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-Aut