and still win - remember what happened with MS vs. Netscape in the browser war? I guess I am just taking a longwinded way of expressing what others have already said: I believe the more interesting opportunities for new companies in the MPEG-4 space will be outside of the Web arena. Adam -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Yuval Fisher Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:18 PM Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > Let's put it this way: I don't think $1 million is going to keep Microsoft, > Real and Apple from any market that is worth being in. So if they decide not > to pay the money, this will be a good indication about the nature of the > opportunity for all of us. This seems to suggest that these 3 have crystal balls that tell them what markets will emerge and which won't. That's simply silly. You can review initiatives by all three and see successes and failures. The fact is that no one has consistantly predicted adoption or rejection of technology. The adoption of MPEG-4 *may* happen if it is coddled and promoted in a way that compensates for the dominance of other technologies. MPEG-4 will not be adopted if it is hampered by fees just as it emerges. (The 1 year grace period is insufficient time for a variety of reasons....) _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen@intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 15:49:00 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16Kmtd8021555 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:48:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g16KgNh22555; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:42:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:48:07 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918785E@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Vasanth Shreesha'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:48:02 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1AF4F.91ED26C0" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AF4F.91ED26C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Larry Horn, who has just entered the discussion, can correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand MPEGLA's press release correctly and assuming that you are not charging your friends/family for your content, the answer is 'Yes, you can'. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:51 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Hello all, How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 cents/hour license fee? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http ://www.pavcal. com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AF4F.91ED26C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Larry=20 Horn, who has just entered the discussion, can correct me if I am = wrong,=20
but if=20 I understand MPEGLA's press release correctly and assuming that you are =
not=20 charging your friends/family for your content, the answer is=20 'Yes, you can'.
 
Rob
 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Vasanth Shreesha = [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com]
Sent:=20 Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:51
To:=20 discuss@lists.m4if.org
Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is = the REAL=20 advantage?

Hello all,
=
        How = about=20 licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content
and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 = cents/hour=20 license fee?

-vasanth=20 =
--------------------------------------------------------------------= ----
Vasanth=20 = Shreesha        <= X-TAB>        &nb= sp;         =       
Panasonic=20 AVC American Laboratory, Inc. 
http://www.pavcal.com=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AF4F.91ED26C0-- From LHorn@mpegla.com Wed Feb 6 15:54:08 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16Ks7d8022229 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:54:08 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:54:07 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Thread-Index: AcGvUCLHr+ovXkIySxOi2p968pu6HgAABP4A From: "Larry Horn" To: "Rob Koenen" , "Vasanth Shreesha" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g16Ks7d8022229 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Yes, per my prior email. :-) Larry -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:48 PM To: 'Vasanth Shreesha'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Larry Horn, who has just entered the discussion, can correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand MPEGLA's press release correctly and assuming that you are not charging your friends/family for your content, the answer is 'Yes, you can'. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:51 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Hello all, How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers encode MPEG4 content and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 cents/hour license fee? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http ://www.pavcal. com From jeffh@bisk.com Wed Feb 6 16:36:51 2002 Received: from mail.corp.bisk.com ([208.51.230.71]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16Land8027277 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:36:50 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:36:49 -0500 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937614A@mail.corp.bisk.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Thanks Larry & another question. Thread-Index: AcGvUCLHr+ovXkIySxOi2p968pu6HgAABP4AAAFXtWA= From: "Jeff Handy" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g16Land8027277 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Larry: Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education - Technology Development World Headquarters - Tampa, FL 800-874-7877 x360 jeffh@bisk.com http://www.bisk.com Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner From LHorn@mpegla.com Wed Feb 6 16:45:23 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16LjLd8028310 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:45:22 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:45:21 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Thanks Larry & another question. Thread-Index: AcGvUCLHr+ovXkIySxOi2p968pu6HgAABP4AAAFXtWAAAGlRIA== From: "Larry Horn" To: "Jeff Handy" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g16LjLd8028310 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. Therefore, yes, it would apply. Larry -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:37 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. Larry: Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education - Technology Development World Headquarters - Tampa, FL 800-874-7877 x360 jeffh@bisk.com http://www.bisk.com Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jeffh@bisk.com Wed Feb 6 16:59:31 2002 Received: from mail.corp.bisk.com ([208.51.230.71]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16LxVd8000063 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:59:31 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:59:27 -0500 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937614E@mail.corp.bisk.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. Thread-Index: AcGvUCLHr+ovXkIySxOi2p968pu6HgAABP4AAAFXtWAAAGlRIAAAhivA From: "Jeff Handy" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g16LxVd8000063 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or > the university (or both) receives remuneration for this > material. Therefore, yes, it would apply. If by remuneration you mean to "charge" for, then no, we do not. The course material is provided for free over the web. There is no charge for lecture material. The tuition paid for is for education, not for materials. The education is provided in many ways. In fact, some students never even view the lecture material. The CDs are provided free of charge for any student that doesn't have a high-speed connection or just wants them. Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education - Technology Development World Headquarters - Tampa, FL 800-874-7877 x360 jeffh@bisk.com http://www.bisk.com Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner From craig@pcube.com Wed Feb 6 17:37:40 2002 Received: from imf05bis.bellsouth.net (mail205.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.145]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16MbdTA004716 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([216.78.160.106]) by imf05bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020206223851.CVVO27472.imf05bis.bellsouth.net@[192.168.1.104]>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:38:51 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: craig@mail.lw.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C617F7A.595AEE18@envivio.com> References: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F6D@SF-MAIL.ligos> <3C617F7A.595AEE18@envivio.com> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:09:32 -0500 To: Yuval Fisher From: Craig Birkmaier Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: At 11:09 AM -0800 2/6/02, Yuval Fisher wrote: > > Of course, it didn't stop MPEG-2 from becoming the most successful codec of >> all time (without any help from the PC). I see few reasons why it should be >> any different with MPEG-4. > >I disagree. I think it will be very different for MPEG-4. The existing >investment in MPEG-2 will not go away. Content owners do not want to >live on the bleeding edge at all. As happened with mp3, the hardware and >consumer markets will follow wide spread adoption only, and this can >only happen over PCs. > >The success of MPEG-4 depends on adoption on PCs. (Wireless is another >argument, which I'll avoid now). I've got to agree with Yuval. There is a good reason why MPEG-2 succeeded in the consumer electronics space, and now in cable. The major players saw both the need for and the opportunity to make MPEG-2 a success. DBS and DVD could not have happened without a video encoding technology that would deliver the legacy 525/625 line interlaced video formats at the target bit rates. And these vendors were only to happy to play the IP licensing game; they created a bunch of new IP for MPEG-2, and they share in the royalty revenues. It is also noteworthy that ONLY MPEG-2 MP@ML is a commercial success, and even here there is no interoperability...set-top boxes do not inter-connect with DVD players...it's the same old box per function CE mentality. MPEG-2 did not succeed on PCs because of the licensing issues AND because of content management issues. The latter is still more of a barrier than the revised MPEG-2 license fees. Decoded MPEG-2 video cannot be handled like any other data in a PC, it must be separated and protected. MPEG-4 offers a variety of benefits that will eventually play an important role in CE products, PC products and IP distribution networks. All of these markets are converging in terms of the underlying technology - but the barriers to prevent marketplace convergence are as impenetrable as ever. Yuval is correct about the desire to protect the investment in MPEG-2. This extends well beyond the video codec. It helps to preserve the legacy of interlace (a barrier to convergence with the PC) and the control over the appliances that deliver entertainment content. But some cracks are beginning to appear in walls that the CE industry has built. Program distributors are looking for more efficient codecs to deliver more content in fewer bits (and in a few cases higher quality in fewer bits). The new Moxi platform, introduced at CES, supports DBS, Digital cable, DVD-V AND Real Player, and has all of the hooks needed for applications delivered via IP networks. It uses Flash for the development of the user interface. If DirecTV and DISH are allowed to merge, they will have a strong incentive to replace the existing MPEG-2 set-tops with a platform that uses more efficient video coding and a variety of IP based interactive applications. MPEG-4 could be the solution, but not with the proposed licensing model. If MPEG-LA were to pursue a PC based "proliferation" model for MPEG-4 it would stand a very good chance of displacing the big three, or at the very least, full support by the big three. Even with this it won't be an easy path, as fully conformant implementations of MPEG-4 across multiple platforms will be a significant challenge from both a technical and business viewpoint. Unfortunately, this discussion is centered only on MPEG-4 visual, which is but one of many codecs that could be used in a full implementation of the MPEG-4 composition model. There is far too much emphasis on MPEG-4 as an audio/video streaming format. The real power lies in the composition model and the impact it will have on the localization and personalization of digital media content. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From ben@interframemedia.com Wed Feb 6 17:45:32 2002 Received: from 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com [216.99.212.226]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g16MjWTA005702 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.99.201.124] by 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (AppleMailServer 10.1.0.0) id 31567u via TCP with SMTP; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:43:01 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:45:30 -0800 From: Ben Waggoner To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [M4IF Discuss] \ Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Adam, I'd hope everyone would at least use ISMA Profile 1, which gives Advanced Simple Visual, and a maximum resolution of 352x288. It's in the ballpark of competitive against Big Three solutions today, if you don't need high resolution. I hope we'll see some Scalable profiles become available sooner rather than later. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/6/02 9:10 AM, Adam Siegel at adrockus@earthlink.net wrote: > Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and servers, it is > still not clear to me that supporting exclusively MPEG-4 will provide > adequate cost savings or other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3 > of the Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with really > large amounts of content will save on storage costs, but is this > significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to make the user choose a format > or try to detect the user's installed players. But are these benefits enough > to justify the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and > encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and publishing > systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing issues...Then there will > probably also be inconsistencies in the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we > will be limited to the functionality supported by all. I really want to see > MPEG-4 happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the market to be > ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web. From ben@interframemedia.com Wed Feb 6 17:54:17 2002 Received: from 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com [216.99.212.226]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g16MsGTA006744 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:54:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.99.201.124] by 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (AppleMailServer 10.1.0.0) id 31621u via TCP with SMTP; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:51:45 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:54:15 -0800 Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? From: Ben Waggoner To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Adam, Also, there are no license fees for the first year. So the big three can all ship MPEG-4 playback and encode for a year, and see how the market develops. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/6/02 12:46 PM, Adam Siegel at adrockus@earthlink.net wrote: > Well, the big 3 do not need a crystal ball to figure out how to deal with > MPEG-4. They can afford to embrace and extend early on if they wish. They > ARE the Web streaming market as it exists today - they have the customers > and the users and the channels. That puts them in the best position to > project what the market will need moving forward. Sure they can be wrong, > but they can also afford to be wrong or even just wait and see what happens > and then decide to join in if it looks like it is getting interesting. They > can always join the game a bit late and still win - remember what happened > with MS vs. Netscape in the browser war? > > I guess I am just taking a longwinded way of expressing what others have > already said: I believe the more interesting opportunities for new companies > in the MPEG-4 space will be outside of the Web arena. From vmladjov@signalstream.com Wed Feb 6 18:35:25 2002 Received: from mail.signalstream.com (mail.signalstream.com [64.161.222.5]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g16NZOTA011248 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:26:34 -0800 Message-ID: From: Vassil Mladjov To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:26:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: OK people, Would it be possible that when you reply to emails we all ( the list ) not get included on every one of them. Please reply to individuals directly when that is necessary. I don't know about others, but I get over 100 emails (not just from this list) a day and that would help. Cheers. Vassil Mladjov Vice President Chief Information Officer ITN Signalstream 901 Battery Street, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94111 415.262.4206 direct 415.956.1703 ITN headquarters 415.956.2040 fax 415.420.2883 cell/sms 877.806.0794 pager/text/email vmladjov@signalstream.com http://www.signalstream.com From rsaintjohn@LIGOS.COM Wed Feb 6 18:57:10 2002 Received: from red.ligos.com (red.ligos.com [207.238.131.190]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g16Nv9TA013668 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:57:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8251 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2002 23:57:09 -0000 Received: from sf-mail.ligos (192.168.1.4) by red.ligos.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 23:57:09 -0000 Received: by SF-MAIL.ligos with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1J3JKY7A>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:57:09 -0800 Message-ID: <57E18E38364FCB47B409E3DD5AD527105B4F74@SF-MAIL.ligos> From: Robert Saint John To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:57:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Vassil ~ I think there are many of us who are interested in (and need) all of the information and opinions traded here right now. It would very hard to determine who wants to read what. Perhaps you should consider subscribing to the digest instead, or simply reading the list archives at http://lists.m4if.org/pipermail/discuss/ ? As posted on each message, you can maintain your subscription options at http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss . And, yes, I could have replied just to you, but then no one else would see it if they felt the same! Robert -- Robert W. Saint John - rsaintjohn@ligos.com Director of Technical Marketing Ligos Corporation - http://www.ligos.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Vassil Mladjov [mailto:vmladjov@signalstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:27 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? OK people, Would it be possible that when you reply to emails we all ( the list ) not get included on every one of them. Please reply to individuals directly when that is necessary. I don't know about others, but I get over 100 emails (not just from this list) a day and that would help. Cheers. Vassil Mladjov Vice President Chief Information Officer ITN Signalstream 901 Battery Street, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94111 415.262.4206 direct 415.956.1703 ITN headquarters 415.956.2040 fax 415.420.2883 cell/sms 877.806.0794 pager/text/email vmladjov@signalstream.com http://www.signalstream.com _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen@intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 19:07:42 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1707fTA014775 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1701Xh25976; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:01:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:07:18 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918788C@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Vassil Mladjov'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:07:15 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Vassil, all, > Would it be possible that when you reply to emails we all > (the list) not get included on every one of them. This is a discussion list. People replying to the list is inherent to having a discussion. That said, everybody should make the judgement whether a response is relevant for all or just for the person you are responding to. So far, I haven't seen many emails that weren't for the list. You can set your delivery options to digest mode if you still think you receive too much mail. Follow the instructions found the Welcome mail you receied when subscribing. Hope that helps, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Vassil Mladjov [mailto:vmladjov@signalstream.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 15:27 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > OK people, > > Would it be possible that when you reply to emails we all ( > the list ) not > get included on every one of them. > Please reply to individuals directly when that is necessary. > I don't know > about others, but I get over 100 emails (not just from this > list) a day and > that would help. > Cheers. > > Vassil Mladjov > > Vice President > Chief Information Officer > > ITN Signalstream > 901 Battery Street, Suite 220 > San Francisco, CA 94111 > 415.262.4206 direct > 415.956.1703 ITN headquarters > 415.956.2040 fax > 415.420.2883 cell/sms > 877.806.0794 pager/text/email > > vmladjov@signalstream.com > http://www.signalstream.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen@intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 19:24:23 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g170ONTA016660 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:24:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g170IXh26160; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:18:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:24:18 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187892@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Ben Waggoner'" Cc: "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:24:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] > Adam, > > Also, there are no license fees for the first year. So the big three > can all ship MPEG-4 playback and encode for a year, and see how the market > develops. True, but they will need to sign a licensing agreement or an MoU though. The grace period is not for just everyone. I don't know the terms of the MoU. Rob From rkoenen@intertrust.com Wed Feb 6 19:37:24 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g170bNTA018084 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:37:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g170VYh26326; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:37:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187894@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Ben Waggoner'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] \ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:37:18 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Ben, all, > I hope we'll see some Scalable profiles become available > sooner rather than later. Next on the list for licensing are Simple Scalable, Advanced Simple and Fine Granular Scalability (FGS). See http://www.m4if.org/patents/video111401.html for MPEG LA's press release. In the case of Advanced Simple and Fine Grain Scalability, MPEG LA called for essential patents even before the standard is published, so the process is self-learning and rapidly catching up with the lag that was here for the first announcement, a few days ago. Advanced Simple is the Profile that ISMA uses. I am not a patent expert, but I expect that there aren't a whole lot of patents necessarily inforinged by an Advanced Simple implementation that aren't also infringed by Simple or Core. On the basis of this (my layman's assumption) so I would expect (pure conjecture) that the terms can be materially the same. FGS is the technology that builds on either Simple or Advanced SIple base layer to give a number of enhancement layers that can be seamlessly added or deleted as bandwidth varies. Rob From retiarius@earthlink.net Wed Feb 6 20:07:29 2002 Received: from ws2-8.us4.outblaze.com (205-158-62-86.outblaze.com [205.158.62.86]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g1717TTA021434 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:07:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9344 invoked by uid 1001); 7 Feb 2002 01:07:28 -0000 Message-ID: <20020207010728.9343.qmail@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Received: from [192.9.25.11] by ws2-8.us4.outblaze.com with http for retiarius@earthlink.net; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:07:28 +0800 From: "retiarius laboratories" To: Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:07:28 +0800 Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. X-Originating-Ip: 192.9.25.11 X-Originating-Server: ws2-8.us4.outblaze.com Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Surely I'm not the only one who realizes the enormity of Mr. Handy's MPEG-4 user-fee workarounds. I can (faintly) hear snippets of a future Hollywood producer conversation -- "Naturally we will only be charging for just the liner notes, not the .mp4-encoded blue-laser HD discs!" "It from bit" indeed. --retiarius -- From Bill@streamingmedia.com Wed Feb 6 21:05:16 2002 Received: from MAILSRV ([65.200.234.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1725GTA027709 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:05:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by MAILSRV with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1N0S9FDY>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:58:45 -0800 Message-ID: <0BC3DFA40E5BD511919800B0D0D0893B3A08B2@MAILSRV> From: Bill Bernat To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:58:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG LA Responds to Licensing Criticism Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I spoke with Larry Horn (who is active in this list, also), VP of Licensing at MPEG LA, today to try to get some of the key questions about the announced MPEG-4 licensing terms answered: http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=8174. -billb From jeffh@bisk.com Thu Feb 7 00:11:11 2002 Received: from mail.corp.bisk.com ([208.51.230.71]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g175B8TA018087 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:11:10 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1AF95.D929EDBB" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:11:07 -0500 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3CE@mail.corp.bisk.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3CE@mail.corp.bisk.com> Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. Thread-Index: AcGvdRzKXUaEoA6eRke5WXBFL5MpWgAHrWm6 From: "Jeff Handy" To: "retiarius laboratories" , Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AF95.D929EDBB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 IlN1cmVseSBJJ20gbm90IHRoZSBvbmx5IG9uZSB3aG8gcmVhbGl6ZXMNCnRoZSBlbm9ybWl0eSBv ZiBNci4gSGFuZHkncyBNUEVHLTQgdXNlci1mZWUNCndvcmthcm91bmRzLiAiDQoNCiANCg0KSG93 IGNhbiB5b3Ugc2F5IHRoYXQ/ICBJJ20gdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGdldCB0aGUgbW9zdCBhY2N1cmF0ZSBh bmQgY29tcGxldGUNCmluZm8gdG8gaGFuZCB0byB0aGUgYnJhc3MgaGVyZS4gIEkgaGF2ZSB0byBz ZWxsIHRoZW0uICBUaGlzIG1lYW5zIEkgaGF2ZQ0KdG8gYmUgc29sZCBteXNlbGYuICBJIG5lZWQg dG8ga25vdyB3aGF0IHdlIGFyZSB1cCBhZ2FpbnN0IGNvc3Qtd2lzZS4NCkknbSBub3QgdHJ5aW5n IHRvIHdlYXNlbCBvdXQgb2YgcGF5aW5nLg0KDQogDQoNClRoaXMgaXMgYSBtaW5vciBjb3N0IGNv bXBhcmVkIHdpdGggaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gYW5kIGRlcGxveW1lbnQuICBJdA0KbWVhbnMgcmUt Y2FwdHVyaW5nLCByZS1jb21wcmVzc2luZywgcmUtYXV0aG9yaW5nIGFuZCByZWRlcGxveWluZyBh bGwNCm1lZGlhLiAgSXTigJlzIG5vdCBnb2luZyB0byBiZSBlYXN5IG9yIGNoZWFwLiAgV2Ugd291 bGQgbW9zdCBsaWtlbHkgcGF5DQoidXNlIGZlZXMiIHRocm91Z2ggb3VyIHN0cmVhbWluZyBzZXJ2 aWNlIHByb3ZpZGVyIGFueXdheSAtIEFrYW1haS4gIEkNCmp1c3Qgd2FudCB0byBrbm93IHRoZSBi bGFjayBhbmQgd2hpdGUgb2YgYWxsIG9mIG91ciBjb3N0cy4gIEknZCBoYXJkbHkNCmNhbGwgbXkg aW5xdWlyaWVzIGFuZCBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucyAid29ya2Fyb3VuZHMuIiAgWW91IG1ha2UgaXQgc291 bmQgbGlrZQ0KSSdtIGhpZGluZyBpbiB0aGUgc2hhZG93cyB3YWl0aW5nIHRvIHBpcmF0ZSBjb250 ZW50Lg0KDQogDQoNCldlIGhhdmUgbW9yZSB0aGFuIDEwMCwwMDAgc3R1ZGVudHM7IHNvIG91ciAi dXNlIGZlZSIgY29zdHMgd2lsbCBoYXZlIHRvDQpiZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGFzIHBhcnQgb2Ygb3Vy IG92ZXJhbGwgY29zdHMuICBNeSBxdWVzdGlvbnMgaGF2ZSBiZWVuDQphbnN3ZXJlZCBzYXRpc2Zh Y3RvcmlseSBzbyBmYXIuICBUaGUgdXNlIGZlZXMgd291bGQgYXBwbHkgdG8gb3VyDQpzdHVkZW50 cy4gIEFmdGVyIGFsbCwgaXQgaXMgdGhlbSB3aG8gd2lsbCBiZSBwYXlpbmcgdWx0aW1hdGVseS4N Ck92ZXJhbGwsIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhleSB3b3VsZCBiZSBoYXBweSB0byBwYXkgYSBsaXR0bGUgdG8g Z2V0IHRvbnMgbW9yZQ0KZnVuY3Rpb25hbGl0eS4gIEFuZCBpdCB3b3VsZCBzYXZlIHVzIGxvdHMg b2YgdGVjaCBzdXBwb3J0IGNhbGxzLg0KDQpKZWZmIEhhbmR5DQoNCg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AF95.D929EDBB Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgoFAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBYAD AA4AAADSBwIABwAAAAsABwAEAPgAASCAAwAOAAAA0gcCAAcAAAALAAcABAD4AAEJgAEAIQAAAEY5 REFBMjM3RTEwNkZCNDBCNEU0NkM4NUY1M0VGMkU3AGUHAQOQBgDUEgAAOAAAAB8AGgABAAAAEgAA AEkAUABNAC4ATgBvAHQAZQAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAAAfADcAAQAAAIIAAABSAEUAOgAgAFsATQA0AEkA RgAgAEQAaQBzAGMAdQBzAHMAXQAgACgAIgB1AHMAZQAiACAAZgBlAGUAcwApACAAVABoAGEAbgBr AHMAIABMAGEAcgByAHkAIAAmACAAYQBuAG8AdABoAGUAcgAgAHEAdQBlAHMAdABpAG8AbgAuAAAA AABAADkAu+0p2ZWvwQEfAD0AAQAAAAoAAABSAEUAOgAgAAAAAAACAUcAAQAAADcAAABjPVVTO2E9 IDtwPUJpc2sgUHVibGlzaGluZyA7bD1NQUlMLTAyMDIwNzA1MTEwN1otMTA3NzcAAB8ASQABAAAA ggAAAFIARQA6ACAAWwBNADQASQBGACAARABpAHMAYwB1AHMAcwBdACAAKAAiAHUAcwBlACIAIABm AGUAZQBzACkAIABUAGgAYQBuAGsAcwAgAEwAYQByAHIAeQAgACYAIABhAG4AbwB0AGgAZQByACAA cQB1AGUAcwB0AGkAbwBuAC4AAAAAAEAATgAACHnPc6/BAR8AWgABAAAALgAAAHIAZQB0AGkAYQBy AGkAdQBzACAAbABhAGIAbwByAGEAdABvAHIAaQBlAHMAAAAAAAIBWwABAAAATAAAAAAAAACBKx+k vqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHJldGlhcml1cyBsYWJvcmF0b3JpZXMAU01UUAByZXRpYXJpdXNAZWFy dGhsaW5rLm5ldAACAVwAAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOlJFVElBUklVU0BFQVJUSExJTksuTkVUAAAAAB8A XQABAAAALgAAAHIAZQB0AGkAYQByAGkAdQBzACAAbABhAGIAbwByAGEAdABvAHIAaQBlAHMAAAAA AAIBXgABAAAATAAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHJldGlhcml1cyBsYWJvcmF0b3Jp ZXMAU01UUAByZXRpYXJpdXNAZWFydGhsaW5rLm5ldAACAV8AAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOlJFVElBUklV U0BFQVJUSExJTksuTkVUAAAAAB8AZgABAAAACgAAAFMATQBUAFAAAAAAAB8AZwABAAAAMAAAAHIA ZQB0AGkAYQByAGkAdQBzAEAAZQBhAHIAdABoAGwAaQBuAGsALgBuAGUAdAAAAB8AaAABAAAACgAA AFMATQBUAFAAAAAAAB8AaQABAAAAMAAAAHIAZQB0AGkAYQByAGkAdQBzAEAAZQBhAHIAdABoAGwA aQBuAGsALgBuAGUAdAAAAB8AcAABAAAAegAAAFsATQA0AEkARgAgAEQAaQBzAGMAdQBzAHMAXQAg ACgAIgB1AHMAZQAiACAAZgBlAGUAcwApACAAVABoAGEAbgBrAHMAIABMAGEAcgByAHkAIAAmACAA YQBuAG8AdABoAGUAcgAgAHEAdQBlAHMAdABpAG8AbgAuAAAAAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABwa91HMpd RoSgDp5GR7lZcEUvkylaAAetaboAHwB0AAEAAAAuAAAAZABpAHMAYwB1AHMAcwBAAGwAaQBzAHQA cwAuAG0ANABpAGYALgBvAHIAZwAAAAAAHwAaDAEAAAAWAAAASgBlAGYAZgAgAEgAYQBuAGQAeQAA AAAAHwAdDgEAAAB6AAAAWwBNADQASQBGACAARABpAHMAYwB1AHMAcwBdACAAKAAiAHUAcwBlACIA IABmAGUAZQBzACkAIABUAGgAYQBuAGsAcwAgAEwAYQByAHIAeQAgACYAIABhAG4AbwB0AGgAZQBy ACAAcQB1AGUAcwB0AGkAbwBuAC4AAAAAAAIBCRABAAAA4wgAAN8IAAByGgAATFpGdcmw24UDAAoA cmNwZzEyNYIyA0NodG1sMQMwPwEDAfcKgAKkA+MCAGNowQrAc2V0MCAHEwKA/xADAFAEVghVB7IR 1Q5RAwHdENcyBgAGwxHVMwRGENlvEusR4wjvCfc7GM8OMDU7EdIMYGMAUAsJAWQzNpMRYAulNCAQ AipcDrK9AZBnFPAKoxHjHeg0FPAAPCFET0NUWVAARSBIVE1MIFAAVUJMSUMgIi0gLy9XM0MhgERU IkQglDMuMiGARU6cIj4e7R6PI8ExOB/wbyCiIw8kHyaQMx2AJXBFfEFEJc0O8SbvKW8k9DZBDvA8 TUVUQQewQTEsYD0iRwnwBJBhdEUFsCIS0E9OVCLQVBMs8AXhRXgQ8W5nZT0GUnYTMS9BAJACICA2 4C4wLjQ3DiAwECL+EyrPJQM3Nx/wVElUFExFJc40DvBSRToAIFtNNElGIEQJBABjdQQQXSAoJqBx dW90OzWgZTYEhCBmCeBzKSBULrEKawQgTArAcnkgJrhhbXA24ABwNjBoEzGrNhAHkHQvwS4kbjUf 8P4vM08xfyZFNJE6wChPJp8FPpQ1EWA8Qk9EWaAgZGlyPT6wcj4Azz5zACEDMEERZG8A4EER+Qqx XHEYsEEREPADMEF1jxFgPisc8T8vZzk2H/B4RElWQUkAAEOHPkk2pjRGv0PfMTQlUUYt0cIgAJB6 ZT0yRqsL4r9Dbz0GRPU+SQHAHuw2JVEYUCBjC2AEED1NczxvTgWwAMADIDlAeWyDS8AuQEFSR0lO NOBeMAuAUvQFMCL+OCgRUzhQQU5E9FIVS0ItU3RJWjTRMVOESO9D4SISUwhwZWw4EEknbeogOKEg OMEgAiBYsQIg4S7wd2hvIBjQB0BLoW5zJHwsEEBhUkFLC4BlfwqBTSdZYk2/RSIJ8FGxacdSIFmQ QdBNci4gkABwKGR5JwQgTSBwRy3nHY1OhjZhci03AVr/XA91XRx3BbBrCsAIYGCgc8IuU+4mbmJz OGBBWbwnYQFAV9hFbB/hL1Tyn0FJQVdD/R1wKBE/eA7QXDpuOEAHkAqwYy7wcMEY0GZpeCA9WZBZ EJcEIG8wCqMiCHBuOgTwszjQAMBzLV/ABQBvUYDlAYAtBaBtOmAQbvBukBtxtS2gLzOfKBFvOnD/ Pg4OQDqxdANrf0PhQWYKon9sCF04CuNdOj4rAcA6sVD/Pg1E70h0UN9R71L9Vy926d9Mn0ofSyVV REuiM0v+ToF/gx9nj2ifh09zv3TPJHw1/UZBL0tCdb+BvI9/d394j/+J33qve798z33ffu9//4EP n4Ifk/9Kv4WfhqxIbwfg2mMDkXkIYEuAYTgQYX/3ltI4wC1gP4ePiJ9pKljT9UEgeQuAZ1lQWlAu 4FlE9wRgOUA4gGM1kC1RLvBgkf+YMANwC1ARQGM8pP9o7guA/wIQp7Iusalwoo+jk60hWXHuYi1Q BBE40WVm/6sfpj1vrWEvQKeyETBsAyA4wW3/sC+xP6Y8N2AEAKhgWoAGMW2zKGIu8JiwbK2vlrRt +nmzwWa0X7Vvsk4tMAmA/aeyazigB+BaMC1gWiCpMdEY0CB1cDiAZwtxqJH7BaA5QC0D8bAfu9+m L1kEf7kvo5OnZ78QmGBYoFmQdf8FQGARCrCncsDMji+Qf8k//5Ffkm+Tf5SPlZ+Wr5e/mM//md+a 75v/nQ+eH58voD/X7//IX2vPwP/CD9Xvys/L38zv/83/zw/QH9Ev0j/TT9Rf1W9/1n/lH9if2a/a vrdTt3Fh/6hgC4AFscAyxD/oA6mSv0H/qXAD8DjArOCpsgeAAjAtYO8vwqlSAQALUG8GwPahwM+/ 34/C7QVAt6QY0HFwYQUw+whxLtAs9A/oA/uiqaEY0PcEEPwz+6FhxrBaQPwiqUO/GNH3g/9js+EH gEDQYfgfP/kv+j5pAGrA8yBZImdv/6eF/I/oErihxkFZ0fOhONDv++ABPwJPwuxXWhHGoLjx+6hz WqBrWKLHEXABETA28/ctoDjAZpFnQ1AS8QV/6APfOUBacfNh/4Bi0XZyYW6xTm8P8BYxOIF5d6JR LewgQWZw6kBpB98I77JO/mo1oL7xodBZQb5Vr0PpkPxjaw3P6AOpUlow9gBZgf9gIACiYBENkvPC Zu8Sz8Lf/6lwvtBCIFixocAAsqJgXQD7NhBA4Gk3IKlDFq8O4w1Q9y7gOUPzICJmSmnsGq8bv/5Z ohHqQAvQrOCooOnwZrH/C6NY07dgAQCnkVMRXf8Op3u+0EIwd/MgFTD2AKeFcP9A4KkS88D2sPfv 3I/hvyxv/+Kf46/kv+XP5t/n7+j/6g//6x/sL+0/7k/vX4Tf8S86z/8iTyNfPv+LP4xPKr8rzy4f /0b/Lv8wDzEfMi8zPzRPNV//Nm83fziPOZ8+jzu/PR8+L/8K0bNDqHC/UaPR9xAnT06CcDEwMCxb sFWAIHB18wAA9rBzO7jBDYMMZgzw/xlz9eEAsbgpKjH+cBCRvhH/UBDHAUlgGIJaX06CDZIQYL8P 0ACiGX8/70D/pvBNomC/HhAgZrNDBtAqcBDBc78Q5/WyokAggHNmqMAFUP9Q3x1BXMFgn06CaEBy Yv9kD/+2fr9hDIUK9Qew9mCiYAVRnw2SXCZqn2uvwuxBZqnw/xCxALD8YCVBt3G0EmkPTnP/vsDG EV5CBtHHFL9wQqD2QN+pER1AcB9xL8LsT2I0/GD/syD/IKzwFoC0EaJgCwQG0X++0G7QbwMMInR/ F7MLoXTedFEgp7cgolmzZiFgaGD/9vEAoPYAd494n3IuqWElQf8LBKJAs2EU8AugxBDzIBiR/6nw B4B9Tx/VbtDzkMARAKH/cA1C70P/RQ9GH0hvjU9JT/9KX0tvTH9Nj06fT6JSr1O/H1TPVd9W71f/ mQFKZWb1QRBIqVF5iG+Jf4qPi5//jK+Nv6KPj9+Q75i/kw+duBc8QaF1mTwwT6EvREm+VqHPpy+U j62fnac1qbJwQk9EWZ6+r0+eAjehoVFIVE1MnrB9tBAAHwA1EAEAAAB4AAAAPAA3ADcANgA2AEMA MQBDADUAMQA3ADEAOQBBADQANABCADkAMgBDADIANAA2ADEARgA2AEYAMABDADUAQQAwADkANAA1 AEMAMwBDAEUAQABtAGEAaQBsAC4AYwBvAHIAcAAuAGIAaQBzAGsALgBjAG8AbQA+AAAAHwBHEAEA AAAeAAAAbQBlAHMAcwBhAGcAZQAvAHIAZgBjADgAMgAyAAAAAAALAPIQAQAAAB8A8xABAAAAmgAA AFIARQAlADMAQQAgAFsATQA0AEkARgAgAEQAaQBzAGMAdQBzAHMAXQAgACgAJQAyADIAdQBzAGUA JQAyADIAIABmAGUAZQBzACkAIABUAGgAYQBuAGsAcwAgAEwAYQByAHIAeQAgACUAMgA2ACAAYQBu AG8AdABoAGUAcgAgAHEAdQBlAHMAdABpAG8AbgAuAC4ARQBNAEwAAAAAAAsA9hAAAAAAQAAHMNFv cdKTr8EBQAAIMMLsSNmVr8EBAwDeP+n9AAADAPE/CQQAAB8A+D8BAAAAFgAAAEoAZQBmAGYAIABI AGEAbgBkAHkAAAAAAAIB+T8BAAAAWwAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAvTz1C SVNLIFBVQkxJU0hJTkcgQ09NUEFOWS9PVT1UT1RBTFRBUEUvQ049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9DTj1KRUZG SAAAHwD6PwEAAAAqAAAAUwB5AHMAdABlAG0AIABBAGQAbQBpAG4AaQBzAHQAcgBhAHQAbwByAAAA AAACAfs/AQAAAB4AAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAALgAAAAMA/T/kBAAAAwAZ QAAAAAADABpAAAAAAAMAHUAAAAAAAwAeQAAAAAAfADBAAQAAAAwAAABKAEUARgBGAEgAAAAfADFA AQAAAAwAAABKAEUARgBGAEgAAAAfADJAAQAAADAAAAByAGUAdABpAGEAcgBpAHUAcwBAAGUAYQBy AHQAaABsAGkAbgBrAC4AbgBlAHQAAAAfADNAAQAAADAAAAByAGUAdABpAGEAcgBpAHUAcwBAAGUA YQByAHQAaABsAGkAbgBrAC4AbgBlAHQAAAAfADhAAQAAAAwAAABKAEUARgBGAEgAAAAfADlAAQAA AAQAAAAuAAAACwApAAAAAAALACMAAAAAAAMABhA7FyQYAwAHENkDAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAA HgAIEAEAAABlAAAAIlNVUkVMWUlNTk9UVEhFT05MWU9ORVdIT1JFQUxJWkVTVEhFRU5PUk1JVFlP Rk1SSEFORFlTTVBFRy00VVNFUi1GRUVXT1JLQVJPVU5EUyJIT1dDQU5ZT1VTQVlUSEFUP0lNVAAA AAACAX8AAQAAADwAAAA8Nzc2NkMxQzUxNzE5QTQ0QjkyQzI0NjFGNkYwQzVBMDk0NUMzQ0VAbWFp bC5jb3JwLmJpc2suY29tPgBngw== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AF95.D929EDBB-- From Laura.Contin@TILAB.COM Thu Feb 7 06:52:14 2002 Received: from ss3000e.cselt.it (ss3000e.cselt.it [163.162.41.5]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17BqDFD016705 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:52:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from EXC2K02B.cselt.it (clu2k02a.cselt.it [163.162.21.237]) by ss3000e.cselt.it (PMDF V5.2-31 #43137) with ESMTP id <0GR5002EXV8KHZ@ss3000e.cselt.it> for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:43:33 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:51:55 +0100 From: Contin Laura Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? To: Larry Horn Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Importance: high Priority: Urgent X-Priority: 1 Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Thread-Index: AcGvSGC5C5nysAJfRx+n+veLh/sHUgABA2TQAB+kU7A= content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g17BqDFD016705 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Larry, thank you for your clarification, though I still need further details. Let consider the case of remote monitoring through the web. The end-user produces his own sequences and a service provider offers for a fee hosting of the private contents on a server and the end user can connect to that server and view/download his own (private/password protected) contents. In this case: 1. Does the end user pay 25 cents for the encoder + 25 cents for any decoder installed? 2. Does the hosting service provider pays 0.033 cents/minute for each (private) video viewed/downloaded by the end user? 3. What about if the service provider is NOT hosting the contents, but it is giving only the secure internet access to the home private server? 4. If the service provider allows the downloading of the player, does he has to pay 25 cents/download? Thanks in advance for any clarification. Best regards, Laura Contin > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Horn [mailto:LHorn@mpegla.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:42 PM > To: Vasanth Shreesha; discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > Hello, Vasanth. > > In the case of the so-called "use" fees, royalties follow > remuneration: > If a service provider or content provider/owner receives > remuneration in > connection with offering/providing the MPEG-4 video for viewing or > having the video viewed, then royalties are charged for the > use of such > MPEG-4 video data. If there is no remuneration to the > service provider > or content provider/owner in connection with offering/providing the > MPEG-4 video for viewing or having the video viewed as in the case of > the private communications that you describe, however, then > the use fee > does not apply; rather, the encoder that encodes such content must be > licensed and the applicable royalty paid. > > Regards, > Larry Horn > MPEG LA > -----Original Message----- > From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:51 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > Hello all, > How about licensing in a P2P network? Can consumers > encode MPEG4 > content > and transmit it to their friends/family without paying the 2 > cents/hour > license fee? > > -vasanth > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > Vasanth Shreesha > Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. > http://www.pavcal.com > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From chodge5@utk.edu Thu Feb 7 11:43:14 2002 Received: from aspirin.dii.utk.edu (aspirin.dii.utk.edu [160.36.0.81]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17GhDFD019891 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:43:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from burns.tns.utk.edu (burns.tns.utk.edu [128.169.48.192]) by aspirin.dii.utk.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g17GhBRm016666; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:43:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (hodge@localhost) by burns.tns.utk.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g17GhBA20552; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:43:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:43:11 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Hodge To: Larry Horn cc: Vasanth Shreesha , Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > If a service provider or content provider/owner receives remuneration in > connection with offering/providing the MPEG-4 video for viewing or > having the video viewed, then royalties are charged for the use of such > MPEG-4 video data. If there is no remuneration to the service provider > or content provider/owner in connection with offering/providing the > MPEG-4 video for viewing or having the video viewed as in the case of > the private communications that you describe, however, then the use fee > does not apply; rather, the encoder that encodes such content must be > licensed and the applicable royalty paid. How will this play out for .edu's? Will there be an exemption for educational institutions who digitize and distribute media (even if we have cost-recovery fees?) -c From chodge5@utk.edu Thu Feb 7 11:45:57 2002 Received: from aspirin.dii.utk.edu (aspirin.dii.utk.edu [160.36.0.81]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17GjvFD020143 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:45:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from burns.tns.utk.edu (burns.tns.utk.edu [128.169.48.192]) by aspirin.dii.utk.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g17GjqRm020253; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:45:52 -0500 Received: from localhost (hodge@localhost) by burns.tns.utk.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g17Gjpd20674; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:45:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:45:51 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Hodge To: Larry Horn cc: Jeff Handy , Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Sorry for my earlier post. I think this answers the question I was asking. (Sigh.) -c On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the > university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. > Therefore, yes, it would apply. > > Larry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:37 PM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > Larry: > > Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're > here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. > We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses > include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. > So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six > hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on > CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really > selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" > still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? > > > Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist > Bisk Education - Technology Development > World Headquarters - Tampa, FL > 800-874-7877 x360 > jeffh@bisk.com > http://www.bisk.com > > Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader > http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From jeffh@bisk.com Thu Feb 7 12:14:16 2002 Received: from mail.corp.bisk.com ([208.51.230.71]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17HEGFD023589 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:14:16 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:14:11 -0500 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C3D7@mail.corp.bisk.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Thread-Index: AcGv+bLANCT9ZO+MRICpNCD3Z8pvZAAACy9A From: "Jeff Handy" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g17HEGFD023589 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > How will this play out for .edu's? Will there be an exemption > for educational institutions who digitize and distribute > media (even if we have cost-recovery fees?) Wasn't that my question originally? The way I now understand it (it may be a while before I'm certain), no one is exempt with the exception of personal users. In other words; your uncle Vinny isn't going to be charged for streaming your nephew's 3rd birthday party. If you streaming on behalf of business, you are being charged somehow by someone to use MPEG-4. If you are acting as a consumer, you aren't charged. Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education - Technology Development World Headquarters - Tampa, FL 800-874-7877 x360 jeffh@bisk.com http://www.bisk.com Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner From rkoenen@intertrust.com Thu Feb 7 13:17:50 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17IHoFD000563 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:17:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g17IBfh04293; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:17:24 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878C6@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Jeff Handy'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:17:15 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: The way I understand it (Again, Larry correct me if I am wrong) the distinction is not whether the use is personal, but whether the use is associated with remuneration. Often, personal use will not involve remuneration, but sometimes it will. If I sell you my home videos (you don't want to buy them , but let's assume) then I owe a use fee to MPEGLA under the current conditions. It will be an administrative challenge, but this is the situation. Often, non-personal use will involve remuneration, but sometimes it will not. Example (testing the waters!) - a government puts its information online in MPEG-4. As far as I understand, no use fee is asked for. Many schools in Europe are public, and require no fees to be paid. I think that these can deploy MPEG-4 technology without having to worry about a use fee. The same may apply to US schools ... Let's see if this is right, or whether I am way off base. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:14 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? > > > > How will this play out for .edu's? Will there be an exemption > > for educational institutions who digitize and distribute > > media (even if we have cost-recovery fees?) > > > Wasn't that my question originally? The way I now understand > it (it may > be a while before I'm certain), no one is exempt with the exception of > personal users. In other words; your uncle Vinny isn't going to be > charged for streaming your nephew's 3rd birthday party. If you > streaming on behalf of business, you are being charged somehow by > someone to use MPEG-4. If you are acting as a consumer, you aren't > charged. > > > Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist > Bisk Education - Technology Development > World Headquarters - Tampa, FL > 800-874-7877 x360 > jeffh@bisk.com > http://www.bisk.com > > Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader > http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From singer@apple.com Thu Feb 7 13:34:44 2002 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17IYhFD002592 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:34:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g17IYgQ07504 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:34:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:34:21 -0800 Received: from [17.202.35.52] (singda.apple.com [17.202.35.52]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g17IYfG17404 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:34:41 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: singer@mail.apple.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878C6@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878C6@exchange.epr.com> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:34:32 -0800 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Dave Singer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I have questions about the packaged content fee. Say I am selling computers with help and intro files on the hard drive. Some of these files use MPEG-4 video short sequences. Are these files subject to the fee? Say I send some CDs to a pressing plant to be pressed. Is the pressing plant supposed to scan them looking for MP4 files which contain MPEG-4 video, and collect my packaged content fee? -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From singer@apple.com Thu Feb 7 13:34:44 2002 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17IYhFD002593 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g17IYh724107 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:34:22 -0800 Received: from [17.202.35.52] (singda.apple.com [17.202.35.52]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g17IYgG17414 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:34:42 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: singer@mail.apple.com (Unverified) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:34:28 -0800 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Dave Singer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I have questions about the remuneration fees. Is it true that the fee for a one-time view (e.g. video on demand) is the same as for a purchase (e.g. a "video CD") which can be viewed many times? If someone can watch something because they have a subscription (e.g. a premium ISP subscription which gives them access to premium content), is the ISP receiving remuneration? Is an advertisement per se "remunerated"? The advertiser certainly hopes to gain revenue. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From Vladimir.Levantovsky@AgfaMonotype.com Thu Feb 7 13:35:33 2002 Received: from amt_exchange.agfamonotype.com (mail.agfa-type.com [4.21.181.18]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17IZWFD002719 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:35:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by amt_exchange.agfamonotype.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1PT6P1XB>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:35:20 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" To: "'Rob Koenen'" , "'Jeff Handy'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:35:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This brings another aspect of non-personal use with or without remuneration - let's say TV station web site has a page that links all the latest news video feeds. They do not charge anybody for viewing the news, but the page itself contains advertisement and video is sometimes preceded by short commercial feed. What would be the determination of remuneration in this case - web page ads do generate income but do not use MPEG4, video feed attracts public, but there is no charge for viewing. Just a thought! -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:17 PM To: 'Jeff Handy'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What is the REAL advantage? The way I understand it (Again, Larry correct me if I am wrong) the distinction is not whether the use is personal, but whether the use is associated with remuneration. Often, personal use will not involve remuneration, but sometimes it will. If I sell you my home videos (you don't want to buy them , but let's assume) then I owe a use fee to MPEGLA under the current conditions. It will be an administrative challenge, but this is the situation. Often, non-personal use will involve remuneration, but sometimes it will not. Example (testing the waters!) - a government puts its information online in MPEG-4. As far as I understand, no use fee is asked for. Many schools in Europe are public, and require no fees to be paid. I think that these can deploy MPEG-4 technology without having to worry about a use fee. The same may apply to US schools ... Let's see if this is right, or whether I am way off base. Rob From vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com Thu Feb 7 13:52:51 2002 Received: from atvl10.pav.research.panasonic.com (atvl10.pav.research.panasonic.com [150.169.164.10]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17IqbFD004965 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from dhcp150.pav.research.panasonic.com (dhc2161.pav.research.panasonic.com [150.169.162.161]) by atvl10.pav.research.panasonic.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01385 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:53:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020207135130.00b0d300@mailhost.pav.research.panasonic.com> X-Sender: vasanth@mailhost.pav.research.panasonic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:52:56 -0500 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Vasanth Shreesha In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_17017322==_.ALT" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] decoder license fee Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=====================_17017322==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Assuming that I have paid the license fee for the decoder the first time, do you have to pay for the upgrades? -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http://www.pavcal.com --=====================_17017322==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Assuming that I have paid the license fee for the decoder the first time, do you have to pay for the upgrades?

-vasanth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vasanth Shreesha                                
Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. 
http://www.pavcal.com --=====================_17017322==_.ALT-- From todsmith@mailer.fsu.edu Thu Feb 7 15:56:22 2002 Received: from mailer.fsu.edu (mailer.fsu.edu [128.186.6.122]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17KuHFD019727 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:56:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailer.fsu.edu (us-6132d.uc.fsu.edu [128.186.179.96]) by mailer.fsu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g17KtpB20849; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:56:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C62E9CC.F0B590D3@mailer.fsu.edu> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 15:55:40 -0500 From: Todd Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lhorn@mpegla.com CC: discuss@lists.m4if.org, chodge5@utk.edu, jeffh@bisk.com References: <200202071701.g17H1fFD022163@mx3.magma.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Larry, Thanks also for your participation. Speaking unofficially, due to the proposed licensing of MPEG-4, I seriously doubt whether my university, or any other governmental institution, would be willing to participate in MPEG-4 deployment for these (and other) reasons: 1. It is a violation of law. Specifically, no state agency is permitted to create a blanket, open expenditure -- a budget line without a limit. All expenditures must be foreseen, and budgeted accordingly. Explanation: It seems the proposed licensing scheme could leave the State of Florida (or any other governmental institution) open for unforeseeable expenses based on user demand. Should demand for, say, one of our videos on www.fsufilms.com skyrocket, then (barring some technical limit being developed and put in place, which would seriously diminish the incentive to offer such materials), the State would have to foot the bill for whatever usage appears. That is unbudgetable on the face of it, and moreover, would seem to make usage of MPEG-4 illegal by this (and many other, if not all) "balanced budget" State and its respective agencies. 2. The framing of the "royalties follow [whenever the] owner receives remuneration" statement seems chillingly reminiscent of the legal challenges many non-profit/education/government agencies have faced of late, in which it is argued: These institutions all operate with money; Since these operating funds are gained/continued/prompted by those operations; Therefore any operation constitutes a "profit"-making effort. When the courts have agreed, the citizens have had to foot the bill for what were heretofore considered legitimate non-profit educational/governmental efforts by the People's governing and educational institutions. 3. The licensing doesn't seem to anticipate such pending changes as, for instance, the proposed Federal TEACH Act, which would allow educational institutions to stream copyrighted video at no cost, given certain restrictions (such as password-protection and that it be related to a course). This proposed licensing agreement fails to anticipate that streaming media is a fast-changing industry, in which technical, legal, economic, and social/user paradigms are changing monthly. Seems like a dead-end, permanent arrangement to me. 4. Are there any distinctions made about what exactly constitutes an entity? Would it be a department? A University? A State? A Nation? Could a consortia of, say, all Southeastern higher education institutions pay the $1 million use fee on behalf of all its member institutions? This is how "use" fees are covered for many popular and successful electronic services, such as Lexis-Nexis' Academic Universe. Or could such consortia, should they later be rejected by any one of the companies behind the the license agreement, be annulled leaving the respective parties open for unforeseen fees. 5. There are many "what ifs" presented by this untested spec, such as what if: The video looks bad? Has poor sound? Is hard to implement? Is, through accident or design, poorly tracked in terms of usage (who enforces that)? Isn't as good/cost-effective as QuickTime? Real? Windows Media? And many others mentioned elsewhere on the list... When you put all those together, along with all the work it takes to get up to speed on such a thing... I see most state/education/non-profit workers seeing zero motivation endorsing something that could be a costly time sink (at a time when jobs are scarce). Not a good career to push for unproven, but certainly costly, initiatives. 6. On its face, the license appears to set up MPEG-4 as a Pay per view/use standard. Need I point out that PPV/U has not gone swimmingly for WWW content in general, so how & why would MPEG-4 streaming video be any different? In a general sense, what could the rationale behind this possibly be (besides, because they deserve your money)? It seems as though these developer companies have assumed a grand manifest destiny for MPEG-4. I recognize each contributed, but how many would have a marketable product without the other parts? And doesn't that mean that each individual company is due exactly zip? I mean, isn't the purpose of an open standard to develop options that are free, in every sense of the word? The developer companies do have other avenues to capitalize on their investments... This whole licensing scheme seems just so very disappointing. To be frank, the bitter irony of this licensing scheme claiming to offer "fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, worldwide access to patents" makes you and the developer companies all seem *unbelievably* elitist. So, Larry, if you could stream me some of that Kool-Aid you all have been drinking, maybe this whole scheme will make more sense to me. But please, don't bother streaming it via MPEG-4, cause I don't know how much that'll ending up costing me, money's sort of tight out here in the real world, and besides, I bet I can get it for free somewhere else. Thanks again, Todd Smith discuss-request@lists.m4if.org wrote: > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:45:51 -0500 (EST) > From: Chris Hodge <> > To: Larry Horn > cc: Jeff Handy , > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > Sorry for my earlier post. I think this answers the question I was asking. > > (Sigh.) > > -c > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > > > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the > > university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. > > Therefore, yes, it would apply. > > > > Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:37 PM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > > > > Larry: > > > > Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're > > here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. > > We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses > > include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. > > So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six > > hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on > > CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really > > selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" > > still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? > > > > > > Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist > > Bisk Education - Technology Development > > World Headquarters - Tampa, FL > > 800-874-7877 x360 > > jeffh@bisk.com > > http://www.bisk.com > > > > Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader > > http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner From rkoenen@intertrust.com Thu Feb 7 16:18:08 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17LI8FD022175 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g17LBah07202; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:11:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:17:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878D4@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Vasanth Shreesha'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] decoder license fee Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:17:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1B01C.CE41B4B0" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B01C.CE41B4B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Assuming that I have paid the license fee for the decoder the first > time, do you have to pay for the upgrades? Good question. Note that the license is for manufacturing and selling (which doesn't give the answer yet. I have a similar question: it is very likley that I will end up with 4 different MPEG-4 decoders on my computer, one in Real player, one in Windows Media Player (et's already sitting on my HD) one or two dedicated MPEG-4 players ... Am I right in assuming that for my own usage of MPEG-4 decoding technology, the decoder fee will have been paid 4 times? Rob -----Original Message----- From: Vasanth Shreesha [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:53 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] decoder license fee -vasanth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vasanth Shreesha Panasonic AVC American Laboratory, Inc. http ://www.pavcal. com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B01C.CE41B4B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Assuming that I have paid the = license fee=20 for the decoder the first
> time, do you have to pay for the = upgrades?
 
Good = question. Note that=20 the license is for manufacturing and selling=20 (which doesn't give the answer = yet.
 
I have=20 a similar question: it is very likley that I will end = up
with 4=20 different MPEG-4 decoders on my computer, one in
Real=20 player, one in Windows Media Player (et's already = sitting
on my=20 HD) one or two dedicated MPEG-4 players ...
 
Am I=20 right in assuming that for my own usage of MPEG-4 decoding =
technology, the decoder fee will have been paid 4=20 times?
 
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Vasanth Shreesha=20 [mailto:vasanth@pav.research.panasonic.com]
Sent: Thursday, = February=20 07, 2002 10:53
To: = discuss@lists.m4if.org
Subject: [M4IF=20 Discuss] decoder license fee


-vasanth=20 =
--------------------------------------------------------------------= ----
Vasanth=20 = Shreesha        <= X-TAB>        &nb= sp;         =       
Panasonic=20 AVC American Laboratory, Inc. 
http://www.pavcal.com=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B01C.CE41B4B0-- From rkoenen@intertrust.com Thu Feb 7 16:33:51 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17LXoFD023885 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:33:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g17LRch07484 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:27:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:33:21 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878DF@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:33:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FW: License Summary07Feb02.ppt Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Larry Horn of MPEG LA recently gave a presentation explaining the licesensing in a bit more detail. M4IF has made it available from its page that gives the latest information on licensing of MPEG-4. See http://www.m4if.org/patents/index.php and notably http://www.m4if.org/patents/licsum070202.zip I hope it increases the understanding of what is proposed so that it can further enhance the quality of the discussion (which is already quite good; the right questions get asked and at least some of them seem to get answered). Best, Rob From LHorn@mpegla.com Thu Feb 7 17:14:43 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17MEgFD028585 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:14:43 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:14:42 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-ID: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. Thread-Index: AcGwGeKDzAYhOplcTT+abM4dFcMxawAB2AFA From: "Larry Horn" To: "Todd Smith" Cc: , , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g17MEgFD028585 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, Todd. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Maybe you understood this, but just to be clear, the "service provider" (meaning the entity that disseminates the MPEG-4 video) is the one that pays the streaming/downloading royalty (for the use of MPEG-4 video data in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed). Therefore, assuming the State of Florida (in your example) contracts with a service provider for the streaming/download of such MPEG-4 video, then the service provider with whom the State of Florida contracts would be the Licensee responsible for paying the applicable royalty to MPEG LA. From your email, it wasn't clear to me that this was understood, and I just wanted to clear that up. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Todd Smith [mailto:todsmith@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:56 PM To: Larry Horn Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; chodge5@utk.edu; jeffh@bisk.com Subject: Re: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. Larry, Thanks also for your participation. Speaking unofficially, due to the proposed licensing of MPEG-4, I seriously doubt whether my university, or any other governmental institution, would be willing to participate in MPEG-4 deployment for these (and other) reasons: 1. It is a violation of law. Specifically, no state agency is permitted to create a blanket, open expenditure -- a budget line without a limit. All expenditures must be foreseen, and budgeted accordingly. Explanation: It seems the proposed licensing scheme could leave the State of Florida (or any other governmental institution) open for unforeseeable expenses based on user demand. Should demand for, say, one of our videos on www.fsufilms.com skyrocket, then (barring some technical limit being developed and put in place, which would seriously diminish the incentive to offer such materials), the State would have to foot the bill for whatever usage appears. That is unbudgetable on the face of it, and moreover, would seem to make usage of MPEG-4 illegal by this (and many other, if not all) "balanced budget" State and its respective agencies. 2. The framing of the "royalties follow [whenever the] owner receives remuneration" statement seems chillingly reminiscent of the legal challenges many non-profit/education/government agencies have faced of late, in which it is argued: These institutions all operate with money; Since these operating funds are gained/continued/prompted by those operations; Therefore any operation constitutes a "profit"-making effort. When the courts have agreed, the citizens have had to foot the bill for what were heretofore considered legitimate non-profit educational/governmental efforts by the People's governing and educational institutions. 3. The licensing doesn't seem to anticipate such pending changes as, for instance, the proposed Federal TEACH Act, which would allow educational institutions to stream copyrighted video at no cost, given certain restrictions (such as password-protection and that it be related to a course). This proposed licensing agreement fails to anticipate that streaming media is a fast-changing industry, in which technical, legal, economic, and social/user paradigms are changing monthly. Seems like a dead-end, permanent arrangement to me. 4. Are there any distinctions made about what exactly constitutes an entity? Would it be a department? A University? A State? A Nation? Could a consortia of, say, all Southeastern higher education institutions pay the $1 million use fee on behalf of all its member institutions? This is how "use" fees are covered for many popular and successful electronic services, such as Lexis-Nexis' Academic Universe. Or could such consortia, should they later be rejected by any one of the companies behind the the license agreement, be annulled leaving the respective parties open for unforeseen fees. 5. There are many "what ifs" presented by this untested spec, such as what if: The video looks bad? Has poor sound? Is hard to implement? Is, through accident or design, poorly tracked in terms of usage (who enforces that)? Isn't as good/cost-effective as QuickTime? Real? Windows Media? And many others mentioned elsewhere on the list... When you put all those together, along with all the work it takes to get up to speed on such a thing... I see most state/education/non-profit workers seeing zero motivation endorsing something that could be a costly time sink (at a time when jobs are scarce). Not a good career to push for unproven, but certainly costly, initiatives. 6. On its face, the license appears to set up MPEG-4 as a Pay per view/use standard. Need I point out that PPV/U has not gone swimmingly for WWW content in general, so how & why would MPEG-4 streaming video be any different? In a general sense, what could the rationale behind this possibly be (besides, because they deserve your money)? It seems as though these developer companies have assumed a grand manifest destiny for MPEG-4. I recognize each contributed, but how many would have a marketable product without the other parts? And doesn't that mean that each individual company is due exactly zip? I mean, isn't the purpose of an open standard to develop options that are free, in every sense of the word? The developer companies do have other avenues to capitalize on their investments... This whole licensing scheme seems just so very disappointing. To be frank, the bitter irony of this licensing scheme claiming to offer "fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, worldwide access to patents" makes you and the developer companies all seem *unbelievably* elitist. So, Larry, if you could stream me some of that Kool-Aid you all have been drinking, maybe this whole scheme will make more sense to me. But please, don't bother streaming it via MPEG-4, cause I don't know how much that'll ending up costing me, money's sort of tight out here in the real world, and besides, I bet I can get it for free somewhere else. Thanks again, Todd Smith discuss-request@lists.m4if.org wrote: > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:45:51 -0500 (EST) > From: Chris Hodge <> > To: Larry Horn > cc: Jeff Handy , > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > Sorry for my earlier post. I think this answers the question I was asking. > > (Sigh.) > > -c > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > > > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the > > university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. > > Therefore, yes, it would apply. > > > > Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:37 PM > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > > > > Larry: > > > > Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. Since you're > > here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational content. > > We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The courses > > include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture material. > > So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and six > > hours of lecture material. The same course material is offered both on > > CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really > > selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the "use fee" > > still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? > > > > > > Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist > > Bisk Education - Technology Development > > World Headquarters - Tampa, FL > > 800-874-7877 x360 > > jeffh@bisk.com > > http://www.bisk.com > > > > Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader > > http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner From rkoenen@intertrust.com Thu Feb 7 18:19:38 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17NJXFD005723 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g17NDXh08985; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:19:16 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591878F7@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Larry Horn'" , Todd Smith Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org, chodge5@utk.edu, jeffh@bisk.com Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:19:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > Hi, Todd. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Maybe you understood > this, but just to be clear, the "service provider" (meaning the entity > that disseminates the MPEG-4 video) is the one that pays the That brings me to another question. Wouldn't the State of Florida pay more with increased usage anyway? Isn't that the way most ISP work: baseline charges + usage based additional charges? Rob ps: w.r.t. point 4: the use fee isn't capped. > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Horn [mailto:LHorn@mpegla.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 14:15 > To: Todd Smith > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; chodge5@utk.edu; jeffh@bisk.com > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. > > > Hi, Todd. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Maybe you understood > this, but just to be clear, the "service provider" (meaning the entity > that disseminates the MPEG-4 video) is the one that pays the > streaming/downloading royalty (for the use of MPEG-4 video data in > connection with which a service provider or content owner receives > remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for > viewing or > having the video viewed). Therefore, assuming the State of > Florida (in > your example) contracts with a service provider for the > streaming/download of such MPEG-4 video, then the service > provider with > whom the State of Florida contracts would be the Licensee responsible > for paying the applicable royalty to MPEG LA. From your email, it > wasn't clear to me that this was understood, and I just > wanted to clear > that up. > > Regards, > Larry Horn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Smith [mailto:todsmith@mailer.fsu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:56 PM > To: Larry Horn > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; chodge5@utk.edu; jeffh@bisk.com > Subject: Re: RE: Thanks Larry & another question. > > > Larry, > > Thanks also for your participation. Speaking unofficially, due > to the > proposed licensing of MPEG-4, I seriously doubt whether my university, > or any other governmental institution, would be willing to participate > in MPEG-4 deployment for these (and other) reasons: > > 1. It is a violation of law. Specifically, no state agency is > permitted to create a blanket, open expenditure -- a budget > line without > a limit. All expenditures must be foreseen, and budgeted > accordingly. > > Explanation: It seems the proposed licensing scheme could leave > the > State of Florida (or any other governmental institution) open for > unforeseeable expenses based on user demand. Should demand for, say, > one of our videos on www.fsufilms.com skyrocket, then (barring some > technical limit being developed and put in place, which would > seriously > diminish the incentive to offer such materials), the State > would have to > foot the bill for whatever usage appears. That is unbudgetable on the > face of it, and moreover, would seem to make usage of MPEG-4 > illegal by > this (and many other, if not all) "balanced budget" State and its > respective agencies. > > 2. The framing of the "royalties follow [whenever the] owner > receives > remuneration" statement seems chillingly reminiscent of the legal > challenges many non-profit/education/government agencies have faced of > late, in which it is argued: These institutions all operate > with money; > Since these operating funds are gained/continued/prompted by those > operations; Therefore any operation constitutes a "profit"-making > effort. When the courts have agreed, the citizens have had > to foot the > bill for what were heretofore considered legitimate non-profit > educational/governmental efforts by the People's governing and > educational institutions. > > 3. The licensing doesn't seem to anticipate such pending changes > as, > for instance, the proposed Federal TEACH Act, which would allow > educational institutions to stream copyrighted video at no cost, given > certain restrictions (such as password-protection and that it > be related > to a course). This proposed licensing agreement fails to anticipate > that streaming media is a fast-changing industry, in which technical, > legal, economic, and social/user paradigms are changing > monthly. Seems > like a dead-end, permanent arrangement to me. > > 4. Are there any distinctions made about what exactly > constitutes an > entity? Would it be a department? A University? A State? > A Nation? > Could a consortia of, say, all Southeastern higher education > institutions pay the $1 million use fee on behalf of all its member > institutions? This is how "use" fees are covered for many popular and > successful electronic services, such as Lexis-Nexis' Academic > Universe. > Or could such consortia, should they later be rejected by any > one of the > companies behind the the license agreement, be annulled leaving the > respective parties open for unforeseen fees. > > 5. There are many "what ifs" presented by this untested spec, > such as > what if: The video looks bad? Has poor sound? Is hard to implement? > Is, through accident or design, poorly tracked in terms of usage (who > enforces that)? Isn't as good/cost-effective as QuickTime? Real? > Windows Media? And many others mentioned elsewhere on the list... > > When you put all those together, along with all the work it > takes to > get up to speed on such a thing... I see most > state/education/non-profit workers seeing zero motivation endorsing > something that could be a costly time sink (at a time when jobs are > scarce). Not a good career to push for unproven, but > certainly costly, > initiatives. > > 6. On its face, the license appears to set up MPEG-4 as a Pay > per > view/use standard. Need I point out that PPV/U has not gone > swimmingly > for WWW content in general, so how & why would MPEG-4 > streaming video be > any different? In a general sense, what could the rationale > behind this > possibly be (besides, because they deserve your money)? It seems as > though these developer companies have assumed a grand manifest destiny > for MPEG-4. I recognize each contributed, but how many would have a > marketable product without the other parts? And doesn't that > mean that > each individual company is due exactly zip? I mean, isn't the purpose > of an open standard to develop options that are free, in > every sense of > the word? The developer companies do have other avenues to capitalize > on their investments... > > This whole licensing scheme seems just so very disappointing. > To be > frank, the bitter irony of this licensing scheme claiming to offer > "fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, worldwide access to > patents" makes > you and the developer companies all seem *unbelievably* elitist. So, > Larry, if you could stream me some of that Kool-Aid you all have been > drinking, maybe this whole scheme will make more sense to me. But > please, don't bother streaming it via MPEG-4, cause I don't know how > much that'll ending up costing me, money's sort of tight out > here in the > real world, and besides, I bet I can get it for free somewhere else. > > Thanks again, > Todd Smith > > > discuss-request@lists.m4if.org wrote: > > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:45:51 -0500 (EST) > > From: Chris Hodge <> > > To: Larry Horn > > cc: Jeff Handy , > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > > Sorry for my earlier post. I think this answers the question I was > asking. > > > > (Sigh.) > > > > -c > > > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Larry Horn wrote: > > > > > Hi, Jeff. From your description, I assume your company or the > > > university (or both) receives remuneration for this material. > > > Therefore, yes, it would apply. > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jeff Handy [mailto:jeffh@bisk.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:37 PM > > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Thanks Larry & another question. > > > > > > > > > Larry: > > > > > > Thanks for helping to bring this issues some clarity. > Since you're > > > here, perhaps you can answer my concern about our educational > content. > > > We "sell" degree coursework that we host for universities. The > courses > > > include CD and web-based media components to serve as lecture > material. > > > So, it is lengthy. Any given course could contain between two and > six > > > hours of lecture material. The same course material is > offered both > on > > > CD and on the web at different data rates. Since we aren't really > > > selling the content, but instructor-led courses; does the > "use fee" > > > still apply? Do we need to sign a license agreement regardless? > > > > > > > > > Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist > > > Bisk Education - Technology Development > > > World Headquarters - Tampa, FL > > > 800-874-7877 x360 > > > jeffh@bisk.com > > > http://www.bisk.com > > > > > > Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader > > > http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From LHorn@mpegla.com Thu Feb 7 18:45:14 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g17NjEFD008602 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:45:14 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:45:13 -0700 Message-ID: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees Thread-Index: AcGwBnRZbRy3BlLnRjKcZETmkqkCUgAKfxyw From: "Larry Horn" To: "Dave Singer" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g17NjEFD008602 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, David. Answers follow: 1. Yes (as measured on a duration/playback basis). 2. This is considered remuneration to the service provider or content owner; therefore, the use royalty applies. 3. I am not sure what you mean by this question. Please explain. The relevant question is whether in connection with the advertisement, a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed. Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:34 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees I have questions about the remuneration fees. Is it true that the fee for a one-time view (e.g. video on demand) is the same as for a purchase (e.g. a "video CD") which can be viewed many times? If someone can watch something because they have a subscription (e.g. a premium ISP subscription which gives them access to premium content), is the ISP receiving remuneration? Is an advertisement per se "remunerated"? The advertiser certainly hopes to gain revenue. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From LHorn@mpegla.com Thu Feb 7 21:13:31 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g182DVFD025013 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:13:31 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Details of patent claims MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:13:30 -0700 Message-ID: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Details of patent claims Thread-Index: AcGu6ppl82q1Sbe2QsCW0BOM7b9/9gBWWLSQ From: "Larry Horn" To: "Iain Richardson (ensigr)" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g182DVFD025013 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello, Iain. The MPEG-4 Visual Patent Porfolio patents will be posted in due course. They all have been determined by an independent paent expert to be essential to the MPEG-4 Visual (Simple and Core) Standard and support the proposed licensing terms. In addition, I think it is safe to assume that other compression standards are also subject to licensing under applicable patents. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Iain Richardson (ensigr) [mailto:i.g.richardson@rgu.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:45 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Details of patent claims Is there a statement available giving the details of the claims made by the MP4 Visual patent holders ? For example, the short header mode is identical to baseline H.263 which (as far as I'm aware) isn't covered by a licensing scheme. Is there evidence that an MPEG4 Visual codec operating in this mode actually requires licensing ? Thanks Iain Richardson Scotland, UK _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com Thu Feb 7 21:40:10 2002 Received: from trinity.divxnetworks.com (sandiego.divxnetworks.com [207.67.92.110]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g182e6FD027929 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:40:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14042 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 02:33:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO returnofthejedi) (192.168.0.108) by 192.168.0.8 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 02:33:45 -0000 From: "Jordan Greenhall" To: "'Dave Singer'" , Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:38:38 -0800 Message-ID: <000901c1b049$b67819f0$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: What if I am delivering movie trailers gratis from my website for free, but have banners on the site? What if I don't have any form of advertising, but the site is used to sell my hardware and I am driving traffic by virtue of the movie trailers? What if I specifically decided to deliver the trailers because of a financial analysis that doing so would generate X revenue from hardware sales? I presume that a line will be drawn somewhere, but shouldn't a standard license agreement be easier to interpret than the DMCA? -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Dave Singer Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:34 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the remuneration fees I have questions about the remuneration fees. Is it true that the fee for a one-time view (e.g. video on demand) is the same as for a purchase (e.g. a "video CD") which can be viewed many times? If someone can watch something because they have a subscription (e.g. a premium ISP subscription which gives them access to premium content), is the ISP receiving remuneration? Is an advertisement per se "remunerated"? The advertiser certainly hopes to gain revenue. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com Thu Feb 7 21:51:27 2002 Received: from trinity.divxnetworks.com (sandiego.divxnetworks.com [207.67.92.110]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g182pQFD029230 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14125 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 02:45:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO returnofthejedi) (192.168.0.108) by 192.168.0.8 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 02:45:06 -0000 From: "Jordan Greenhall" To: "'Rob Koenen'" , , , "OpenDTV Mail List" , "M4IF Discussion List \(E-mail\)" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:49:58 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c1b04b$4bf83cc0$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187773@exchange.epr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: All, As I read it, the use fee is based on actual hours watched, not hours broadcasted. Thus, the formula below would be modified: [Hours Watched / Subscriber / Month] X [total subscribers] * [$0.02] = usage fees. Then something like Nielsons would be used as a surrogate to determine hours watched by a subscriber. This is a (very little) bit more reasonable, as a stream of seinfeld would cost more than a stream of a brady bunch rerun. But, even then, it is commercially unreasonable. Take a look: 1. DVD with 120 minute movie. Revenue: $25. MPEG-4 license fee: $0.04. Fee as % of Revenue: .16% 2. A broadcast of that exact same movie with commercials. Revenue: $1 (48 30 second commercials at a $25 CPM). MPEG-4 license fee. $0.04. Fee as % of Revenue: 4% The cost of the MPEG-4 license scales with views, not revenue generated by views. This is like the bandwidth problem that has killed streaming media on the Internet. There are other odd effects as well. J -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:52 PM To: 'craig@pcube.com'; jmcclenny@sandstream.com; OpenDTV Mail List; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced > The fee would be prohibitively expensive IF calculated based on: > [Channels] X [programming hours] X [total subscribers] X > [$0.02/hr] = usage fees While not passing any judgement on the announced scheme at this moment, the press release makes it somewhat clear that this is not the way things will be calculated. "[... a surrogate (e.g., standard industry audience measurement) is under consideration." http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html But this is far from conclusive; what exactly the calculation *will* look like is unclear - and MPEG-4's future depends on it. It should also be noted that (AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT) you pay *either* the encoder/decoder fee *or* the use fee, not both. You pay a use fee for use of MPEG-4 "[...] in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed (including without limitation pay-per-view, subscription and advertiser/underwriter-supported services)." To me that seems to include all free-to-air broadcasts ... You pay encoder/decoder fees for other services. All this seems to imply a one-to-one link between the decoder and the service, which is not going to exist in this context of an open standard where any player can play any content -- so I wonder how this is going to be detailed. Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen@intertrust.com Fri Feb 8 00:33:56 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com ([12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g185XuFD016904 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 00:33:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g185QUh12190; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:26:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:32:13 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187913@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Jordan Greenhall'" , Rob Koenen , craig@pcube.com, jmcclenny@sandstream.com, OpenDTV Mail List , "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Pat ent Portfolio License Announced Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:32:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I have some of the same concerns, Jordan. However, my hope for this scenario is the fact that broadcast (which I take to include all one-to-many scenarios, so including webcast), is still under study. Apparently, we are not the only ones that did the math in this way. If what goes below should be taken literally, it is highly doubtful that MPEG-4 can compete. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Jordan Greenhall [mailto:jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 18:50 > To: 'Rob Koenen'; craig@pcube.com; jmcclenny@sandstream.com; OpenDTV > Mail List; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual > Patent Portfolio License Announced > > > All, > > As I read it, the use fee is based on actual hours watched, not hours > broadcasted. Thus, the formula below would be modified: > > [Hours Watched / Subscriber / Month] X [total subscribers] * [$0.02] = > usage fees. Then something like Nielsons would be used as a surrogate > to determine hours watched by a subscriber. > > This is a (very little) bit more reasonable, as a stream of seinfeld > would cost more than a stream of a brady bunch rerun. But, even then, > it is commercially unreasonable. Take a look: > > 1. DVD with 120 minute movie. Revenue: $25. MPEG-4 license > fee: $0.04. > Fee as % of Revenue: .16% > 2. A broadcast of that exact same movie with commercials. Revenue: $1 > (48 30 second commercials at a $25 CPM). MPEG-4 license fee. $0.04. > Fee as % of Revenue: 4% > > The cost of the MPEG-4 license scales with views, not revenue > generated > by views. This is like the bandwidth problem that has killed > streaming > media on the Internet. > > There are other odd effects as well. > > J > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:52 PM > To: 'craig@pcube.com'; jmcclenny@sandstream.com; OpenDTV Mail > List; M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual > Patent Portfolio License Announced > > > > The fee would be prohibitively expensive IF calculated based on: > > [Channels] X [programming hours] X [total subscribers] X > > [$0.02/hr] = usage fees > > While not passing any judgement on the announced scheme at > this moment, > the press release makes it somewhat clear that this is not the way > things will be calculated. > > "[... a surrogate (e.g., standard industry audience measurement) is > under consideration." > > http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html > > But this is far from conclusive; what exactly the calculation *will* > look like is unclear - and MPEG-4's future depends on it. > > It should also be noted that (AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT) you pay > *either* > the encoder/decoder fee *or* the use fee, not both. You pay a use fee > for use of MPEG-4 "[...] in connection with which a service > provider or > content > owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the > video > for viewing or having the video viewed (including without > limitation > pay-per-view, subscription and advertiser/underwriter-supported > services)." To me that seems to include all free-to-air > broadcasts ... > You pay encoder/decoder fees for other services. > > All this seems to imply a one-to-one link between the decoder and the > service, which is not going to exist in this context of an open > standard where any player can play any content -- so I wonder > how this > is going to be detailed. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From P.Sergeant@ukerna.ac.uk Fri Feb 8 05:05:12 2002 Received: from argus.ukerna.ac.uk (argus.ukerna.ac.uk [193.62.83.62]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g18A58FD016151 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 05:05:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from arien ([193.62.83.106] helo=arien.ukerna.ac.uk) by argus.ukerna.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Z7tq-0007KV-00 for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:04:58 +0000 Received: from nunki.ukerna.ac.uk ([193.62.83.24] helo=nunki) by arien.ukerna.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16Z7to-0007dh-00 for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:04:56 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20020208100001.01e20e50@arien.ukerna.ac.uk> X-Sender: pauls@arien.ukerna.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:12:38 +0000 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Paul Sergeant Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g18A58FD016151 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello everyone, I have been lurking for a few days - trying to gauge the main issues regarding the MPEG-4 licensing announcements. And then my mail went straight to Jeff and not the group lol - well I want this to go to the list for consideration anyway... Some of you may be aware from other lists that I work for UKERNA - the company that manages the UK academic backbone on behalf of the JISC (Joint Informations System Committee) and the various eductional funding councils. We have a 2.5Gb/s core which is being upgraded to 10Gb/s this year. We have approximately 6 million users! I am currently working on a Project Initiation Document which details a pilot/demonstrator that will be using Kasenna MediaBase (Network Edition) as the core technology for the storage and distribution of 'controlled' academic/research content over the JANET network. We are working with content aggregators such as the BUFVC (British Universities Film & Video Council) to host and distribute content acquired and licensed on behalf of the UK research & academic community - with public funds, with the aim of making it available online as a potential national resource (if the demonstrator goes well of course). Initially we will be hosting around 200 hours of content. I *have* to supply streams in all formats (MPEG-1, MPEG-2, Windows Media, Quicktime, Real) and at assorted bitrates (up to and perhaps beyond 8mb/s), there are lots of different players/codecs/OS variations out there in academia (just like the rest of the world) Like most people in this industry - I would like to see some standards and inter-operation between the different components of streaming supply chain. In fact it would be ideal to be able to offer content in just one format (or small selection of standards based formats) that most people would be able to use - this would save a fortune in encoding/transcoding costs. We are nowhere near ready to launch a service yet - but if we do, we have no plans to charge for access to, or usage of the content so far. We may have to charge institutions a fee to join the Video Content Distribution Network (especially if edge devices or bandwidth upgrades are required). The original content providers will profit of course - they license the rights for up to 10 years, for not insubstantial sums of money. Oh yes - and we plan to use multicast also... I would like to do some SSM trials... so does anyone know where the MPEG-4 user tracking/authentication/billing system reside, and how will it work with Multicast? Is there such a proposed system or is it down to the operator of the streaming servers/network to monitor usage and offer payment? Best Regards Paul Sergeant At 00:11 07/02/2002 -0500, you wrote: >"Surely I'm not the only one who realizes >the enormity of Mr. Handy's MPEG-4 user-fee >workarounds. " > > > >How can you say that? I'm trying to get the most accurate and complete >info to hand to the brass here. I have to sell them. This means I have >to be sold myself. I need to know what we are up against cost-wise. >I'm not trying to weasel out of paying. > > > >This is a minor cost compared with implementation and deployment. It >means re-capturing, re-compressing, re-authoring and redeploying all >media. It’s not going to be easy or cheap. We would most likely pay >"use fees" through our streaming service provider anyway - Akamai. I >just want to know the black and white of all of our costs. I'd hardly >call my inquiries and suggestions "workarounds." You make it sound like >I'm hiding in the shadows waiting to pirate content. > > > >We have more than 100,000 students; so our "use fee" costs will have to >be considered as part of our overall costs. My questions have been >answered satisfactorily so far. The use fees would apply to our >students. After all, it is them who will be paying ultimately. >Overall, I think they would be happy to pay a little to get tons more >functionality. And it would save us lots of tech support calls. > >Jeff Handy ================================================== Paul Sergeant Content Delivery Architect UKERNA, Atlas Centre, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QS, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1235-822200 (Ext.385) DD: +44 (0) 1235-822385 Fax: +44 (0) 1235-822399 ================================================== From LHorn@mpegla.com Fri Feb 8 09:33:51 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g18EXoFD015955 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:33:51 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:33:47 -0700 Message-ID: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced Thread-Index: AcGwS+B3YOSKo/gtRdOlSunUnq+xGwAYRRlA From: "Larry Horn" To: "Jordan Greenhall" , "Rob Koenen" , , , "OpenDTV Mail List" , "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g18EXoFD015955 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, Jordan. We welcome the feedback, as we work on the details. What is being discussed is based on the current state of information as reflected in the news release and subject to change. Also, as noted, the broadcast and cable environments are still under study. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Jordan Greenhall [mailto:jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:50 PM To: 'Rob Koenen'; craig@pcube.com; jmcclenny@sandstream.com; OpenDTV Mail List; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License Announced All, As I read it, the use fee is based on actual hours watched, not hours broadcasted. Thus, the formula below would be modified: [Hours Watched / Subscriber / Month] X [total subscribers] * [$0.02] = usage fees. Then something like Nielsons would be used as a surrogate to determine hours watched by a subscriber. This is a (very little) bit more reasonable, as a stream of seinfeld would cost more than a stream of a brady bunch rerun. But, even then, it is commercially unreasonable. Take a look: 1. DVD with 120 minute movie. Revenue: $25. MPEG-4 license fee: $0.04. Fee as % of Revenue: .16% 2. A broadcast of that exact same movie with commercials. Revenue: $1 (48 30 second commercials at a $25 CPM). MPEG-4 license fee. $0.04. Fee as % of Revenue: 4% The cost of the MPEG-4 license scales with views, not revenue generated by views. This is like the bandwidth problem that has killed streaming media on the Internet. There are other odd effects as well. J From cwiltgen@PacketVideo.COM Fri Feb 8 11:22:46 2002 Received: from ns2.packetvideo.com (ns2.packetvideo.com [63.214.191.68]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g18GMkFD001992 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:22:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from misty.packetvideo.com ([63.214.191.76]) by ns2.packetvideo.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g18GMjx89745 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:22:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by misty.packetvideo.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1QYYJR3K>; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:22:44 -0800 Message-ID: <72660A24B978D411BB8A00B0D03DFE01046677A2@misty.packetvideo.com> From: Charles Wiltgen To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:22:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Filter-Version: 1.6a (ns2.packetvideo.com) Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Paul, > ...does anyone know where the MPEG-4 user tracking/authentication/ > billing system reside... In our case, it lives on the carrier's pvServer. > ...and how will it work with Multicast? Did you mean billing? MPEG-4? Authentication? All of the above? :^) -- Charles Wiltgen Product Manager PacketVideo From LHorn@mpegla.com Fri Feb 8 16:55:38 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g18LtbFD021256 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:55:37 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:55:37 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Thread-Index: AcGwBnTCUliSUw+qSyavI+XF0U+QBgA4qHYA From: "Larry Horn" To: "Dave Singer" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g18LtbFD021256 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, David. I apologize that I have not responded sooner: 1) Yes - the files in this media would appear to be MPEG-4 Packaged Media and therefore, subject to the applicable royalty. 2) The pressing plant is using MPEG-4 and under the proposed license terms, would be responsible for paying the applicable MPEG-4 Packaged Medium royalty. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:35 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees I have questions about the packaged content fee. Say I am selling computers with help and intro files on the hard drive. Some of these files use MPEG-4 video short sequences. Are these files subject to the fee? Say I send some CDs to a pressing plant to be pressed. Is the pressing plant supposed to scan them looking for MP4 files which contain MPEG-4 video, and collect my packaged content fee? -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From P.Sergeant@ukerna.ac.uk Mon Feb 11 05:54:39 2002 Received: from argus.ukerna.ac.uk (argus.ukerna.ac.uk [193.62.83.62]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1BAsYYX023640 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 05:54:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from arien ([193.62.83.106] helo=arien.ukerna.ac.uk) by argus.ukerna.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16aE6Q-0005mG-00 for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:54:30 +0000 Received: from nunki.ukerna.ac.uk ([193.62.83.24] helo=nunki) by arien.ukerna.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 16aE6Q-0002HP-00 for discuss@lists.m4if.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:54:30 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20020211105144.00a542f0@arien.ukerna.ac.uk> X-Sender: pauls@arien.ukerna.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:01:57 +0000 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Paul Sergeant Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] ("use" fees) Thanks Larry & another question. In-Reply-To: <72660A24B978D411BB8A00B0D03DFE01046677A2@misty.packetvideo .com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello Charles, I did mean all of the above - but specifically for MPEG-4 side of things - I am wondering if there is going to be anything built into the MPEG-4 spec which will enable the usage tracking of a multicast 'single source - many viewers' style internet broadcasts of MPEG-4 encoded content, or whether that particular issue will be picked up by developers of streaming server software? Or indeed whether the network providers who host the streaming servers will be required to provision some solution along those lines? Regards Paul Sergeant At 08:22 08/02/2002 -0800, Charles Wiltgen wrote: >Paul, > > > ...does anyone know where the MPEG-4 user tracking/authentication/ > > billing system reside... > >In our case, it lives on the carrier's pvServer. > > > ...and how will it work with Multicast? > >Did you mean billing? MPEG-4? Authentication? All of the above? :^) > >-- >Charles Wiltgen >Product Manager >PacketVideo >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ================================================== Paul Sergeant Content Delivery Architect UKERNA, Atlas Centre, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QS, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1235-822200 (Ext.385) DD: +44 (0) 1235-822385 Fax: +44 (0) 1235-822399 ================================================== From singer@apple.com Mon Feb 11 12:08:31 2002 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1BH8UYX005720 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1BH8T722053 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:08:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:08:23 -0800 Received: from [17.202.35.52] (singeridsl2.apple.com [17.219.158.123]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1BH8NA21844; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:08:23 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: singer@mail.apple.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:05:21 -0800 To: Larry Horn , discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Dave Singer Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: At 14:55 -0700 2/8/02, Larry Horn wrote: >Hi, David. > >I apologize that I have not responded sooner: > >1) Yes - the files in this media would appear to be MPEG-4 Packaged >Media and therefore, subject to the applicable royalty. ouch. >2) The pressing plant is using MPEG-4 and under the proposed >license terms, would be responsible for paying the applicable MPEG-4 >Packaged Medium royalty. double ouch. generally I send a master disk to a pressing plant and they copy it. they have no interest in the nature or technology of the content -- audio, computer, video CD, they don't care. this is, I suspect, impossibly onerous for them. > >Regards, >Larry Horn > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] >Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:35 PM >To: discuss@lists.m4if.org >Subject: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > > >I have questions about the packaged content fee. > >Say I am selling computers with help and intro files on the hard >drive. Some of these files use MPEG-4 video short sequences. Are >these files subject to the fee? > >Say I send some CDs to a pressing plant to be pressed. Is the >pressing plant supposed to scan them looking for MP4 files which >contain MPEG-4 video, and collect my packaged content fee? >-- >David Singer >Apple Computer/QuickTime >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com Mon Feb 11 13:09:08 2002 Received: from trinity.divxnetworks.com (sandiego.divxnetworks.com [207.67.92.110]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g1BI98YX013339 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:09:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 20689 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 18:01:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO returnofthejedi) (192.168.0.108) by 192.168.0.8 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 18:01:45 -0000 From: "Jordan Greenhall" To: , "'Larry Horn'" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:07:38 -0800 Message-ID: <005d01c1b326$fd5bde30$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: O.K., Discuss-list, we've seen a pretty good bit of grousing about the licensing terms and no small amount of winceing as the details are coming clear. It is pretty obvious that the strengths of MPEG-4 (applicable to virtually any kind of multimedia, at any bitrate, via any medium) are also its weaknesses when it comes to licensing. A scheme that makes sense for a 2 hour movie on a $25 DVD is non-sense for 50 ten second clips on a promo CD-rom and equivalently difficult to square for 15Kbps wireless broadcasts. As I see it right now, the key problems are: 1. Lack of Synch between license fees and content monetization 2. Onerous and "novel" tracking requirements 3. Concern that burdening content with license fees will "short circuit" adoption of the standard (i.e., what if we held a standard and nobody came?) Now it also seems clear that the license terms are a work-in-progress and that MPEGLA is more than willing to review alternative or supplementary proposals. My query to the group - what are the proposed alternatives? J From ashok@broadware.com Mon Feb 11 13:34:00 2002 Received: from smtp.broadware.com (ns1.graham.com [209.219.63.10]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1BIXxYX016056 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from broadware.com (goldfinch.broadware.com [10.10.50.226]) by smtp.broadware.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/GTS) with ESMTP id KAA22709; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:33:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from earth (earth.broadware.com [10.10.50.56]) by broadware.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA02724; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:33:47 -0800 (PST) From: "Ashok Yerneni" To: "Jordan Greenhall" , , "'Larry Horn'" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:23:52 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C1B2E6.341FB540" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <005d01c1b326$fd5bde30$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C1B2E6.341FB540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If I can add to this discussion, I think the "USE fee" is a Major ditterant to widespread adoption. We are a remote business management, distance learning company and we were hoping to use MPEG-4 low-bitrate streaming mode for streaming security camera feeds to all types of displays(cell-phones, PDA's, or even PC's with just a modem connection). Camera's typically are always on 24/7 and if we do the math, we have to pay $15/camera in royalties every month! That's just not cost-effective when you consider this over hundreds/thousands of cameras! I would rather pay higher upfront fee(maybe $10 to $20) for the encoder and leave the decoder at 25c. Another approach maybe application/industry-segment specific licensing?? regards, Ashok === Ashok Yerneni Ph: 408 342 2630 CTO & VP of Engineering, Fax: 408 342 2601 BroadWare Technologies, Inc ashok@broadware.com -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Jordan Greenhall Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:08 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Larry Horn' Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees O.K., Discuss-list, we've seen a pretty good bit of grousing about the licensing terms and no small amount of winceing as the details are coming clear. It is pretty obvious that the strengths of MPEG-4 (applicable to virtually any kind of multimedia, at any bitrate, via any medium) are also its weaknesses when it comes to licensing. A scheme that makes sense for a 2 hour movie on a $25 DVD is non-sense for 50 ten second clips on a promo CD-rom and equivalently difficult to square for 15Kbps wireless broadcasts. As I see it right now, the key problems are: 1. Lack of Synch between license fees and content monetization 2. Onerous and "novel" tracking requirements 3. Concern that burdening content with license fees will "short circuit" adoption of the standard (i.e., what if we held a standard and nobody came?) Now it also seems clear that the license terms are a work-in-progress and that MPEGLA is more than willing to review alternative or supplementary proposals. My query to the group - what are the proposed alternatives? J _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C1B2E6.341FB540 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Ashok Yerneni.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Ashok Yerneni.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Yerneni;Ashok FN:Ashok Yerneni NICKNAME:Ashok-office ORG:BroadWare Technologies, Inc. TITLE:CTO & VP of Engineering TEL;WORK;VOICE:(408) 342-2600 TEL;WORK;FAX:408 342 2601 ADR;WORK:;408 342 2630;20823 Stevens Creek Blvd #300;Cupertino;CA;95014 LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:408 342 2630=3D0D=3D0A20823 = Stevens Creek Blvd #300=3D0D=3D0ACupertino, CA 95014 URL;WORK:http://www.broadware.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:ashok@broadware.com REV:20020110T232649Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C1B2E6.341FB540-- From yuval@envivio.com Mon Feb 11 13:51:13 2002 Received: from fy.com (mail.fy.com [63.77.4.162]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1BIpCYX018026 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:51:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from envivio.com (bur [63.77.4.180]) by fy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27354; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:55:17 -0800 Message-ID: <3C681333.B5DBCF92@envivio.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:53:39 -0800 From: Yuval Fisher Organization: Envivio. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Singer CC: Larry Horn , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Dave, Larry, > >I apologize that I have not responded sooner: > > > >1) Yes - the files in this media would appear to be MPEG-4 Packaged > >Media and therefore, subject to the applicable royalty. > > ouch. It seems to me that no PC manufacturer would use MPEG-4 to provide the type of short sequences Dave describes, because there are alternative, free solutions available. But wouldn't that be the case irrespective of the details of the license ? That is, how does the specific form of the license affect whether someone would use MPEG-4 or not ? For example, if the fee was per encoder, it would still be a fee. There would still be alternative, free solutions, no ? > > >2) The pressing plant is using MPEG-4 and under the proposed > >license terms, would be responsible for paying the applicable MPEG-4 > >Packaged Medium royalty. > > double ouch. generally I send a master disk to a pressing plant and > they copy it. they have no interest in the nature or technology of > the content -- audio, computer, video CD, they don't care. this is, > I suspect, impossibly onerous for them. This is a case where licensing per encoder would alleviate the problem. The content creator would have paid the fee as part of the encoder cost, and there would be no extra burden on the replicator. This makes much more sense. How does this compare with MPEG-2 ? Currenly, CDs with some MPEG-2 are all MPEG-2 -- that's almost the only content on the (DVD) disk. This would work with MPEG-4, if it was never going to be used as (say) interactive help, short clips, etc.. So it seems that the current license terms discourage the use of MPEG-4 for sub-presentations that are part of a larger group consisting of media represented in various formats (e.g. HTML). In such presentations, replicators have to do very careful bookkeeping, which is probably impossible, since they did not create the content. Best, Yuval From yuval@envivio.com Mon Feb 11 14:07:33 2002 Received: from fy.com (mail.fy.com [63.77.4.162]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1BJ7WYX019800 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:07:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from envivio.com (bur [63.77.4.180]) by fy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27501 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:11:40 -0800 Message-ID: <3C68170B.51A7EB98@envivio.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:10:03 -0800 From: Yuval Fisher Organization: Envivio. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > If I can add to this discussion, I think the "USE fee" is a Major > ditterant to widespread adoption. We are a remote business management, > distance learning company and we were hoping to use MPEG-4 low-bitrate > streaming mode for streaming security camera feeds to all types of > displays(cell-phones, PDA's, or even PC's with just a modem connection). > Camera's typically are always on 24/7 and if we do the math, we have to > pay $15/camera in royalties every month! That's just not cost-effective > when you consider this over hundreds/thousands of cameras! Yoiks! An excellent example of an emerging market that's completely choked by the terms as they are.. unless the terms for broadcast/cable, which were not part of the outline, will apply in your case as well. Since cable service providers can't afford $15/channel/month, I think it's clear that some other arrangement will have to be worked out for 24/7 operations with multiple channels. I also agree (with the implication) that the symmetry between the encoders and decoders only makes sense for one scenario: the teleconferencing market. What are the problems with (doing away with the streaming fees and) having encoder fees based on some kind of classification : 1) Live Encoder with < 10 viewers (basically teleconferencing) should be cheap to promote usage 2) Live Encoder with > 10 viewers: should scale with viewship 3) File encoders for personal use should be free to promote MPEG-4 usage. Ubiquity of decoders would help the license holders by promoting use of MPEG-4 in uses with license fees. 4) File encoders for re-distribution charge by duration. Well.. it's just a thought; I'm no lawyer. Best, Yuval From jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com Mon Feb 11 14:33:22 2002 Received: from trinity.divxnetworks.com (sandiego.divxnetworks.com [207.67.92.110]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g1BJXLYX022722 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:33:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21661 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 19:25:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO returnofthejedi) (192.168.0.108) by 192.168.0.8 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 19:25:57 -0000 From: "Jordan Greenhall" To: "'Yuval Fisher'" Cc: Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:31:51 -0800 Message-ID: <00a301c1b332$c17dd330$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <3C68170B.51A7EB98@envivio.com> Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: From my understanding of the license (and this gets fun because we are all speculating based on a press release - not an actual license!), the below "security camera" example isn't quite correct. The provider of the content (lets assume this is some sort of network operator) would be on the hook not for the 24/7 feed coming *out* of the camera, but for the total number of content-minutes going *into* a consumers eyeballs. Thus, if our hypothetical security camera operator had 100 cameras - but no viewers, no royalty would be due. By contrast, if they had 1 camera and 100 24/7 viewers, then $1,400 would be due. Tracking these numbers could be interesting. Of course, this is only the case where the delivery of content is tied to some form of revenue. Thus, if the security camera system is entirely internal to the enterprise and no-one is paying for the content per-se, then no "use fee" would be due at all. One has to wonder why the MPEGLA has written-off the Enterprise space as a revenue source. This might be based on lessons-learned from MPEG-2, but we have to remember that MPEG-4 is perhaps closer to streaming media than to MPEG-2 and the Enterprise is by-far the more lucerative market for streaming media technologies. I look forward to trying to get a website to pay a "use fee" for (yet another) new format when they've already put huge sunk-costs into Windows Media and Real --- that are losing money every month. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Yuval Fisher Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:10 AM Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > If I can add to this discussion, I think the "USE fee" is a Major > ditterant to widespread adoption. We are a remote business management, > distance learning company and we were hoping to use MPEG-4 low-bitrate > streaming mode for streaming security camera feeds to all types of > displays(cell-phones, PDA's, or even PC's with just a modem > connection). Camera's typically are always on 24/7 and if we do the > math, we have to pay $15/camera in royalties every month! That's just > not cost-effective when you consider this over hundreds/thousands of > cameras! Yoiks! An excellent example of an emerging market that's completely choked by the terms as they are.. unless the terms for broadcast/cable, which were not part of the outline, will apply in your case as well. Since cable service providers can't afford $15/channel/month, I think it's clear that some other arrangement will have to be worked out for 24/7 operations with multiple channels. I also agree (with the implication) that the symmetry between the encoders and decoders only makes sense for one scenario: the teleconferencing market. What are the problems with (doing away with the streaming fees and) having encoder fees based on some kind of classification : 1) Live Encoder with < 10 viewers (basically teleconferencing) should be cheap to promote usage 2) Live Encoder with > 10 viewers: should scale with viewship 3) File encoders for personal use should be free to promote MPEG-4 usage. Ubiquity of decoders would help the license holders by promoting use of MPEG-4 in uses with license fees. 4) File encoders for re-distribution charge by duration. Well.. it's just a thought; I'm no lawyer. Best, Yuval _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen@intertrust.com Mon Feb 11 14:55:16 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com (zeus.intertrust.com [12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1BJtFYX025166 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:55:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1BJmth09323; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:48:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:54:35 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918797C@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Ashok Yerneni'" , Jordan Greenhall , discuss@lists.m4if.org, "'Larry Horn'" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:54:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a good example for asking more questions. 1) is this use indeed subject to the use fee? 2) what if, for each camera - usually nobody watches even though the thing is always on - on average 3 people watch at any given moment? Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Ashok Yerneni [mailto:ashok@broadware.com] > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:24 > To: Jordan Greenhall; discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Larry Horn' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > > > If I can add to this discussion, I think the "USE fee" is a Major > ditterant to widespread adoption. We are a remote business management, > distance learning company and we were hoping to use MPEG-4 low-bitrate > streaming mode for streaming security camera feeds to all types of > displays(cell-phones, PDA's, or even PC's with just a modem > connection). > Camera's typically are always on 24/7 and if we do the math, > we have to > pay $15/camera in royalties every month! That's just not > cost-effective > when you consider this over hundreds/thousands of cameras! > > I would rather pay higher upfront fee(maybe $10 to $20) for > the encoder > and leave the decoder at 25c. > > Another approach maybe application/industry-segment specific > licensing?? > > regards, > > Ashok > === > Ashok Yerneni Ph: 408 342 2630 > CTO & VP of Engineering, Fax: 408 342 2601 > BroadWare Technologies, Inc ashok@broadware.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Jordan Greenhall > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:08 AM > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Larry Horn' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > > > O.K., Discuss-list, we've seen a pretty good bit of grousing about the > licensing terms and no small amount of winceing as the details are > coming clear. It is pretty obvious that the strengths of MPEG-4 > (applicable to virtually any kind of multimedia, at any > bitrate, via any > medium) are also its weaknesses when it comes to licensing. A scheme > that makes sense for a 2 hour movie on a $25 DVD is non-sense > for 50 ten > second clips on a promo CD-rom and equivalently difficult to > square for > 15Kbps wireless broadcasts. > > As I see it right now, the key problems are: > > 1. Lack of Synch between license fees and content monetization > 2. Onerous and "novel" tracking requirements > 3. Concern that burdening content with license fees will > "short circuit" > adoption of the standard (i.e., what if we held a standard and nobody > came?) > > Now it also seems clear that the license terms are a work-in-progress > and that MPEGLA is more than willing to review alternative or > supplementary proposals. > > My query to the group - what are the proposed alternatives? > > J > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From ashok@broadware.com Mon Feb 11 16:36:18 2002 Received: from smtp.broadware.com (ns1.graham.com [209.219.63.10]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1BLaHYX006547 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:36:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from broadware.com (goldfinch.broadware.com [10.10.50.226]) by smtp.broadware.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/GTS) with ESMTP id NAA23234; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:35:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from earth (earth.broadware.com [10.10.50.56]) by broadware.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA05403; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:34:58 -0800 (PST) From: "Ashok Yerneni" To: "Rob Koenen" , "Jordan Greenhall" , , "'Larry Horn'" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:25:17 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D5918797C@exchange.epr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is very much a real scenario. Content is archived 24/7 and viewed intelligently though the use of meta-data tags. Most often there is 1 or 2 people viewing it, if any. regards, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:54 AM > To: 'Ashok Yerneni'; Jordan Greenhall; discuss@lists.m4if.org; 'Larry > Horn' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees > > > This is a good example for asking more questions. > > 1) is this use indeed subject to the use fee? > 2) what if, for each camera > - usually nobody watches even though the thing is always on > - on average 3 people watch at any given moment? > > Rob > > > From rkoenen@intertrust.com Mon Feb 11 16:59:22 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com (zeus.intertrust.com [12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1BLxLYX009098 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1BLqah10762; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:58:16 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187988@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Ashok Yerneni'" , Rob Koenen , Jordan Greenhall , discuss@lists.m4if.org, "'Larry Horn'" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:58:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > 1) is this use indeed subject to the use fee? > 2) what if, for each camera > a. usually nobody watches even though the thing is always on > b. on average 3 people watch at any given moment? Just to avoid confusion: a. and b. are different scenarios! Thinking of this some more (I did an MPEG-4 surveillance project 5 years ago) what about: c. video is actually displayed continuously at 2 remote locations but only really viewed when an event is triggered, and otherwise largely ignored. Of course this is all assuming that the answer to 1) is 'yes'. Rob From jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com Mon Feb 11 17:15:46 2002 Received: from trinity.divxnetworks.com (sandiego.divxnetworks.com [207.67.92.110]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g1BMFjYX011011 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23507 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 22:08:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO returnofthejedi) (192.168.0.108) by 192.168.0.8 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 22:08:20 -0000 From: "Jordan Greenhall" To: Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:14:16 -0800 Message-ID: <00bd01c1b349$7179b270$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187988@exchange.epr.com> Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Accounting and Tracking Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I know that the use fees represent a potentially *huge* revenue opportunity for the Pool. But I wonder if the licensors have fully considered the accounting and tracking nightmare. It is hard enough today to track MPEG-2 vendors. But for each technology vendor there are hundreds, even thousands, of content providers that are their customers. The vast majority of these customers are going to be mid-to-small and tracking their use to enforce fees will be nothing short of a nightmare. I can guarantee that we wont be able to do it. DivXNetworks will certainly pay encoder and decoder fees, but use fees will be up to the content provider or network operator. Which means that either MPEGLA is looking to bite off a lot, hasn't fully considered the logistical problem, or isn't thinking about enforcing use fees against these small and mid-sized content providers. This last is of most concern to me: 1. Most of the content that will make the standard valuable will be produced and disseminated by the small and mid sized operators or content providers. Non-enforced license fees will scare most of them without any benefit. If you aren't going to enforce it, don't charge it. 2. Targeting the major content providers / network operators is particularly scary. An AOL/TW or a Comcast who has potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at-stake on a $0.01 cent switch on "use fees" will be extraordinarily strongly motivated to avoid the standard and use something that is "free". Clearly if the majors don't use MPEG-4, the standard will be in trouble. My $0.02 per hour. J Query: does anyone know a) how much royalty revenue has been generated by MPEG-2; b) how much would/should be considered reasonable for MPEG-4? Use fees are a holy grail - but are they grasping for the brass ring when the requirement is "fair and reasonable". J From singer@apple.com Tue Feb 12 00:30:15 2002 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1C5UEYX027289 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:30:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1C5UEQ18930 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:29:55 -0800 Received: from [17.219.158.123] (vpn-scv-x3-48.apple.com [17.219.194.48]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1C5Tsr01112; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:29:54 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: singer@mail.apple.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C681333.B5DBCF92@envivio.com> References: <3C681333.B5DBCF92@envivio.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:04:50 -0800 To: Yuval Fisher From: Dave Singer Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] the packaged content fees Cc: Larry Horn , discuss@lists.m4if.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: At 10:53 -0800 2/11/02, Yuval Fisher wrote: >Dave, Larry, > >> >I apologize that I have not responded sooner: >> > >> >1) Yes - the files in this media would appear to be MPEG-4 Packaged >> >Media and therefore, subject to the applicable royalty. >> >> ouch. > >It seems to me that no PC manufacturer would use MPEG-4 to provide the >type of short sequences Dave describes, because there are alternative, >free solutions available. Perhaps not intentionally. But generally we don't expect our media authors to know the details of when it is and is not permissible to use a codec. The policing we'd have to do here would be horrendous -- checking every help file and so on. >But wouldn't that be the case irrespective of >the details of the license ? That is, how does the specific form of the >license affect whether someone would use MPEG-4 or not ? > >For example, if the fee was per encoder, it would still be a fee. There >would still be alternative, free solutions, no ? > > >> >> >2) The pressing plant is using MPEG-4 and under the proposed >> >license terms, would be responsible for paying the applicable MPEG-4 >> >Packaged Medium royalty. >> >> double ouch. generally I send a master disk to a pressing plant and >> they copy it. they have no interest in the nature or technology of >> the content -- audio, computer, video CD, they don't care. this is, >> I suspect, impossibly onerous for them. > >This is a case where licensing per encoder would alleviate the problem. >The content creator would have paid the fee as part of the encoder cost, >and there would be no extra burden on the replicator. This makes much >more sense. > >How does this compare with MPEG-2 ? Currenly, CDs with some MPEG-2 are >all MPEG-2 -- that's almost the only content on the (DVD) disk. This >would work with MPEG-4, if it was never going to be used as (say) >interactive help, short clips, etc.. > >So it seems that the current license terms discourage the use of MPEG-4 >for sub-presentations that are part of a larger group consisting of >media represented in various formats (e.g. HTML). In such presentations, >replicators have to do very careful bookkeeping, which is probably >impossible, since they did not create the content. > >Best, Yuval -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From amit.klir@emblaze.com Tue Feb 12 06:45:50 2002 Received: from mostang.geo.co.il (hfa-150-132.access.net.il [212.68.150.132] (may be forged)) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g1CBjmYX007043 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: through eSafe SMTP Relay 1011899687; Tue Feb 12 13:45:34 2002 Received: by MOSTANG with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:45:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Amit Klir To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:45:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] mpeg 4 levels definition Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi , Suppose I would like to encode a video clip to MPEG4 simple profile format, level 1, with accurate bit rate of 64kbps . Then, after the encoding process, I get an average bit rate of 64000 + delta (1bit - 1Kbit) . That stream should be marked as level 1 ? (max 64kbit/s) or should I mark it with level 2 (128 kbit/s) ? Thanks, Amit ************************************************************************************************** The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any one or make copies. ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content ** ************************************************************************************************** From craig@pcube.com Tue Feb 12 09:38:36 2002 Received: from imf11bis.bellsouth.net (mail211.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.151]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1CEcaYX026101 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:38:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([216.78.160.106]) by imf11bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020212143954.ULLQ9521.imf11bis.bellsouth.net@[192.168.1.103]> for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:39:54 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: craig@mail.lw.net Message-Id: Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:07:31 -0500 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Craig Birkmaier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g1CEcaYX026101 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Broadcasters may balk at 'use fee' for MPEG-4 video Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Broadcasters may balk at 'use fee' for MPEG-4 video February 12, 2002 12:00am Source: CMP Media Inc. ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TIMES: Paris - Details of the licensing structure for the MPEG-4 visual digital compression standard are prompting anxiety attacks among wired- and wireless-service providers, content owners, developers and users. At issue (see Feb. 4, page 2) is whether the licensing scheme's "use fee"-set at 2 cents per hour based on playback/normal running time for every stream, download or other use of MPEG-4 video-will trigger or hinder MPEG-4's broad adoption relative to proprietary streaming and downloading video compression technologies. Among the companies with proprietary schemes are RealNetworks, Microsoft Corp. and Apple Computer Inc. The global wireless industry, which has already committed to using MPEG-4 for third-generation handsets, is not expected to find the licensing terms objectionable. But large Internet service providers, cable/satellite operators and Webcasters will likely balk at the fee, sources warned. Under the licensing scheme, a service provider or content owner that disseminates MPEG-4 video data and receives remuneration for video services would be asked to pay the use fee, which would apply to pay-per-view, subscription, advertiser/underwriter-supported and similar services. The royalty would not be subject to a cap. Essential-patent holders to the MPEG-4 video technology say they have structured the licensing scheme to spread the royalty burden among many, thus keeping royalties per encoder and decoder low enough to encourage proliferation of MPEG-4 products. "We make no distinctions between wireless and wired services," said Larry Horn, vice president of licensing and business development at MPEG LA LLC, an independent agency that represents MPEG-4 video licensors. "Our goal is to stay in touch with the flow of commerce. "We don't intend to take money where money isn't, but patent holders want to get paid where money is made by service providers or content owners [based on delivery of MPEG-4 video]." Others, however, questioned whether the licensing terms are practical for all markets from wireless to broadcast. "We are very happy to finally see license holders announcing a license program," said Rob Koenen, president of the MPEG-4 Industry Forum. M4IF, representing more than 100 companies from various industries in North America, Europe and Asia, addresses MPEG-4 adoption issues, including interoperability and certification. "This is hard evidence that MPEG-4 is gathering momentum. It is great that 18 companies have reached this long-awaited consensus." But Koenen cautioned that M4IF received widely varied reactions to the licensing program, ranging from "It sounds reasonable" to "It will never work." He called the terms "generally realistic, as we don't expect everything to be free these days. We also think that this would particularly work well for mobile phones; U.S. 25-cent royalties per decoder and per encoder sound reasonable. But we are not sure in a couple of instances-one-to-many Webcasting or broadcasting, for example-whether the licensing terms are structured in a way to enable [those industries'] business models." An industry source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the use fee is intractable for the broadcast business model. "Imagine how much in royalties a cable company such as Comcast would have to pay, if the use fee is set at 2 cents per hour for its 8.4 million subscribers, for example, for every video stream compressed in MPEG-4 they deliver. You do the math." The Internet Streaming Media Alliance, which is seeking adoption of the MPEG-4 standard, met last week to discuss the implications for its members but did not respond to requests for comment by press time. Cable and satellite operators are not yet using MPEG-4 technology. They are said to be taking a hard look at the standard, since it would allow them a more efficient use of bandwidth as well as added capabilities in object-based interactivity. The wireless industry, meanwhile, is broadly expected to be amenable to the proposed terms. "We believe that the existence of a clear structure for licensing will dispel many of the misconceptions about MPEG-4 and pave the way for widespread adoption," said Joel Espelien, general counsel and vice president of strategic relationships for PacketVideo Corp., a leading MPEG-4-based technology provider for the wireless industry. Inherent value to user Although cost is always an issue, he said, PacketVideo believes the use fee is not significant for wireless devices. "Remember that video in the mobile context is quite different than watching television: The typical clip may be in the range of 30 seconds or less." Given a usage fee of 2 cents an hour, that works out to approximately 1/60 of 1 cent per clip. PacketVideo believes other cost components of delivering service, as well as the inherent value to the user, "far outweigh this amount," Espelien said. Asked if the new MPEG-4 video licensing structure is sufficiently competitive with other video compression and streaming formats, Espelien said, "The wireless industry has a long-term commitment to open standards and has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to pay license fees associated with specific standards. We do not believe MPEG-4 is any different. "This license fee is unlikely to cause the industry to go against both history and common sense and abandon standards in favor of proprietary formats controlled by a single vendor." There nonetheless appears to be confusion within the industry, including among some large players in the streaming-media market, about how the MPEG-4 licensing structure and patent-pooling scheme may work. One source, who asked not to be identified, said that if none of the MPEG-4 patents covers servers or streaming, the patent licenses might be unenforceable. "Conditioning the grant of a patent license upon payment of royalties on products which do not use the teaching of the patent amounts to patent misuse," he warned. But sources close to the MPEG-4 patent holders stated that such a view is based on faulty assumptions-first, that MPEG LA's license is the only one; second, that the patents somehow would not support payment of royalties and third, that the patents do not support infringement suits against unlicensed streaming users. There can be no misuse on the basis of MPEG LA's license, the sources said; it is voluntarily offered for the convenience of the market. "If MPEG-4 users would prefer to negotiate a different arrangement directly/bilaterally with the patent holders for coverage under their patents, they are free to do so," said one. Moreover, the sources argued that it is reasonable and appropriate to measure the value of the patents based on the duration of MPEG-4 streams in the context of this license agreement. Further, "the streaming of MPEG-4 streams directly or indirectly infringes the patents in the portfolio, and therefore, patent holders have the ability to bring suit against unlicensed users," said one source. Koenen said M4IF believes the terms presented by the MPEG LA warrant further clarification. "Those details will determine whether the program adequately supports existing services, such as mobile use, broadcasting, media distribution and Internet streaming, as well as radically new MPEG-4 services." M4IF has encouraged licensors to engage in open discussion with the rest of the MPEG-4 community. Koenen said he was "confident that licensors are ready to listen to the arguments before the licensing details are finalized." The open discussion list is at discuss@lists.m4if.org. http://www.eetimes.com/ Copyright c 2002 CMP Media LLC By Junko Yoshida <> << Copyright ©2002 CMP Media Inc. >> -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From jpt@okstate.edu Tue Feb 12 11:33:32 2002 Received: from listserv.okstate.edu (listserv.okstate.edu [139.78.100.100]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1CGXSYX010671 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:33:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from osu-ns05.cis.okstate.edu by listserv.okstate.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.11C91BA6@listserv.okstate.edu>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:33:27 -0600 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.4a July 24, 2000 Message-ID: From: "Johnson P Thomas/comsc/cas/Okstate" Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:33:16 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on osu-ns05/Okstate(Release 5.0.9 |November 16, 2001) at 02/12/2002 10:33:17 AM, Serialize complete at 02/12/2002 10:33:17 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 005AB48D86256B5E_=" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] HELP! Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 005AB48D86256B5E_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Does anyone know if there are any MPEG-4 Network simulators available? Johnson --=_alternative 005AB48D86256B5E_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Does anyone know if there are any MPEG-4 Network simulators available?

Johnson

--=_alternative 005AB48D86256B5E_=-- From kmarks@apple.com Tue Feb 12 15:57:02 2002 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1CKv1YX011195 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:57:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1CKv1Q03704 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:57:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:57:00 -0800 Received: from localhost (il0203a-dhcp79.apple.com [17.202.37.207]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1CKv0A13679 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:57:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:56:57 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481) From: Kevin Marks To: discuss@lists.m4if.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <0E310805-1FFB-11D6-A52D-00039348D666@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g1CKv1YX011195 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple announces MPEG4 support in QT 6 - won't ship with current license Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/12qt6.html Apple Previews QuickTime 6 with MPEG-4 Release Awaits Changes to MPEG-4 License QUICKTIME LIVE, LOS ANGELES—February 12, 2002—Apple® today previewed QuickTime® 6, featuring full support for MPEG-4, the emerging standard for streaming high quality content to computers and other digital devices. QuickTime 6, along with Apple’s new QuickTime Streaming Server 4 and the new QuickTime Broadcaster (see related release “Apple Previews New QuickTime Broadcaster Software”), enables the first complete MPEG-4 based streaming media solution. Although the QuickTime 6 software is complete and ready for release, Apple is delaying its release until MPEG-4 video licensing terms are improved. The MPEG-4 licensing terms proposed by MPEG-LA (the largest group of MPEG-4 patent holders) includes royalty payments from companies, like Apple, who ship MPEG-4 codecs, as well as royalties from content providers who use MPEG-4 to stream video. Apple agrees with paying a reasonable royalty for including MPEG-4 codecs in QuickTime, but does not believe that MPEG-4 can be successful in the marketplace if content owners must also pay royalties in order to deliver their content using MPEG-4. “MPEG-4 is the best format for streaming media on the web, and QuickTime 6 is the first complete MPEG-4 solution,” said Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. “MPEG-4 is poised for great success once the licensing terms are modified to allow content providers to stream their content royalty-free.” QuickTime 6 provides a fully scalable, ISO compliant MPEG-4 solution for streaming media to the widest range of devices. Key features of QuickTime 6 include: * Apple-developed video codec for encoding and decoding MPEG-4 video content; * support for Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), the next generation audio format; * support for CELP, the MPEG-4 speech codec for reproduction of natural speech; * adherence to the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA) 1.0 specification; * MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 playback, ideal for content creators who wish to preview and share work throughout the production process; * Flash 5 support; * DVC Pro (PAL) support; * updated user interface with a new, easy-to-use “Favorites” interface and easier access to QuickTime content; and * skip protection enhancements. QuickTime is Apple’s industry-leading, standards-based software for developing, producing and delivering high quality audio and video over IP, wireless and broadband networks. Last year, 80 million users downloaded QuickTime Player via the Internet while tens of millions more copies were distributed via digital cameras, software titles and enhanced music CDs. As the platform of choice for content creators worldwide, QuickTime delivers the full media experience for thousands of unique titles of enhanced music CDs and software titles. Additionally, QuickTime ships on more than 150 digital camera models to provide consumers with the highest quality media playback experience. Apple also announced the immediate availability of QuickTime Streaming Server 4, Apple’s advanced open-source, standards-based streaming server, now with MPEG-4 and MP3 streaming capabilities.  QuickTime Streaming Server 4 does not require a MPEG-4 license and is therefore immediately available. QuickTime Streaming Server 4 features include: * full MPEG-4 support, allowing MPEG-4 content to be streamed live or on demand; * ability to serve MP3 files or playlists to standard MP3 players, such as iTunes™, QuickTime player or WinAmp; * enhancements to the web-based administration tool; and * quality of service and skip protection enhancements. QuickTime Streaming Server 4 is available as a free download at www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss. Apple is a co-founder of the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA), which is dedicated to the development of products and technologies that adhere to industry standards. QuickTime was chosen by the International Organization for Standards (ISO) as the file format for MPEG-4, providing the software with a deep level of compatibility with the standard.  From rkoenen@intertrust.com Tue Feb 12 16:00:23 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com (zeus.intertrust.com [12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1CL0MYX011795 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:00:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1CKr0h22373; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:58:40 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D590B1540@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: Amit Klir , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] mpeg 4 levels definition Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:58:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a discussion for the technotes list, technotes@lists.m4if.org (You would break the L1 restriction which is 64K max, not average. You need to set the average at 64k-delta or get a better rate control algorithm. :-) Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Amit Klir [mailto:amit.klir@emblaze.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:46 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] mpeg 4 levels definition > > > Hi , > > Suppose I would like to encode a video clip to MPEG4 simple profile > format, level 1, with accurate bit rate of 64kbps . > Then, after the encoding process, I get an average bit rate > of 64000 + delta > (1bit - 1Kbit) . > That stream should be marked as level 1 ? (max 64kbit/s) or > should I mark it > with level 2 > (128 kbit/s) ? > > Thanks, > Amit > ************************************************************** > ************************************ > The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. > It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. > If you have received this email in error please notify the > system manager or the > sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any > one or make copies. > > ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and > malicious content ** > ************************************************************** > ************************************ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen@intertrust.com Tue Feb 12 16:13:05 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com (zeus.intertrust.com [12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1CLD5YX013276; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:13:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1CL7Hh22555; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:07:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:12:56 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D590B1543@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" , "M4IF news (E-mail)" Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:12:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1B40A.0A4D5F40" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Release of QuickTime 6 with MPEG-4 Awaits Changes to MPEG-4 Licen se Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B40A.0A4D5F40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (sorry for duplications. the news seems important enough to send to Discussion and News lists.) Rob http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/12qt6.html Apple Previews QuickTime 6 with MPEG-4 Release Awaits Changes to MPEG-4 License=20 QUICKTIME LIVE, LOS ANGELES=97February 12, 2002=97Apple=AE today = previewed QuickTime=AE 6, featuring full support for MPEG-4, the emerging = standard for streaming high quality content to computers and other digital devices. QuickTime 6, along with Apple=92s new QuickTime Streaming Server 4 and = the new QuickTime Broadcaster (see related release =93Apple Previews New = QuickTime Broadcaster Software=94), enables the first complete MPEG-4 based = streaming media solution.=20 Although the QuickTime 6 software is complete and ready for release, = Apple is delaying its release until MPEG-4 video licensing terms are = improved. The MPEG-4 licensing terms proposed by MPEG-LA (the largest group of MPEG-4 patent holders) includes royalty payments from companies, like Apple, = who ship MPEG-4 codecs, as well as royalties from content providers who use MPEG-4 to stream video. Apple agrees with paying a reasonable royalty = for including MPEG-4 codecs in QuickTime, but does not believe that MPEG-4 = can be successful in the marketplace if content owners must also pay = royalties in order to deliver their content using MPEG-4.=20 =93MPEG-4 is the best format for streaming media on the web, and = QuickTime 6 is the first complete MPEG-4 solution,=94 said Philip Schiller, = Apple=92s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. =93MPEG-4 is poised for = great success once the licensing terms are modified to allow content = providers to stream their content royalty-free.=94=20 QuickTime 6 provides a fully scalable, ISO compliant MPEG-4 solution = for streaming media to the widest range of devices. Key features of = QuickTime 6 include:=20 * Apple-developed video codec for encoding and decoding MPEG-4 video content;=20 * support for Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), the next generation audio format;=20 * support for CELP, the MPEG-4 speech codec for reproduction of natural speech;=20 * adherence to the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA) 1.0 specification;=20 * MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 playback, ideal for content creators who wish to preview and share work throughout the production process;=20 * Flash 5 support;=20 * DVC Pro (PAL) support;=20 * updated user interface with a new, easy-to-use =93Favorites=94 = interface and easier access to QuickTime content; and=20 * skip protection enhancements.=20 QuickTime is Apple=92s industry-leading, standards-based software for developing, producing and delivering high quality audio and video over = IP, wireless and broadband networks. Last year, 80 million users downloaded QuickTime Player via the Internet while tens of millions more copies = were distributed via digital cameras, software titles and enhanced music = CDs.=20 As the platform of choice for content creators worldwide, QuickTime = delivers the full media experience for thousands of unique titles of enhanced = music CDs and software titles. Additionally, QuickTime ships on more than 150 digital camera models to provide consumers with the highest quality = media playback experience.=20 Apple also announced the immediate availability of QuickTime Streaming Server 4, Apple=92s advanced open-source, standards-based streaming = server, now with MPEG-4 and MP3 streaming capabilities. QuickTime Streaming = Server 4 does not require a MPEG-4 license and is therefore immediately = available. QuickTime Streaming Server 4 features include:=20 * full MPEG-4 support, allowing MPEG-4 content to be streamed live or on demand;=20 * ability to serve MP3 files or playlists to standard MP3 players, such as iTunes=99, QuickTime player or WinAmp;=20 * enhancements to the web-based administration tool; and=20 * quality of service and skip protection enhancements.=20 QuickTime Streaming Server 4 is available as a free download at www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss.=20 Apple is a co-founder of the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA), = which is dedicated to the development of products and technologies that = adhere to industry standards. QuickTime was chosen by the International = Organization for Standards (ISO) as the file format for MPEG-4, providing the = software with a deep level of compatibility with the standard. =20 Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the = Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the = Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience = to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the = world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings.=20 Press Contacts: Bill Evans Apple (408) 974-0610 bevans@apple.com Nicole Scott Edelman Worldwide (650) 429-2764 nicole.scott@edelman.com NOTE TO EDITORS: For additional information visit Apple's PR website ( www.apple.com/pr/), or call Apple's Media Helpline at (408) 974-2042.=20 Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh, Mac, iTunes and QuickTime are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Apple. Other company and product names may be trademarks of their respective owners.=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B40A.0A4D5F40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

(sorry for = duplications. the news=20 seems important enough to
send to Discussion and News=20 lists.)

Rob

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/12qt6.html<= BR>Apple Previews QuickTime 6 with MPEG-4

Release Awaits Changes to MPEG-4 = License=20

QUICKTIME LIVE, LOS ANGELES=97February 12, = 2002=97Apple=AE today=20 previewed QuickTime=AE 6, featuring full support for MPEG-4, the = emerging standard=20 for streaming high quality content to computers and other digital = devices.=20 QuickTime 6, along with Apple=92s new QuickTime Streaming Server 4 and = the new=20 QuickTime Broadcaster (see related release =93Apple Previews New = QuickTime=20 Broadcaster Software=94), enables the first complete MPEG-4 based = streaming media=20 solution.

Although the QuickTime 6 software is complete and = ready for=20 release, Apple is delaying its release until MPEG-4 video licensing = terms are=20 improved. The MPEG-4 licensing terms proposed by MPEG-LA (the largest = group of=20 MPEG-4 patent holders) includes royalty payments from companies, like = Apple, who=20 ship MPEG-4 codecs, as well as royalties from content providers who use = MPEG-4=20 to stream video. Apple agrees with paying a reasonable royalty for = including=20 MPEG-4 codecs in QuickTime, but does not believe that MPEG-4 can be = successful=20 in the marketplace if content owners must also pay royalties in order = to deliver=20 their content using MPEG-4.

=93MPEG-4 is the best format for streaming media on = the web, and=20 QuickTime 6 is the first complete MPEG-4 solution,=94 said Philip = Schiller,=20 Apple=92s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. = =93MPEG-4 is poised=20 for great success once the licensing terms are modified to allow = content=20 providers to stream their content royalty-free.=94

QuickTime 6 provides a fully scalable, ISO compliant = MPEG-4=20 solution for streaming media to the widest range of devices. Key = features of=20 QuickTime 6 include:

  • Apple-developed video codec for encoding and = decoding MPEG-4=20 video content;
  • support for Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), the next = generation=20 audio format;
  • support for CELP, the MPEG-4 speech codec for = reproduction of=20 natural speech;
  • adherence to the Internet Streaming Media Alliance = (ISMA) 1.0=20 specification;
  • MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 playback, ideal for content = creators who=20 wish to preview and share work throughout the production process; =
  • Flash 5 support;
  • DVC Pro (PAL) support;
  • updated user interface with a new, easy-to-use = =93Favorites=94=20 interface and easier access to QuickTime content; and
  • skip protection enhancements.

QuickTime is Apple=92s industry-leading, = standards-based software=20 for developing, producing and delivering high quality audio and video = over IP,=20 wireless and broadband networks. Last year, 80 million users downloaded = QuickTime Player via the Internet while tens of millions more copies = were=20 distributed via digital cameras, software titles and enhanced music = CDs.=20

As the platform of choice for content creators = worldwide,=20 QuickTime delivers the full media experience for thousands of unique = titles of=20 enhanced music CDs and software titles. Additionally, QuickTime ships = on more=20 than 150 digital camera models to provide consumers with the highest = quality=20 media playback experience.

Apple also announced the immediate availability of = QuickTime=20 Streaming Server 4, Apple=92s advanced open-source, standards-based = streaming=20 server, now with MPEG-4 and MP3 streaming capabilities.  QuickTime = Streaming Server 4 does not require a MPEG-4 license and is therefore=20 immediately available. QuickTime Streaming Server 4 features include: =

  • full MPEG-4 support, allowing MPEG-4 content to be = streamed=20 live or on demand;
  • ability to serve MP3 files or playlists to = standard MP3=20 players, such as iTunes=99, QuickTime player or WinAmp;
  • enhancements to the web-based administration tool; = and=20
  • quality of service and skip protection = enhancements.=20

QuickTime Streaming Server 4 is available as a free = download at=20 www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss.=20

Apple is a co-founder of the Internet Streaming Media = Alliance=20 (ISMA), which is dedicated to the development of products and = technologies that=20 adhere to industry standards. QuickTime was chosen by the International = Organization for Standards (ISO) as the file format for MPEG-4, = providing the=20 software with a deep level of compatibility with the standard.  =

Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the = 1970s with=20 the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the = Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing = experience=20 to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the = world=20 through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings. =

Press Contacts:
Bill = Evans
Apple
(408)=20 974-0610
bevans@apple.com

Nicole Scott
Edelman Worldwide
(650) = 429-2764
nicole.scott@edelman.com

NOTE TO EDITORS: For additional information visit = Apple's PR=20 website (www.apple.com/pr/), or call Apple's = Media=20 Helpline at (408) 974-2042.

Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh, Mac, iTunes and = QuickTime are=20 either registered trademarks or trademarks of Apple. Other company and = product=20 names may be trademarks of their respective owners.=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B40A.0A4D5F40-- From streaming@castelmedia.com Tue Feb 12 16:28:41 2002 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl (smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.138]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1CLSfYX016391 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cc56908-a.groni1.gr.nl.home.com [213.51.144.18]) by smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g1CLSaIg017019; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:28:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:28:36 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480) Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org, streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com, QuickTime Streaming To: "Streaming Media MPEG-4" From: Stef van der Ziel In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <7957C68F-1FFF-11D6-879A-0003931D71EE@castelmedia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi lists, Besides the yes-or-no discussion, I see a few practical problems with implementing the 2 cents per hour licensing scheme for MPEG-4: - I can live with licensing on this basis (sure, it's more expensive than no fee but it's not a very expensive fee), *BUT ONLY under the condition that M4if provides me with accurate tracking and billing software that's easy to implement on any streaming box. You want me to handle tracking and billing? Give me all the tools I need. Don't make me pay/invest/develop or work overtime for handling your licensing fees. This software should not just track and bill for the sum of streams, but on a per-user basis (since any streaming server can be a shared server instead of having just one owner!) I need to be able to bill on a per client / per stream basis because even our clients (mostly AV / TV companies, events, corporates and universities) use their accounts for multiple clients. So this system has to be very flexible and be able to run on W2000, Linux and MacOS X since all major streaming servers which intend to support MPEG-4 run on these platforms. Is it up to the developer of this streaming server software (say Apple with QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server) to implement these tracking and billing features? IMO, M4if should ask a commercial company to invest and develop such tools. Let this company become a member of M4if so they can make a profit out of the fees. - How can M4if tell the difference between a regular (quicktime) stream and a (quicktime) stream with mpeg-4 content? - I understood that if the content is made available freely, that no fees will be charged? Is this true and if yes, how will M4if be able to tell the difference between paid and free content? - Clients don't like post-calculated billing: they want to pay a regular monthly fee so they can budgetize in front for the whole year. This implicates that a streaming hosting account (which also includes services for Real, QuickTime and Windows Media streaming) will be more expensive even if the client doesn't use MPEG-4 at all. I'm interested in M4if's opinion here. Stef FYI: Two years ago, I developed a streaming server platform called Jet-Stream which supports QuickTime, Real and Windows Media streaming from one single box. Jet-Stream has quickly gained popularity overhere in the Netherlands because it's easy for multiple users which all can stream in any supported format from their private single FTP account. We provide these hosting facilities ourselves and also sell these systems to larger clients so they can have all of their students or employees stream from internal accounts. I anticipate full support for MPEG-4 because Apple announced native support with DSS4/QTSS 4. P.S. I designed a very nice MPEG-4 logo some time ago. How do I jump on this licen$ing-owner$hip-wagon? ;-P From Peter.Haighton@m4if.org Tue Feb 12 16:47:37 2002 Received: from mx1.magmacom.com (mx1.magmacom.com [206.191.0.217]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1CLlaYX020521 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:47:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail4.magma.ca (mail4.magma.ca [206.191.0.222]) by mx1.magmacom.com (Magma's Mail Server) with ESMTP id g1CLlXoM027984; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from OREOV2 ([206.191.53.194]) by mail4.magma.ca (Magma's Mail Server) with SMTP id g1CLlWNP026436; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:47:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Peter Haighton" To: "Stef van der Ziel" , "Streaming Media MPEG-4" Cc: , , "QuickTime Streaming" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:50:31 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <7957C68F-1FFF-11D6-879A-0003931D71EE@castelmedia.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Stef, Before anyone replies to this email, I should clarify that it is not the MPEG-4 Industry Forum that has set the patents. The M4IF has nothing what so ever in setting patent licensing terms. For more information please see http://www.m4if.org/patents/clarify.php, which helps to describe this relationship. Peter -- Peter Haighton VideoSpheres Inc. 84 Hines Road Kanata, Ontario Canada, K2K 3G3 Tel: (613) 270-9646 x3022 Fax: (613) 271-9442 email: peterh@VideoSpheres.com See http://www.m4if.org for the latest on MPEG-4 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Stef van der Ziel Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:29 PM To: Streaming Media MPEG-4 Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com; QuickTime Streaming Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing Hi lists, Besides the yes-or-no discussion, I see a few practical problems with implementing the 2 cents per hour licensing scheme for MPEG-4: - I can live with licensing on this basis (sure, it's more expensive than no fee but it's not a very expensive fee), *BUT ONLY under the condition that M4if provides me with accurate tracking and billing software that's easy to implement on any streaming box. You want me to handle tracking and billing? Give me all the tools I need. Don't make me pay/invest/develop or work overtime for handling your licensing fees. This software should not just track and bill for the sum of streams, but on a per-user basis (since any streaming server can be a shared server instead of having just one owner!) I need to be able to bill on a per client / per stream basis because even our clients (mostly AV / TV companies, events, corporates and universities) use their accounts for multiple clients. So this system has to be very flexible and be able to run on W2000, Linux and MacOS X since all major streaming servers which intend to support MPEG-4 run on these platforms. Is it up to the developer of this streaming server software (say Apple with QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server) to implement these tracking and billing features? IMO, M4if should ask a commercial company to invest and develop such tools. Let this company become a member of M4if so they can make a profit out of the fees. - How can M4if tell the difference between a regular (quicktime) stream and a (quicktime) stream with mpeg-4 content? - I understood that if the content is made available freely, that no fees will be charged? Is this true and if yes, how will M4if be able to tell the difference between paid and free content? - Clients don't like post-calculated billing: they want to pay a regular monthly fee so they can budgetize in front for the whole year. This implicates that a streaming hosting account (which also includes services for Real, QuickTime and Windows Media streaming) will be more expensive even if the client doesn't use MPEG-4 at all. I'm interested in M4if's opinion here. Stef FYI: Two years ago, I developed a streaming server platform called Jet-Stream which supports QuickTime, Real and Windows Media streaming from one single box. Jet-Stream has quickly gained popularity overhere in the Netherlands because it's easy for multiple users which all can stream in any supported format from their private single FTP account. We provide these hosting facilities ourselves and also sell these systems to larger clients so they can have all of their students or employees stream from internal accounts. I anticipate full support for MPEG-4 because Apple announced native support with DSS4/QTSS 4. P.S. I designed a very nice MPEG-4 logo some time ago. How do I jump on this licen$ing-owner$hip-wagon? ;-P _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen@intertrust.com Tue Feb 12 16:54:04 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com (zeus.intertrust.com [12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1CLs3YX021956 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1CLmEh23186; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:48:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:53:53 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D591879C2@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Streaming Media MPEG-4'" Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org, streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com, QuickTime Streaming Subject: RE: [mpeg4] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:53:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Thanks Peter. According to its Statutes, M4IF cannot set licensing terms or demand anything of its members with respect to licensing - even if it wanted to. (which it does't) Acting as a focal point for discussions is a role we happily take on, though. Rob Koenen President, M4IF > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Haighton [mailto:Peter.Haighton@m4if.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 13:51 > To: Streaming Media MPEG-4 > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com; > QuickTime Streaming > Subject: [mpeg4] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing > > > Stef, > > Before anyone replies to this email, I should clarify that it > is not the > MPEG-4 Industry Forum that has set the patents. The M4IF has > nothing what > so ever in setting patent licensing terms. For more > information please see > http://www.m4if.org/patents/clarify.php, which helps to describe this > relationship. > > Peter > -- > Peter Haighton > VideoSpheres Inc. > 84 Hines Road > Kanata, Ontario > Canada, K2K 3G3 > Tel: (613) 270-9646 x3022 > Fax: (613) 271-9442 > email: peterh@VideoSpheres.com > > See http://www.m4if.org for the latest on MPEG-4 > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Stef van der Ziel > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:29 PM > To: Streaming Media MPEG-4 > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com; > QuickTime Streaming > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing > > > Hi lists, > > Besides the yes-or-no discussion, I see a few practical problems with > implementing the 2 cents per hour licensing scheme for MPEG-4: > > - I can live with licensing on this basis (sure, it's more expensive > than no fee but it's not a very expensive fee), *BUT ONLY under the > condition that M4if provides me with accurate tracking and billing > software that's easy to implement on any streaming box. You want me to > handle tracking and billing? Give me all the tools I need. > Don't make me > pay/invest/develop or work overtime for handling your licensing fees. > This software should not just track and bill for the sum of > streams, but > on a per-user basis (since any streaming server can be a shared server > instead of having just one owner!) I need to be able to bill on a per > client / per stream basis because even our clients (mostly AV / TV > companies, events, corporates and universities) use their accounts for > multiple clients. So this system has to be very flexible and > be able to > run on W2000, Linux and MacOS X since all major streaming > servers which > intend to support MPEG-4 run on these platforms. Is it up to the > developer of this streaming server software (say Apple with > QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server) to implement these tracking and > billing features? IMO, M4if should ask a commercial company to invest > and develop such tools. Let this company become a member of > M4if so they > can make a profit out of the fees. > > - How can M4if tell the difference between a regular > (quicktime) stream > and a (quicktime) stream with mpeg-4 content? > > - I understood that if the content is made available freely, that no > fees will be charged? Is this true and if yes, how will M4if > be able to > tell the difference between paid and free content? > > - Clients don't like post-calculated billing: they want to > pay a regular > monthly fee so they can budgetize in front for the whole year. This > implicates that a streaming hosting account (which also includes > services for Real, QuickTime and Windows Media streaming) will be more > expensive even if the client doesn't use MPEG-4 at all. I'm interested > in M4if's opinion here. > > Stef > > FYI: Two years ago, I developed a streaming server platform called > Jet-Stream which supports QuickTime, Real and Windows Media streaming > from one single box. Jet-Stream has quickly gained popularity overhere > in the Netherlands because it's easy for multiple users which all can > stream in any supported format from their private single FTP > account. We > provide these hosting facilities ourselves and also sell these systems > to larger clients so they can have all of their students or employees > stream from internal accounts. I anticipate full support for MPEG-4 > because Apple announced native support with DSS4/QTSS 4. > > P.S. I designed a very nice MPEG-4 logo some time ago. How > do I jump on > this licen$ing-owner$hip-wagon? ;-P > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > ******************************************************* > Looking for Production, Encoding, or Hosting services? Try > our RFP Tool! Choose the solution you need, answer the > questions, and your information will be submitted to > participating companies who will assess your media needs and > provide you with an estimate for services. > http://www.streamingmedia.com/rfp/ > ******************************************************* > > --- > You are currently subscribed to mpeg4 as: rkoenen@intertrust.com > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-mpeg4-49467N@community.streamingmedia.com > > --- > Please go to community.streamingmedia.com to manage your > subscriptions on any of the Streaming Media, Inc. discussion lists. > > If you have any other problems please send an email to > mail@streamingmedia.com > From streaming@castelmedia.com Tue Feb 12 17:02:17 2002 Received: from smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl (smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.137]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1CM2HYX023558 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:02:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cc56908-a.groni1.gr.nl.home.com [213.51.144.18]) by smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g1CM26As027835; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:02:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:02:05 +0100 Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480) Cc: "Streaming Media MPEG-4" , , , "QuickTime Streaming" To: "Peter Haighton" From: Stef van der Ziel In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <27050FF5-2004-11D6-879A-0003931D71EE@castelmedia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Oops, my bad. Still, I'm very interested in your opinions about these subjects. Stef P.S. I mentioned the "future announcement of QTSS4/DSS 4" but crossposted with the announcements themselves and am already installing QTSS4 :-) Peter Haighton heeft op dinsdag 12 februari 2002 om 22:50 het volgende geschreven: > Stef, > > Before anyone replies to this email, I should clarify that it is not the > MPEG-4 Industry Forum that has set the patents. The M4IF has nothing > what > so ever in setting patent licensing terms. For more information please > see > http://www.m4if.org/patents/clarify.php, which helps to describe this > relationship. > > Peter > -- > Peter Haighton > VideoSpheres Inc. > 84 Hines Road > Kanata, Ontario > Canada, K2K 3G3 > Tel: (613) 270-9646 x3022 > Fax: (613) 271-9442 > email: peterh@VideoSpheres.com > > See http://www.m4if.org for the latest on MPEG-4 > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Stef van der Ziel > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:29 PM > To: Streaming Media MPEG-4 > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com; > QuickTime Streaming > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 license fees: implementing > > > Hi lists, > > Besides the yes-or-no discussion, I see a few practical problems with > implementing the 2 cents per hour licensing scheme for MPEG-4: > > - I can live with licensing on this basis (sure, it's more expensive > than no fee but it's not a very expensive fee), *BUT ONLY under the > condition that M4if provides me with accurate tracking and billing > software that's easy to implement on any streaming box. You want me to > handle tracking and billing? Give me all the tools I need. Don't make me > pay/invest/develop or work overtime for handling your licensing fees. > This software should not just track and bill for the sum of streams, but > on a per-user basis (since any streaming server can be a shared server > instead of having just one owner!) I need to be able to bill on a per > client / per stream basis because even our clients (mostly AV / TV > companies, events, corporates and universities) use their accounts for > multiple clients. So this system has to be very flexible and be able to > run on W2000, Linux and MacOS X since all major streaming servers which > intend to support MPEG-4 run on these platforms. Is it up to the > developer of this streaming server software (say Apple with > QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server) to implement these tracking and > billing features? IMO, M4if should ask a commercial company to invest > and develop such tools. Let this company become a member of M4if so they > can make a profit out of the fees. > > - How can M4if tell the difference between a regular (quicktime) stream > and a (quicktime) stream with mpeg-4 content? > > - I understood that if the content is made available freely, that no > fees will be charged? Is this true and if yes, how will M4if be able to > tell the difference between paid and free content? > > - Clients don't like post-calculated billing: they want to pay a regular > monthly fee so they can budgetize in front for the whole year. This > implicates that a streaming hosting account (which also includes > services for Real, QuickTime and Windows Media streaming) will be more > expensive even if the client doesn't use MPEG-4 at all. I'm interested > in M4if's opinion here. > > Stef > > FYI: Two years ago, I developed a streaming server platform called > Jet-Stream which supports QuickTime, Real and Windows Media streaming > from one single box. Jet-Stream has quickly gained popularity overhere > in the Netherlands because it's easy for multiple users which all can > stream in any supported format from their private single FTP account. We > provide these hosting facilities ourselves and also sell these systems > to larger clients so they can have all of their students or employees > stream from internal accounts. I anticipate full support for MPEG-4 > because Apple announced native support with DSS4/QTSS 4. > > P.S. I designed a very nice MPEG-4 logo some time ago. How do I jump > on > this licen$ing-owner$hip-wagon? ;-P > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From ripley@imoveinc.com Wed Feb 13 13:42:14 2002 Received: from mailhub.corp.imoveinc.com (mail.imoveinc.com [64.1.196.5]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1DIgDYX012402 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:42:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ripley (w2.imoveinc.com [63.230.167.145]) by mailhub.corp.imoveinc.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 1X7DF4VW; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:42:12 -0800 From: "Dave Ripley" To: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:42:12 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Subject: [M4IF Discuss] no license fees for demo viewers? Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Will there be licensing fees for viewers distributed for free for the purpose of viewing product demos? Since the licensing strategy is to "follow remuneration", and there is no remuneration in distributing a free viewer for viewing demos (i.e. a pre-sale activity), presumably there would be no viewer license fee nor any creation or streaming fee? Dave Ripley iMove, Inc. Portland, OR, US From Vinayagam.M@lntinfotech.com Thu Feb 14 02:04:17 2002 Received: from smtpsvr ([203.199.198.4]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1E74Gn1003453; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:04:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from chennai1.lntinfotech.com ([172.27.1.20]) by smtpsvr (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.5) with ESMTP id 2002021412384898:2842 ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:38:48 +0530 To: Rob Koenen Cc: "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" , "M4IF news (E-mail)" , news-admin@lists.m4if.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: From: Vinayagam.M@lntinfotech.com Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:35:06 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CHENNAI1/LNTINFOTECH(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 02/14/2002 12:35:06 PM, Itemize by SMTP Server on CHENNAIOUT/LNTINFOTECH(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2002 12:38:49 PM, Serialize by Router on CHENNAIOUT/LNTINFOTECH(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/14/2002 12:38:53 PM, Serialize complete at 02/14/2002 12:38:53 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] Release of QuickTime 6 with MPEG-4 Awaits Changes to MPEG-4 Licen se Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, Any one is working on MPEG-4 Main Visual Profile?. I am having lots of issues to discuss on Codec. Regards, Vinayagam.M From LUABEYA@aol.com Thu Feb 14 02:41:17 2002 Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1E7fHn1007438 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from LUABEYA@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 5.186.354251e (2520) for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:41:06 -0500 (EST) From: LUABEYA@aol.com Message-ID: <186.354251e.299cc411@aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:41:05 EST To: discuss@lists.m4if.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 9 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] "USE FEE"! Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: MPEG-4, Content Royalties! Microsoft to win the Browser war, started giving away its Internet Explorer (for free). For MPEG-4 streaming technology to win over other streaming formats needs to be freely distributed to content creators. Please, let's use commonsense in this case so that money is not the barrier to the success of MPEG-4 streaming technology. Best Regards. From GregoryT@convergent.com Thu Feb 14 12:28:35 2002 Received: from visionwerke.com ([209.194.226.211]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g1EHSZn1012310 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:28:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlmail.atl.convergent.com by visionwerke.com via smtpd (for mx3.magma.ca [206.191.0.251]) with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 17:28:35 UT Received: by atlmail.atl.Convergent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:25:37 -0500 Message-ID: <10FFCDF55BF5684A95D5380307F65D6126C195@atlmail.atl.Convergent.com> From: "Gregory, Trey" To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] rampant speculation... Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:25:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: |From my understanding of the license (and this gets fun because we are |all speculating based on a press release - not an actual license!), the |below "security camera" example isn't quite correct. Quite right... When is a license proposal/draft due for release? - Trey ----------------------------- Trey Gregory Dir Product Development Convergent Media Systems mailto:trey@convergent.com ph 404.231.8453 From craig@pcube.com Thu Feb 14 18:11:22 2002 Received: from imf06bis.bellsouth.net (mail006.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.26]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1ENBKn1020442 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:11:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] ([216.78.160.116]) by imf06bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020214231239.EQTY28702.imf06bis.bellsouth.net@[10.0.1.3]> for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:12:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: craig@mail.lw.net Message-Id: Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:11:12 -0500 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Craig Birkmaier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Does anyone have any visibility into the dynamics of the MPEG-LA process which led to the current licensing terms? As long as we are speculating, it seems appropriate to consider the possibility that one or more of the IP rights holders in the visual patent pool may have reason(s) to want MPEG-4 to languish. It would be interesting to better understand how the dynamics work in the MPEG-LA process. I realize that MPEG-LA is a business, not an open public forum, but there is a great deal riding on this, and it might be helpful to better understand the dynamics so as to help expedite a profitable outcome for everyone. So here are a few questions and some rampant speculation. If anyone feels uncomfortable talking about any of this on the list, feel free to send me a private e-mail. As it appears that this saga has now entered the domain where companies are applying pressure in a very public manner, I might be inclined to use some journalistic pressure to help move things along. But good journalism requires facts, not speculation. Is MPEG-LA consensus driven like MPEG, or does any IP holder have veto power? How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? Do any of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 visual offer products that might compete in some way with MPEG-4, or products that will be enhanced by MPEG-4? ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. What are the prospects that 26L could be offered free of royalties, and how would this impact the prospects for MPEG-4 visual? Are there essential patents that overlap between MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and 26L? Feel free to add to the speculation... Naturally Enquiring minds want to know. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen@intertrust.com Thu Feb 14 23:49:22 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com (zeus.intertrust.com [12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1F4nLn1026199 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:49:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1F4h0h28433; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:43:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:48:37 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187A14@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Craig Birkmaier'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:48:28 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Craig, all, I don't see why it is our business to understand how the licensors (not "how MPEGLA") come to their decisions. It is our business to discuss if these decisions work in the market. Yes, ther is a great deal riding on this, but it rides on the terms themselves, not on the process that created them. This is in the same category as discussing which internal processes led Apple to come to its recent decision on MPEG-4 licensing, or which process led to Envivio's MPEG-4 pricing. > How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 > visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? That's easy. Compare http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html and http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html > ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a > new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on > information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties > to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. There exists a common desire by many parties to have MPEG-4 free of royalties, too. Draw your own conclusions. I would like to keep the discussion to understanding if the currently announced scheme works or not. To understand such, I would like to see concrete examples, especially for claims that it doesn't work. E.g., I recently heard someone claim that for a specific example with a short clip + advertisement, the royalty would be 90% of the profit margin. (Checking that one now). That's the kind of calculations I like to see. Best, Rob From jeffh@bisk.com Fri Feb 15 09:50:06 2002 Received: from mail.corp.bisk.com ([208.51.230.71]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1FEncn1000304 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:50:06 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] "USE FEE"! Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:49:31 -0500 Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A09376197@mail.corp.bisk.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] "USE FEE"! Thread-Index: AcG1YqHuBF+fpMESRP+kvyEKkTvw/wAy+/FA From: "Jeff Handy" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g1FEncn1000304 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: It still seems unclear to me. If we send out CDs and DVDs with MPEG-4 media, there is a one time charge per client for that media. So, does that also cover the streaming fees for the same content? Does this mean we can no longer offer hybrid media options to our students? Also, if we pay the streaming use fee for a given client; will we have to pay each time they watch the same media over streaming? This would make little sense since they can view the CDs time and time again. Surely, it's a one-time fee on a per client, per content basis. In other words, if we pay for the streams for a client for a given course, we shouldn't have to also pay for the CD or DVD media etc. So it would work like software. Once the client pays for it, the license for that item belongs to only them with no transfer of ownership. If I can prove to our streaming provider that we have paid through our duplicator; we should not be charged again. That sort of works like sales tax as well; doesn't it? Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist Bisk Education - Technology Development World Headquarters - Tampa, FL 800-874-7877 x360 jeffh@bisk.com http://www.bisk.com Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner From Vladimir.Levantovsky@AgfaMonotype.com Fri Feb 15 11:03:02 2002 Received: from amt_exchange.agfamonotype.com (mail.agfa-type.com [4.21.181.18]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1FG31n1011045 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:03:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by amt_exchange.agfamonotype.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1STFLCCY>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:02:38 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:02:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello all, I believe the conclusion on whether the proposed scheme works or not will depend on making a determination on what the remuneration for the content is. I would like to present different scenarios (as I see them) for discussion: 1. Content is created to be sold "for profit" in multiple copies - DVDs, CDs, etc. Every copy sold will have generated revenue for the content creator and have MPEG royalty as a part of its cost structure - the scheme works fine! 2. A video rental store bought DVDs (and paid royalties as part of the price) and, in turn, generated revenues by renting the content on DVD for viewing - according to the current license, no additional royalties due and the scheme still works fine! 3. A cable company bought the same content and provided it for pay-per-view programming - analog broadcast will resemble the previous video rental (royalty free) business model. However, digital broadcast requires the content to be encoded and then distributed to many viewers - will royalty be due on the duration of the content (the scheme will work, but I don't believe it's the provision of the current license) or royalty will be due on "per viewer" basis - the scheme still may work because of the high profit margin, but it's no longer competitive with analog broadcast and video rentals in term of the cost structure. 4. A cable company broadcasts open channels. It does not resell the content and charges its customers for the service. Applying same logic from the previous scenario, analog broadcast programming is not subject to royalties but digital broadcast is, and royalties will become significant part of the profit margin. The proposed scheme will not work and even becomes a barrier for adoption of the MPEG4 technology in the market. 5. A company (business, educational institution, etc.) created a content for free distribution in multiple copies - DVDs, CDs - at their own expense! No royalties due and the scheme works! They also engaged another company (Web hosting service provider) to host the content for streaming and paid for the services - again, an additional expense for them. According to proposed scheme, the hosting company is now considered to receive remuneration for the distribution of MPEG4 content - a service they provide regardless of what the content is - and is obligated to pay royalties! (which is just an additional expense for content creator) - the scheme doesn't work and it's a show-stopper for MPEG4 adoption. Based on the analysis of these scenarios, it seems to me that a careful consideration should be given to the definition of "remuneration for the MPEG4 content" in order for the proposed royalty structure to work and not to be a burden for those who want to adopt MPEG4 standard. Thank you, Vladimir Levantovsky -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:48 PM To: 'Craig Birkmaier'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Craig, all, I don't see why it is our business to understand how the licensors (not "how MPEGLA") come to their decisions. It is our business to discuss if these decisions work in the market. Yes, ther is a great deal riding on this, but it rides on the terms themselves, not on the process that created them. This is in the same category as discussing which internal processes led Apple to come to its recent decision on MPEG-4 licensing, or which process led to Envivio's MPEG-4 pricing. > How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 > visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? That's easy. Compare http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html and http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html > ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a > new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on > information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties > to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. There exists a common desire by many parties to have MPEG-4 free of royalties, too. Draw your own conclusions. I would like to keep the discussion to understanding if the currently announced scheme works or not. To understand such, I would like to see concrete examples, especially for claims that it doesn't work. E.g., I recently heard someone claim that for a specific example with a short clip + advertisement, the royalty would be 90% of the profit margin. (Checking that one now). That's the kind of calculations I like to see. Best, Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From craig@pcube.com Fri Feb 15 11:35:21 2002 Received: from imf14bis.bellsouth.net (mail114.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.54]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1FGZJn1015073 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([216.78.160.29]) by imf14bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020215163638.JISQ4564.imf14bis.bellsouth.net@[192.168.1.103]>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:36:38 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: craig@mail.lw.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187A14@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187A14@exchange.epr.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:13:07 -0500 To: Rob Koenen , discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Craig Birkmaier Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: At 8:48 PM -0800 2/14/02, Rob Koenen wrote: >Craig, all, > >I don't see why it is our business to understand how the licensors >(not "how MPEGLA") come to their decisions. It is our business to >discuss if these decisions work in the market. I agree in general with this. I would venture to say, however, that the consensus I have seen - both in the discussions on this list and in private responses to the questions I have raised - is that the usaage fees are NOT workable in the marketplace. And some people are even questioning the encoder and decoder fees. The common thread is that it will be difficult for MPEG-4 to compete with royalty free products. >Yes, ther is a great deal riding on this, but it rides on the terms >themselves, not on the process that created them. >This is in the same category as discussing which internal processes >led Apple to come to its recent decision on MPEG-4 licensing, or >which process led to Envivio's MPEG-4 pricing. While I agree that we do not have the right to private information and discussions, I believe that it is important to understand the motivations behind the decisions made by MPEG-LA. It is one thing to seek fair compensation for ones intellectual property. It is quite another issue if rights holders are attempting to seek unrealistic compensation, motivated by the desire to protect other business interests. In fact, in some cases it is illegal. I am not trying to suggest that something illegal is taking place here, just pointing out that there may be motivations OTHER THAN the desire to maximize the royalties collected via a license such as this. If the license terms are being structured to disadvantage MPEG-4, then we have a serious problem, and our feedback may fall upon deaf ears. One must then decide how best to achieve the desired goal of fair and reasonable licensing terms, or determine that nothing can be done, and proceed with market development. > > How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 >> visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? > >That's easy. Compare >http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html >and http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html Thanks. > > ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a > > new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on >> information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties >> to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. > >There exists a common desire by many parties to have MPEG-4 free of >royalties, too. Draw your own conclusions. I am trying to keep an open mind, however, the evidence suggests that we have a problem. > >I would like to keep the discussion to understanding if the currently >announced scheme works or not. To understand such, I would like to see >concrete examples, especially for claims that it doesn't work. E.g., I >recently heard someone claim that for a specific example with a short >clip + advertisement, the royalty would be 90% of the profit margin. >(Checking that one now). That's the kind of calculations I like to see. I agree that it is important to provide a well documented case to MPEG-LA. A case that substantiates that the current licensing terms are either unworkable, or at the very least, will severely disadvantage MPEG-4 in the marketplace. I am not suggesting that M4IF do otherwise. My post was a not too thinly veiled attempt to gather information that may be useful in bringing pressure upon the MPEG-4 licensors, via other avenues, to give the technology a chance in the marketplace. Sadly, I have had too many private responses that confirm my suspicions. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen@intertrust.com Fri Feb 15 12:28:40 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com (zeus.intertrust.com [12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1FHSen1021513 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:28:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1FHMph05012; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:28:28 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187A21@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Dave Ripley'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] no license fees for demo viewers? Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:28:22 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Dave, For decoders: I do not read in the terms that free decoders are exemempt from the 25cts. For content: my interpretation is that there is no immediate remuneration (as someone may decide not to buy after the demo) so there would be no use fee. Needs to be confirmed though. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Ripley [mailto:ripley@imoveinc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:42 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] no license fees for demo viewers? > > > Will there be licensing fees for viewers distributed for free for the > purpose of viewing product demos? Since the licensing strategy is to > "follow remuneration", and there is no remuneration in > distributing a free > viewer for viewing demos (i.e. a pre-sale activity), > presumably there would > be no viewer license fee nor any creation or streaming fee? > > Dave Ripley > iMove, Inc. > Portland, OR, US > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From jgreenhall@divxnetworks.com Fri Feb 15 13:04:13 2002 Received: from trinity.divxnetworks.com (sandiego.divxnetworks.com [207.67.92.110]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g1FI4Cn1028092 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:04:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2987 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2002 17:55:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO returnofthejedi) (192.168.0.108) by 192.168.0.8 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2002 17:55:41 -0000 From: "Jordan Greenhall" To: "'Levantovsky, Vladimir'" , Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:02:41 -0800 Message-ID: <024401c1b64a$f65a6940$6c00a8c0@divxnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Good analysis Vladimir, but don't forget the other variables. There are free alternatives in the marketplace. So its not good enough that the scheme is logically sound, it also has to be effective against free competition. Finally, don't forget the significant friction generated by forcing someone (a customer!) to change their billing / revenue / payment models. If a broadcaster has spent the past 20 years paying one-time fees for broadcast equipment and then been able to use them for free, it will not only take them by surprise to be presented with having to pay to use them for MPEG-4 -- but it will also necessitate significant changes to their internal accounting, billing, auditing, payment and other processes. J -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:03 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Hello all, I believe the conclusion on whether the proposed scheme works or not will depend on making a determination on what the remuneration for the content is. I would like to present different scenarios (as I see them) for discussion: 1. Content is created to be sold "for profit" in multiple copies - DVDs, CDs, etc. Every copy sold will have generated revenue for the content creator and have MPEG royalty as a part of its cost structure - the scheme works fine! 2. A video rental store bought DVDs (and paid royalties as part of the price) and, in turn, generated revenues by renting the content on DVD for viewing - according to the current license, no additional royalties due and the scheme still works fine! 3. A cable company bought the same content and provided it for pay-per-view programming - analog broadcast will resemble the previous video rental (royalty free) business model. However, digital broadcast requires the content to be encoded and then distributed to many viewers - will royalty be due on the duration of the content (the scheme will work, but I don't believe it's the provision of the current license) or royalty will be due on "per viewer" basis - the scheme still may work because of the high profit margin, but it's no longer competitive with analog broadcast and video rentals in term of the cost structure. 4. A cable company broadcasts open channels. It does not resell the content and charges its customers for the service. Applying same logic from the previous scenario, analog broadcast programming is not subject to royalties but digital broadcast is, and royalties will become significant part of the profit margin. The proposed scheme will not work and even becomes a barrier for adoption of the MPEG4 technology in the market. 5. A company (business, educational institution, etc.) created a content for free distribution in multiple copies - DVDs, CDs - at their own expense! No royalties due and the scheme works! They also engaged another company (Web hosting service provider) to host the content for streaming and paid for the services - again, an additional expense for them. According to proposed scheme, the hosting company is now considered to receive remuneration for the distribution of MPEG4 content - a service they provide regardless of what the content is - and is obligated to pay royalties! (which is just an additional expense for content creator) - the scheme doesn't work and it's a show-stopper for MPEG4 adoption. Based on the analysis of these scenarios, it seems to me that a careful consideration should be given to the definition of "remuneration for the MPEG4 content" in order for the proposed royalty structure to work and not to be a burden for those who want to adopt MPEG4 standard. Thank you, Vladimir Levantovsky -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:48 PM To: 'Craig Birkmaier'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation Craig, all, I don't see why it is our business to understand how the licensors (not "how MPEGLA") come to their decisions. It is our business to discuss if these decisions work in the market. Yes, ther is a great deal riding on this, but it rides on the terms themselves, not on the process that created them. This is in the same category as discussing which internal processes led Apple to come to its recent decision on MPEG-4 licensing, or which process led to Envivio's MPEG-4 pricing. > How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 > visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2? That's easy. Compare http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html and http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html > ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a > new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on > information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties > to offer this codec on a royalty free basis. There exists a common desire by many parties to have MPEG-4 free of royalties, too. Draw your own conclusions. I would like to keep the discussion to understanding if the currently announced scheme works or not. To understand such, I would like to see concrete examples, especially for claims that it doesn't work. E.g., I recently heard someone claim that for a specific example with a short clip + advertisement, the royalty would be 90% of the profit margin. (Checking that one now). That's the kind of calculations I like to see. Best, Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From LHorn@mpegla.com Sun Feb 17 15:47:56 2002 Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1HKlun1023921 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:47:56 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] rampant speculation... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:47:55 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [M4IF Discuss] rampant speculation... Thread-Index: AcG1fXAzBeGP985SRlO5QpckVYkA/wCdmwqw From: "Larry Horn" To: "Gregory, Trey" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g1HKlun1023921 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello, Trey. You are correct that at this point all that has been issued is a press release. Details of the actual license agreement are being worked on, and everything is subject to change. I would not expect the actual license agreement to issue until several months from now. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Gregory, Trey [mailto:GregoryT@convergent.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:26 PM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] rampant speculation... |From my understanding of the license (and this gets fun because we are |all speculating based on a press release - not an actual license!), the |below "security camera" example isn't quite correct. Quite right... When is a license proposal/draft due for release? - Trey ----------------------------- Trey Gregory Dir Product Development Convergent Media Systems mailto:trey@convergent.com ph 404.231.8453 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From peterh@videospheres.com Mon Feb 18 21:54:12 2002 Received: from mx1.magmacom.com (mx1.magmacom.com [206.191.0.217]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1J2sCrW016183 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:54:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.magma.ca (mail1.magma.ca [206.191.0.252]) by mx1.magmacom.com (Magma's Mail Server) with ESMTP id g1J2sC3o017447 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:54:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from OREOV2 (ottawa-dial-64-26-165-157.d-ip.magma.ca [64.26.165.157]) by mail1.magma.ca (Magma's Mail Server) with SMTP id g1J2sALN012514 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:54:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Peter Haighton" To: Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:54:14 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Summary of Discussion Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello Everyone, As the creator and moderator of the MPEG-4 Industry Forum email lists, it is time to provide a brief summary of the discussion so far. I hope this will refresh some memories, and inform those who recently joined this list. First some information about this list. The list was developed so that list subscribers could discuss non-technical issues related to MPEG-4. Issues of a technical nature can be discussed on a sister list known as technotes (technotes@lists.m4if.org). To subscribe to any of these public lists plus an additional one, see http://www.m4if.org/publiclistreg.html. This list has an archive of all emails sent to date and you can find the archive at http://lists.m4if.org/pipermail/discuss. The first hot topic on this list has been the MPEG-4 Patent royalty debate. Thoughts on the royalty payment scheme range from "The death of MPEG-4" to "This is acceptable", depending on the differing lines of business. First some history. In December 1999, the MPEG-4 Industry Forum (M4IF - http://www.m4if.org) was created. It's goal "To further the adoption of the MPEG-4 Standard, by establishing MPEG-4 as an accepted and widely used standard among application developers, service providers, content creators and end users." has been instrumental in bringing MPEG-4 to the world. As part of it's work, it has helped the holders of patents related to MPEG-4 to set up patent pools for the different parts of MPEG-4 (Systems, Visual, and Audio). Although the M4IF has helped in organizing the pools, it has not been party to any of the patent royalty discussions, and will not receive any royalties from the patents. The patent pools and the M4IF are separate organizations. Since the December '99 meeting, the patent pools have been established and royalty discussions have taken place. The first patent pool to release a description of the MPEG-4 patent prices is the "Visual Patent Holders Group" for the simple and core visual profiles. It currently has 18 members in the pool and is administered by MPEG LA (http://www.mpegla.com) which also administers some of the MPEG-2 patent pools. The press release was sent out on January 31,2002, and a copy can be found at http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html. The terms in the release are as follows: " · US $0.25 per decoder (in hardware or software) for a license to make and sell and for personal use in receiving private video (i.e., not video for which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed), subject to a cap of $1,000,000 per year/per legal entity. · US $0.25 per encoder (in hardware or software) for a license for personal use only to create private video data (i.e., not video for which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed), subject to a cap of $1,000,000 per year/per legal entity. · US $0.00033/minute or portion (equivalent to US $0.02/hour) based on playback/normal running time for every stream, download or other use of MPEG-4 video data in connection with which a service provider or content owner receives remuneration as a result of offering/providing the video for viewing or having the video viewed (including without limitation pay-per-view, subscription and advertiser/underwriter-supported services). This royalty, to be paid by entities that disseminate the MPEG-4 video data, is not subject to a cap. (In the case of MPEG-4 video for which the number of uses cannot be directly determined (e.g., video supplied as part of a basic cable service or to a transmitter for broadcasting), a surrogate (e.g., standard industry audience measurement) is under consideration.) · US $0.00033/minute or part (equivalent to US $0.02/hour) based on playback/normal running time of MPEG-4 video data encoded (for other than personal use) on each copy of packaged medium. This royalty, to be paid by the packaged medium replicator, is not subject to a cap. · For one year from the start date of the license program, parties that sign the license (or a memorandum of intent to sign a license) will be forgiven their payment of royalties for all MPEG-4 Visual Simple and Core products during and before that one year period. · The initial term of the License has not yet been finalized but when decided, will be subject to renewal on reasonable terms and conditions for the useful life of any patents in the Portfolio. " (extracted from the press release) It should be noted that this is only a press release, and the terms have not fully been drawn up yet. They are subject to change. Comments on the terms: Now that the press release is out, the discussions have begun. As only a press release has been issued and not the actual terms, there are a number of unknowns that need to be worked out, and all discussions have been about the terms in the press release. A brief sampling of comments shows that the encoder royalty of $0.25 is very reasonable, and few have any issues with paying this amount, particularly since it is much lower than current MPEG-2 royalties. The decoder cost of $0.25 is considered good for some, and bad for others. It is felt to be good for companies that use traditional business models such as hardware companies that can easily include the cost inside their device, e.g. cell phone developers. Companies that have typically given away decoders, for example streaming media feel that this is very hurtful to MPEG-4 since internet consumers have grown accustomed to receiving codecs for free. The fee of $0.00033/minute for streaming is considered the most objectionable by most licensees. It is also the least understood royalty. Again, the streaming companies feel that this will kill their business since many do not receive direct payments from the consumer (pay per view) but from advertising. It is also felt that it will be hard to calculate and pay these royalties since many of these companies have never been involved in royalty issues before and do not have the technology necessary. This is one area, it is felt, that will need improving before the licensing takes affect. Although there has been some comments on the $0.00033/minute for packaging of MPEG-4, it has not nearly been as contentious as the streaming. I hope this has provided everyone with a synopsis of the current MPEG-4 licensing schemes, and I hope the next summary will be much shorter. Peter -- Peter Haighton VideoSpheres Inc. 84 Hines Road Kanata, Ontario Canada, K2K 3G3 Tel: (613) 270-9646 x3022 Fax: (613) 271-9442 email: peterh@VideoSpheres.com email: peter.haighton@m4if.org See http://www.m4if.org for the latest on MPEG-4 From craig@pcube.com Wed Feb 20 07:57:34 2002 Received: from imf26bis.bellsouth.net (mail026.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.66]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1KCvYrW000876 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:57:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([216.78.160.34]) by imf26bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020220125853.DUQD7463.imf26bis.bellsouth.net@[192.168.1.103]>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:58:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: craig@pop.lw.net Message-Id: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 06:27:26 -0500 To: OpenDTV Mail List , discuss@lists.m4if.org From: Craig Birkmaier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx3.magma.ca id g1KCvYrW000876 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] News: MPEG-4 GOES AGAINST SPIRIT OF SHARING THAT BUILT THE NET Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: February 20, 2002 12:00am Source: Knight Ridder Business News The Boston Globe: Feb. 18--MPEG-4 GOES AGAINST SPIRIT OF SHARING THAT BUILT THE NET: Nothing's free, not even on the Internet. Everybody pays. Still, that leaves plenty of room for haggling over price. Consider the example of MPEG-4, the latest advance in video compression technology. Ever since the early 1990s, the Motion Picture Experts Group has rolled out a series of MPEG standards for making high-quality compressed copies of TV shows, movies, and music recordings. That favorite of digital music-swappers, MP3, is a sample of the group's handiwork. So is the digital video compression used on DVD players and direct-broadcast satellite dishes. The organization's newest development is MPEG-4. The idea here is a system that can work in everything from high-end digital broadcasting to low-speed Internet streaming. Supposedly, MPEG-4 will display decent quality video even on a wireless palmtop computer. It's just a matter of getting software makers to add the necessary MPEG-4 "codec" software to their video servers and playback programs. Perhaps the most attractive thing about MPEG-4 is that it's an "open standard." That's not the same as "open source" software such as Linux, which is available free of charge. In this case, an open standard merely means that any company willing to pay a royalty fee can build video software based on MPEG-4. That holds out the hope of finally giving the Internet a single digital media standard, instead of the various incompatible codecs created by Apple Computer Inc., Microsoft Corp., and RealNetworks Inc. Someday, just as you can view a Web site with any kind of browser, you may be able to view the same video with any media player. Creators of digital media won't need three different brands of compression software, and Internet providers that stream the videos won't need three different brands of server. MPEG-4 could become a video lingua franca, much like the HTML used to create Web pages. There's no charge for using HTML -- a major reason for its success. But even with royalties, MPEG-4 could be a hit. After all, MP3 software makers pay royalties, too, and their products are used by tens of millions. But the MP3 royalty payment is a one-shot fee. Not so with the proposed MPEG-4 fee. Imagine an Internet provider that sells a streaming video service. Customers come with their MPEG-4 videos and pay to have them pumped over the Web. This company expects to pay for MPEG-4 server software, just as it now pays for the software it uses to distribute RealAudio, Windows Media, or Apple Quick Time files. But MPEG LA, the company that manages the licensing of MPEG-4 technology, wants something more -- a per-minute fee for each data stream leaving the server. The fee works out to 2 cents per hour. That's $2,000 per hour for every 100,000 users, or $20,000 for a million users. The bill for a company like Cambridge-based Akamai Technologies, which runs streaming video servers worldwide, would run into the millions. And that doesn't count the cost of an automated monitoring system to calculate the amount of royalties owed to MPEG LA. To Phil Schiller, Apple Computer's worldwide product marketing honcho, the MPEG-4 royalty plan violates a basic rule of Internet business. People will pay once for a box of software, or once a month for some all-you-can-eat online service. But they hate to pay by the minute, no matter how cheap the rate. "Consumers don't want to buy things that way. Vendors ... don't want to provide it that way," Schiller says. Apple certainly doesn't. So this week, the company announced it was halting a plan to include MPEG-4 support in the next version of its Quick Time software. Until the price comes down, users will be limited to videos compatible with the existing Quick Time format. To resolve the impasse, Apple favors a flat fee applied to the software, with no additional usage fees. RealNetworks says it's also rethinking a plan announced in December to add MPEG-4 support to its products, due to the per-minute license fee. Microsoft, for now, remains above the fray, because the company hasn't committed to using the MPEG-4 standard. Larry Horn, MPEG LA's vice president of licensing, says his organization is open to negotiations. "Nothing has been cast in stone," he says. "You've got to find a balance in the marketplace that works." It's all vaguely depressing. There's nothing wrong with MPEG LA wanting to get paid for its labors. And, yet, think of all the other data protocols that make the Internet work -- TCP/IP, HTML, SMTP, the whole Scrabble set of wonders, all donated to the world without cost. If MPEG LA had gotten hold of these protocols, they'd have been encrusted with royalties and license fees and we'd probably have to pay a dime for every e-mail. In the MPEG-4 saga, we catch a glimpse of the mercenary future, when no good deed of Internet innovation goes unrewarded. From now on, everybody pays. ----- To see more of The Boston Globe, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.boston.com/globe (c) 2002, The Boston Globe. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. << Copyright ©2002 Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News >> From kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com Wed Feb 20 18:27:12 2002 Received: from smtp2.linkline.com (smtp2.linkline.com [192.216.128.17]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1KNRCrW013635 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:27:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from KNG (unknown [64.30.211.137]) by smtp2.linkline.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A9DB7153841 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:27:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <012901c1ba66$3a593580$8901a8c0@KNG> From: "Ken Goldsholl" To: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:27:53 -0800 Organization: Oxygnet, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0126_01C1BA23.2A54B260" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0126_01C1BA23.2A54B260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two = cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on demand = service to become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released = movies must be available on the system, as that kind of service can not = succeed with just a handful of titles. If content that is offered on = free television is also included in a service like subscription video on = demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a service unfeasible, = which would have the ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD. = There could very well be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers = say, five cents per hour. This usage fee then eats up a big portion of = the revenue. When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even = less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent = holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual property. But the same can be = said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is = paid for by the user when they purchase the product. What is so special = about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? There = are no recurring payments to the developers of the technology utilized = in cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other electronic = device. =20 The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread the = proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 = royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down adoption of = that device. An what about the other technology used in these products? = MPEG4 is just a small part of the technology needed for the digital = video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? ------=_NextPart_000_0126_01C1BA23.2A54B260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When viewed in the context of paying $4 = for=20 watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not seem = unreasonable. =20 However, for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more = content=20 than recently released movies must be available on the system, as that = kind of=20 service can not succeed with just a handful of titles.  If content = that is=20 offered on free television is also included in a service like = subscription video=20 on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a service = unfeasible, which=20 would have the ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD.  = There=20 could very well be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, = five cents=20 per hour.  This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the=20 revenue.
 
When viewed in the context of other = technology,=20 this proposal makes even less sense.  Yes, a significant investment = was=20 made by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual = property.  But=20 the same can be said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost = all of=20 which is paid for by the user when they purchase the product.  What = is so=20 special about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue = stream? =20 There are no recurring payments to the developers of the technology = utilized in=20 cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other electronic = device. =20
 
The idea that reducing the upfront cost = of the=20 equipment to spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly = dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will not = slow=20 down adoption of that device.  An what about the other technology = used in=20 these products?  MPEG4 is just a small part of the technology = needed for=20 the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly = usage=20 fees?
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0126_01C1BA23.2A54B260-- From ben@interframemedia.com Wed Feb 20 18:53:51 2002 Received: from 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com [216.99.212.226]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with SMTP id g1KNrmrW016575 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.39] ([216.99.212.228]) by 216-99-212-226.dsl.aracnet.com (AppleMailServer 10.1.0.0) id 46574u via TCP with SMTP; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:49:58 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1331 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:53:43 -0800 Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 From: Ben Waggoner To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <012901c1ba66$3a593580$8901a8c0@KNG> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3097065226_1514236" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3097065226_1514236 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Ken, Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the license fe= e would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we=B9re only talking about $16M/day assuming 200M Americans watc= h four hours of MPEG-4 content a day =AD this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry. I don=B9t see the actual cost of the license fee being a problem, but the administration that it would require. I=B9m looking at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based on the realistic audience for my niche, I=B9d be looking at something under $30/year (1500 user-hours). As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I=B9m confident customer price sensitivity doesn=B9t exist at that point =AD you wouldn=B9t lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidt= h costs and server amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn=B9t make or break a business (especially since your competition would have to pay it too). So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn=B9t the amount, but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very clear to implement. I=B9d hate to spend $900 of my time figuring out how to pay the= m $10. Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous definition of what content isn=B9t revenue producing? Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: > When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two = cents > an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on demand service= to > become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must b= e > available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed with jus= t a > handful of titles. If content that is offered on free television is also > included in a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly = usage > fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple eff= ect > of suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be reruns of ol= d TV > series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour. This usage fee th= en > eats up a big portion of the revenue. > =20 > When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even = less > sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent holders to > develop the MPEG4 intellectual property. But the same can be said for > virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for = by > the user when they purchase the product. What is so special about MPEG4 = that > the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? There are no recurring > payments to the developers of the technology utilized in cars, computers, > audio systems, basically every other electronic device. > =20 > The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread the > proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 ro= yalty > for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down adoption of that devi= ce. > An what about the other technology used in these products? MPEG4 is just= a > small part of the technology needed for the digital video end-to-end solu= tion. > Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? --B_3097065226_1514236 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ken,

    Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per d= ay of the license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of= MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we’re only talking about $16M/day assum= ing 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day – this is = really a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry.<= BR>
    I don’t see the actual cost of the license fe= e being a problem, but the administration that it would require. I’m l= ooking at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based on t= he realistic audience for my niche, I’d be looking at something under = $30/year (1500 user-hours).

    As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content= , I’m confident customer price sensitivity doesn’t exist at that= point – you wouldn’t lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.2= 5 an hour, so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but cer= tainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server amortization would = be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn’t make or bre= ak a business (especially since your competition would have to pay it too).<= BR>
    So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn̵= 7;t the amount, but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can mak= e the terms very clear to implement. I’d hate to spend $900 of my time= figuring out how to pay them $10.

    Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year,= easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous de= finition of what content isn’t revenue producing?

Ben Waggoner
Interframe Media <http://www.interframemedia.com>
Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding



on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote:

When viewed in the con= text of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not se= em unreasonable.  However, for video on demand service to become ubiqui= tous, much more content than recently released movies must be available on t= he system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a handful of ti= tles.  If content that is offered on free television is also included i= n a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can= render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of sup= pressing demand for all VOD.  There could very well be reruns of old TV= series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour.  This usage fee= then eats up a big portion of the revenue.
When viewed in the context of othe= r technology, this proposal makes even less sense.  Yes, a significant = investment was made by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual = property.  But the same can be said for virtually all other kinds of te= chnology, almost all of which is paid for by the user when they purchase the= product.  What is so special about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a p= erpetual revenue stream?  There are no recurring payments to the develo= pers of the technology utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, basically= every other electronic device.  
The idea that reducing the upfront= cost of the equipment to spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should b= e quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box wil= l not slow down adoption of that device.  An what about the other techn= ology used in these products?  MPEG4 is just a small part of the techno= logy needed for the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject = to hourly usage fees?


 --B_3097065226_1514236-- From yuval@envivio.com Wed Feb 20 20:39:36 2002 Received: from fy.com (mail.fy.com [63.77.4.162]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1L1dZrW027933 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:39:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from envivio.com (bur [63.77.4.180]) by fy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12232; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:45:01 -0800 Message-ID: <3C744FC7.433DC1A5@envivio.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:39:19 -0800 From: Yuval Fisher Organization: Envivio. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Waggoner CC: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Ben, > Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the > license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of > MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we’re only talking about $16M/day > assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day – > this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the > entertainment industry. That's $6 Billion a year. You think that's a rounding error ? Does this kind of return seem to be a reasonable factor on the investment made to create the technology ? By the way, I'm not sure your figures are based on anything. The terms for mass distribution of content were not specified in the press release from MPEGLA. Best, Yuval From kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com Thu Feb 21 12:08:11 2002 Received: from smtp1.linkline.com (smtp1.linkline.com [192.216.128.16]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1LH8ArW013839 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:08:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from KNG (unknown [64.30.211.137]) by smtp1.linkline.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4667C36E752 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:08:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001f01c1bafa$71663ac0$8901a8c0@KNG> From: "Ken Goldsholl" To: References: Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:08:54 -0800 Organization: Oxygnet, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01C1BAB7.63247640" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C1BAB7.63247640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4Ben, Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the = consumer for this technology is $120! What other technology embedded in = a low cost consumer electronic product costs that much? In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost = of VOD servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), and = with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs will = also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for free = on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will pay for = this. Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its $7.95 for a = whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value content that the = subscriber watches 75 hours per month of. The MPEG tax could represent = almost 20% of that cost. In the long run, content retailers will have = incentive to switch to alternative formats that do not impose an hourly = fee to use. I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but it = could ned up costing someone alot of money. If a system is all MPEG4 = (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then the = subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is on. If a = viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the license fees could run = almost $15/month. Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is = unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be = greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5. There won't be too = many $25 STBs around. If someone does come up with a low cost product = that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can negotiate a = different deal. Ken ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ben Waggoner=20 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ken, Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the = license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of = MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we're only talking about $16M/day assuming = 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day - this is really = a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry. I don't see the actual cost of the license fee being a problem, = but the administration that it would require. I'm looking at doing some = on-line education for video compression, and based on the realistic = audience for my niche, I'd be looking at something under $30/year (1500 = user-hours). As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I'm confident = customer price sensitivity doesn't exist at that point - you wouldn't = lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would = ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. = Anyway, bandwidth costs and server amortization would be many times = $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn't make or break a business = (especially since your competition would have to pay it too). So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn't the amount, but = the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very = clear to implement. I'd hate to spend $900 of my time figuring out how = to pay them $10. Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to use = accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous definition = of what content isn't revenue producing? Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, = two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on = demand service to become ubiquitous, much more content than recently = released movies must be available on the system, as that kind of service = can not succeed with just a handful of titles. If content that is = offered on free television is also included in a service like = subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such = a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of suppressing = demand for all VOD. There could very well be reruns of old TV series = that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour. This usage fee then = eats up a big portion of the revenue. When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes = even less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent = holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual property. But the same can be = said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is = paid for by the user when they purchase the product. What is so special = about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? There = are no recurring payments to the developers of the technology utilized = in cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other electronic = device. =20 The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread = the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a = $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down = adoption of that device. An what about the other technology used in = these products? MPEG4 is just a small part of the technology needed for = the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly = usage fees? ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C1BAB7.63247640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4
Ben,
 
Even at $30/year, over four years, that = would mean=20 the cost to the consumer for this technology is $120!  What other=20 technology embedded in a low cost consumer electronic product costs that = much?
 
In regards to the five cents per hour = example, in a=20 few years the cost of VOD servers will be next to nothing = (<$20/stream for=20 the server), and with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the = bandwidth=20 costs will also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable = for=20 free on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will pay = for=20 this.  Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its $7.95 = for a=20 whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value content that the=20 subscriber watches 75 hours per month of.  The MPEG tax could = represent=20 almost 20% of that cost.  In the long run, content retailers will = have=20 incentive to switch to alternative formats that do not impose an hourly = fee to=20 use.
 
I actually don't think the billing part = would be=20 that difficult, but it could ned up costing someone alot of money.  = If a=20 system is all MPEG4 (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery = mode),=20 then the subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is=20 on.    If a viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the = license=20 fees could run almost $15/month.
 
Given that a video display is = required for=20 viewing MPEG content, it is unlikely that the cost of any product with a = decoder=20 in it would be greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5.  = There=20 won't be too many $25 STBs around.  If someone does come up with a = low cost=20 product that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can negotiate = a=20 different deal.
 
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ben=20 Waggoner
To: discuss@lists.m4if.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, = 2002 3:53=20 PM
Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] = hourly usage=20 fee for MPEG4

Ken,

    Bear in=20 mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the license fee would = be like=20 $0.08 for someone watching four hours of MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, = we’re=20 only talking about $16M/day assuming 200M Americans watch four hours = of MPEG-4=20 content a day – this is really a rounding error compared to the = size of the=20 entertainment industry.

    I don’t = see the actual=20 cost of the license fee being a problem, but the administration that = it would=20 require. I’m looking at doing some on-line education for video = compression,=20 and based on the realistic audience for my niche, I’d be looking = at something=20 under $30/year (1500 user-hours).

    As = for the=20 $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I’m confident customer = price=20 sensitivity doesn’t exist at that point – you = wouldn’t lose 80% of your=20 audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would ever charge that = little.=20 Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs = and=20 server amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee = really=20 wouldn’t make or break a business (especially since your = competition would=20 have to pay it too).

    So, again, I feel = the=20 problem with the fee isn’t the amount, but the administrative = burden it=20 implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very clear to implement. = I’d hate to=20 spend $900 of my time figuring out how to pay them=20 $10.

    Perhaps waive the fee for anything = under=20 $100/year, easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear = and=20 generous definition of what content isn’t revenue = producing?

Ben=20 Waggoner
Interframe Media = <http://www.interframemedia.com>
Digital=20 Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding



on = 2/20/02=20 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote:
When viewed in the = context of=20 paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not = seem=20 unreasonable.  However, for video on demand service to become=20 ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must be=20 available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed = with just a=20 handful of titles.  If content that is offered on free = television is=20 also included in a service like subscription video on demand, then = the=20 hourly usage fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would = have the=20 ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD.  There could = very well=20 be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents per = hour.=20  This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the=20 revenue.

When viewed in the context of other technology, this = proposal=20 makes even less sense.  Yes, a significant investment was made = by the=20 patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual property.  But = the=20 same can be said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost = all of=20 which is paid for by the user when they purchase the product. =  What is=20 so special about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue = stream?=20  There are no recurring payments to the developers of the = technology=20 utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other = electronic=20 device.  

The idea that reducing the upfront cost = of the=20 equipment to spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be = quickly=20 dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will = not slow=20 down adoption of that device.  An what about the other = technology used=20 in these products?  MPEG4 is just a small part of the = technology needed=20 for the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to = hourly=20 usage fees?


------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C1BAB7.63247640-- From fevzi@tivo.com Thu Feb 21 12:26:46 2002 Received: from yerhan.tivo.com (machine130.tivo.com [63.74.153.130]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1LHQekE016224 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:26:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from tivo.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by yerhan.tivo.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1LHQZO01829; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:26:35 -0800 Message-ID: <3C752DCB.3010005@tivo.com> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:26:35 -0800 From: Fevzi Karavelioglu Organization: Tivo Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011126 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org CC: Ken Goldsholl Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 References: <001f01c1bafa$71663ac0$8901a8c0@KNG> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060004080407020009060709" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --------------060004080407020009060709 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks, I am a new subscriber to this list. I find this discussion very interesting. I must admit I am not as familiar with it. One question came to me while I was reading this thread. What if the user records a movie (or any other video/audio content) but does not watch it, ends up deleting it? This is a very common occurance with PVRs. Another point is that the PVRs are not always integrated with a Set Top Box so if the STB is used to monitor what the user is watching the user would be charged for something their PVR recorded but they ended up erasing it. Regards, Fevzi. Ken Goldsholl wrote: > Ben, > > > > Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the > consumer for this technology is $120! What other technology embedded > in a low cost consumer electronic product costs that much? > > > > In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost > of VOD servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), > and with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs > will also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for > free on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will > pay for this. Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its > $7.95 for a whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value > content that the subscriber watches 75 hours per month of. The MPEG > tax could represent almost 20% of that cost. In the long run, content > retailers will have incentive to switch to alternative formats that do > not impose an hourly fee to use. > > > > I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but > it could ned up costing someone alot of money. If a system is all > MPEG4 (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then > the subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is on. > If a viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the license fees could > run almost $15/month. > > > > Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is > unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be > greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5. There won't be > too many $25 STBs around. If someone does come up with a low cost > product that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can > negotiate a different deal. > > > > Ken > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Ben Waggoner > > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:53 PM > > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 > > > Ken, > > Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the > license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of > MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we're only talking about $16M/day > assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day - > this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the > entertainment industry. > > I don't see the actual cost of the license fee being a > problem, but the administration that it would require. I'm looking > at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based > on the realistic audience for my niche, I'd be looking at > something under $30/year (1500 user-hours). > > As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I'm > confident customer price sensitivity doesn't exist at that point - > you wouldn't lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, > so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but > certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server > amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee > really wouldn't make or break a business (especially since your > competition would have to pay it too). > > So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn't the amount, > but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the > terms very clear to implement. I'd hate to spend $900 of my time > figuring out how to pay them $10. > > Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to > use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous > definition of what content isn't revenue producing? > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > > > on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: > > When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature > film, two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, > for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more > content than recently released movies must be available on the > system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a > handful of titles. If content that is offered on free > television is also included in a service like subscription > video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a > service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of > suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be > reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents > per hour. This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the > revenue. > > When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal > makes even less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made > by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual > property. But the same can be said for virtually all other > kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for by the > user when they purchase the product. What is so special about > MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream? > There are no recurring payments to the developers of the > technology utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, > basically every other electronic device. > > The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to > spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly > dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box > will not slow down adoption of that device. An what about the > other technology used in these products? MPEG4 is just a > small part of the technology needed for the digital video > end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly usage fees? > > > --------------060004080407020009060709 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks, I am a new subscriber to this list.  I find this discussion very interesting.  I must admit I am not as familiar with it.  One question came to me while I was reading this thread.  What if the user records a movie (or any other video/audio content) but does not watch it, ends up deleting it?  This is a very common occurance with PVRs.  Another point is that the PVRs are not always integrated with a Set Top Box so if the STB is used to monitor what the user is watching the user would be charged for something their PVR recorded but they ended up erasing it.

Regards,
Fevzi.

Ken Goldsholl wrote:
Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4
Ben,
 
Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the consumer for this technology is $120!  What other technology embedded in a low cost consumer electronic product costs that much?
 
In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost of VOD servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), and with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs will also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for free on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will pay for this.  Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its $7.95 for a whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value content that the subscriber watches 75 hours per month of.  The MPEG tax could represent almost 20% of that cost.  In the long run, content retailers will have incentive to switch to alternative formats that do not impose an hourly fee to use.
 
I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but it could ned up costing someone alot of money.  If a system is all MPEG4 (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then the subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is on.    If a viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the license fees could run almost $15/month.
 
Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5.  There won't be too many $25 STBs around.  If someone does come up with a low cost product that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can negotiate a different deal.
 
Ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4

Ken,

    Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we’re only talking about $16M/day assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day – this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry.

    I don’t see the actual cost of the license fee being a problem, but the administration that it would require. I’m looking at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based on the realistic audience for my niche, I’d be looking at something under $30/year (1500 user-hours).

    As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I’m confident customer price sensitivity doesn’t exist at that point – you wouldn’t lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn’t make or break a business (especially since your competition would have to pay it too).

    So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn’t the amount, but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very clear to implement. I’d hate to spend $900 of my time figuring out how to pay them $10.

    Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous definition of what content isn’t revenue producing?

Ben Waggoner
Interframe Media <http://www.interframemedia.com>
Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding



on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote:
When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable.  However, for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must be available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a handful of titles.  If content that is offered on free television is also included in a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD.  There could very well be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour.  This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the revenue.

When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even less sense.  Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent holders to develop the MPEG4 intellectual property.  But the same can be said for virtually all other kinds of technology, almost all of which is paid for by the user when they purchase the product.  What is so special about MPEG4 that the creators deserve a perpetual revenue stream?  There are no recurring payments to the developers of the technology utilized in cars, computers, audio systems, basically every other electronic device.  

The idea that reducing the upfront cost of the equipment to spread the proliferation of MPEG4 devices should be quickly dismissed, as a $2.50 royalty for the decoder in a set-top box will not slow down adoption of that device.  An what about the other technology used in these products?  MPEG4 is just a small part of the technology needed for the digital video end-to-end solution. Will they be subject to hourly usage fees?



--------------060004080407020009060709-- From rkoenen@intertrust.com Thu Feb 21 13:14:55 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com (zeus.intertrust.com [12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1LIEskE021522 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1LI96h04322 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:14:38 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B61@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:14:37 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ad supported MPEG-4 Content & use fees Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Discuss list, I tried to find some data that shows how realistic the use fees are in cases where remuneration is indirect, e.g., with advertisement-supported content. The only example I could find so far comes from a JP Morgan Report (Initiating Coverage of Real Networks, JP Morgan, San Fransisco, CA, 18 October 2001, page 15, table 7) The assumption is doing a 5 mintute song supported by a 30 sec. ad at 44 kbps. Let's assume 'song' means 'MPEG-4 clip. The numbers are then as follows: ---------------- begin quote --------------------- File duration (seconds) 330 x Encoding rate (Kbps) 44 = File size (Kb) 14,520 /8 bits (bytes) 1815 Total file delivered (MB) 1.815 Delivery cost/MB ($) 0.01 Cost to deliver one song and one ad ($) 0.01815 Ad revenue/song* ($) 0.02 Gross profit/song $0.002 Gross margin 9.25% Source: JPMorgan estimates. Note: Calculations are rounded. Assumes $20 cost per thousand impressions (CPM). ---------------- end quote ---------------------- So far the report's example. Let's now add the MPEG use fees: MPEG Visual use fees ($) 0.00183 MPEG Audio use fees ($) PM MPEG Systems use fees (4) PM By some coincidence, the use fee is here virtually equal to the gross margin, assuming that MPEG-4 Systems and MPEG-4 Audio come without use fee. (I do not consider this a reasonable assumption by the way. If we assume the Visual use fee is reasonable, we also need to assume that some use fees are equally resonable for access to the licenses needed to use the other parts of MPEG-4.) If the figures in the example are accurate (I'd love to hear comments) then the example shows that MPEG-4 is not an option, and one would need to look at alternative solutions for this business model. Of course the example also shows that ad supported content is difficult to being with, but that is not the issue here - people are doing it, and MPEG-4 should provide them with a reasonable solution. More such examples are very welcome. Best, Rob Koenen From rkoenen@intertrust.com Thu Feb 21 13:21:43 2002 Received: from zeus.epr.com (zeus.intertrust.com [12.107.176.42]) by mx3.magma.ca (Magma's Mail List Server) with ESMTP id g1LILgkE022333 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.epr.com (exchange.epr.com [198.3.162.249]) by zeus.epr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1LIFsh04444; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:15:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.epr.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:21:26 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59187B62@exchange.epr.com> From: Rob Koenen To: "'Ken Goldsholl'" , discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:21:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1BB04.928B4AB0" Sender: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Errors-To: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.m4if.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: M4IF Non-Technical Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1BB04.928B4AB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" While I share the concerns over broadcast and all one-to-many use cases, we need to be a bit cautious here. There have been multiple remarks to the effect that: * the model for broadcast still needs to be worked out * according to current thinking, it would be based on statistical measures not actual usage. So there is no need for logging of actual hours viewed. Also be careful with talking about the 'cost to the consumer' as the consumer. the consumer is not asked to pay use fees. 'The cost per consumer' is more accurate (Yes, of course, in the end it is likely that the consumer pays something anyway.) Rob -----Original Message----- From: Ken Goldsholl [mailto:kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:09 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ben, Even at $30/year, over four years, that would mean the cost to the consumer for this technology is $120! What other technology embedded in a low cost consumer electronic product costs that much? In regards to the five cents per hour example, in a few years the cost of VOD servers will be next to nothing (<$20/stream for the server), and with servers located at the head end or DSLAM, the bandwidth costs will also be free. If 30-year old tv shows and movies are avilable for free on broadcast tv, there will be a limit to how much people will pay for this. Maybe its five cents or ten cents per show, maybe its $7.95 for a whole month of reruns, talk shows, and other low value content that the subscriber watches 75 hours per month of. The MPEG tax could represent almost 20% of that cost. In the long run, content retailers will have incentive to switch to alternative formats that do not impose an hourly fee to use. I actually don't think the billing part would be that difficult, but it could ned up costing someone alot of money. If a system is all MPEG4 (the STB probably would be fixed for one delivery mode), then the subscriber mgmt system just has to log the hours the STB is on. If a viewer keeps their STB on all the time, the license fees could run almost $15/month. Given that a video display is required for viewing MPEG content, it is unlikely that the cost of any product with a decoder in it would be greatly affected by a one-time license fee of $3-5. There won't be too many $25 STBs around. If someone does come up with a low cost product that utilizes MPEG4 (like a cell phone), then they can negotiate a different deal. Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Waggoner To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4 Ken, Bear in mind that the total cost per consumer per day of the license fee would be like $0.08 for someone watching four hours of MPEG-4 TV a day. Nation-wide, we're only talking about $16M/day assuming 200M Americans watch four hours of MPEG-4 content a day - this is really a rounding error compared to the size of the entertainment industry. I don't see the actual cost of the license fee being a problem, but the administration that it would require. I'm looking at doing some on-line education for video compression, and based on the realistic audience for my niche, I'd be looking at something under $30/year (1500 user-hours). As for the $0.05/hour for watching archival content, I'm confident customer price sensitivity doesn't exist at that point - you wouldn't lose 80% of your audience by going to $0.25 an hour, so no one would ever charge that little. Maybe for radio, but certainly not for video. Anyway, bandwidth costs and server amortization would be many times $0.02/hour, so the extra fee really wouldn't make or break a business (especially since your competition would have to pay it too). So, again, I feel the problem with the fee isn't the amount, but the administrative burden it implies. If MPEG-LA can make the terms very clear to implement. I'd hate to spend $900 of my time figuring out how to pay them $10. Perhaps waive the fee for anything under $100/year, easy to use accounting integrated with servers, and a clear and generous definition of what content isn't revenue producing? Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding on 2/20/02 3:27 PM, Ken Goldsholl at kgoldsholl@oxygnet.com wrote: When viewed in the context of paying $4 for watching a feature film, two cents an hour does not seem unreasonable. However, for video on demand service to become ubiquitous, much more content than recently released movies must be available on the system, as that kind of service can not succeed with just a handful of titles. If content that is offered on free television is also included in a service like subscription video on demand, then the hourly usage fee can render such a service unfeasible, which would have the ripple effect of suppressing demand for all VOD. There could very well be reruns of old TV series that may cost viewers say, five cents per hour. This usage fee then eats up a big portion of the revenue. When viewed in the context of other technology, this proposal makes even less sense. Yes, a significant investment was made by the patent holders to