MPEG2 and H264 for non-professional use only?!

There are rights that are considered "natural": life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.

If you take my watch, I have no watch.
If you take my life, I . . . am "bereft of life. I'm pushing up daisies! My metabolic processes are now history! I've kicked the bucket, I've shuffled off this mortal coil . . ."
And so forth.

If you take a copy of my song, I . . . still have my song. The reason you are not supposed to do that is because of Copyright, which, when it was set up in 1709, several thousand years into human civilization, well after centuries of music and literature, was admitted by its makers as an artificial law. That is, man-made. We made it up! Out of convenience, for a "greater good." It doesn't really exist! Except in our heads. Like the corporations. They exist simply because we say they exist, again, for the sake of convenience or some other greater good.

Now, I am not (yet) preaching the abolishment of copyright or corporations. All I am saying is that their rights are limited, or should be.

Do you know it is technically illegal to record a couple dancing their First Dance to a copyrighted song and sell it to them (In fact, even if you don't sell it to anybody but were doing it for free)? Even though it was just playing while you were there and was just recorded through your camera's microphone, you technically need both copyright permission and something called synchronization rights. Two different rights that might be owned by two different, probably large, corporations, who will not return your letter or phone call. But who have every right to take you to court if they catch you.*

* Again, not that they are looking to catch these "small fish." Not trying to make everyone panic.
** Yes, I know about Fair Use, but it is vaguely defined.
 
Last edited:
What you are saying is a pile of garbage imo.
Click to expand...
Your opinion doesnt bother me as long as you stop shedding crocodile tears for starving musician's rights. As the 'garbage' article points out musicians are starvin because of the recording industry's own greed; not because some woman who has been reduced to a common criminal by a cartel for downloading a song. In most of the civilized world downloading and sharing free music for personal use is not even considered a copyright infringement.

Returning to the topic; I dont know if it is posted before but here is an article by MPEG-LA clearly answering questions regarding licence fees for commercial use, quote:
"Yes, if you're a pro and you somehow find yourself selling H.264 videos directly to end users you'll have to sign a license and potentially pay up,...."
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/

So it is clear; whether they're after $5m/year distribution rights or a few hundred dollars from an indie filmmaker trying to sell few DVDs, they re after money and there is a great chance that they'll enforce it after 2015.
Since end users are not subjected to any sort of fees, I am afraid there wont be a huge backlash from relatively small content creators.

EDIT:Sorry for the double post, just realized the engadget link above is already posted & beaten to death on the 2nd page. However, BARRY how on eart did you come to the conclusion 'End of the discussion, you dont pay' ?So you guys just shoot, produce and never DELIVER? What if you want to DISTRIBUTE your indie-film online? Or, selling hard copies on DVD? Instructional DVDs? You have to pay,(whether it is a small amount or not another matter) or worse they can come after you for not submitting payment.
 
Last edited:
The problem with that 24 song case is the woman got a heavier penalty than she deserved, just because the companies thought that would serve their purposes. She got punished for a lot more than she did. It's scary that someone can achieve that. Imagine that there was a strike in a factory that lead to a couple of damaged windows. If you send someone to prison for 10 years for that, it's not justice or prevention. The punishment does not fit the crime. It's a demonstration of power, which is basically terrorism. Although those who write laws limit the sentences according to the crime in order to prevent that, fines are not limited, so they can still be used for this purpose.
 
Otis,
Since you like to know, here is an article explaining it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing#cite_note-32

Trick RIAA is using is called 'Statutory Damage'. It can skyrocket the damage claim to $150.000 per item:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement

Here is what '24 song' woman (Jammie Thomas, mother of 4 native American) should have paid: $16.8 total.

In November, 2006, a Judge in a Brooklyn Federal Court upheld the legal theory behind a defense claiming that the RIAA's damages theory — which calls for aggregating statutory damages of $750 per song in its lawsuits — is unconstitutional, since the record companies' actual damages are less than $0.70 per song.[50][51] This lawsuit, UMG v. Lindor, has since been dropped.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, not suprisingly(from the same article above):
In February 2008 it was alleged by a group of artist managers & lawyers that the RIAA has been withholding settlements from artists for several years. The RIAA gained the money through lawsuits claiming to defend the rights of artists, although none of the artists whose music was 'illegally' downloaded reportedly received any of the settlement money.[42]
Click to expand...

So it is sad indeed; a mockery of justice & reason.
 
VGurcu said:
Otis,
Since you like to know, here is an article explaining it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing#cite_note-32

Trick RIAA is using is called 'Statutory Damage'. It can skyrocket the damage claim to $150.000 per item:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement

Here is what '24 song' woman (Jammie Thomas, mother of 4 native American) should have paid: $16.8 total.

"In November, 2006, a Judge in a Brooklyn Federal Court upheld the legal theory behind a defense claiming that the RIAA's damages theory — which calls for aggregating statutory damages of $750 per song in its lawsuits — is unconstitutional, since the record companies' actual damages are less than $0.70 per song.[50][51] This lawsuit, UMG v. Lindor, has since been dropped. Funny thing is, not suprisingly(from the same article above)"

Funny thing is, not suprisingly(from the same article above):


"In February 2008 it was alleged by a group of artist managers & lawyers that the RIAA has been withholding settlements from artists for several years. The RIAA gained the money through lawsuits claiming to defend the rights of artists, although none of the artists whose music was 'illegally' downloaded reportedly received any of the settlement money."



So it is sad indeed; a mockery of justice & reason.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this info. It illustrates exactly what you might expect from a multi-national. Too bad she can't sue THEM for damages. But she probably has had enough stress for a lifetime. Disgusting.
 
i cant read all pages in this thread ,but otis your on the ball man.
if a big studio or enemy of anykind wants your production shut down there is a law that forbids comercial rights? like a dj that plays records at clubs ,there is no right to play music for $,
but theres always dancing!!???
look out for club lawless !!? crazy????
mike d.
oakland
 
I can see the future in video. It's all about control.

The copy protection and digital rights management will be enforced on all players and all distribution channels. Without it you will not be able to produce or play video. We are already paying 1850 euro one off and 400 euro every year in order to release a compatible bluray today. The cost of producing a 1000 unit run dvd5 is 500 euro and a BD25 run is 4500 euro + 400 euro /year.This automatically limits many non profit productions and many indie producers in using the new technology.

Barber shops are asked to pay money every single month, just because the have a radio. They are not asked what they listen to on the radio. They are paying only because they COULD listen to commercial music while 2 or 3 people are around to hear it.

In a similar fashion you will have to quit producing your software or hardware player because it COULD be used to play pirated material if it does not support DRM. Software and hardware players that play unprotected material will be persecuted and asked to pay large fines or modify their software to include rights management. They will be denied licensing to the monopoly codecs if they don't do that. A barrier to entry is introduced to independent software and hardware producers that refuse to play the restriction game.

In extension to this logic, you will not be able to use P2P software to release the product of your work. P2P COULD be used for distributing pirated material. There goes a simple effective distribution channel for the little guy that does not want to play the restriction game.

What is next? Guitars that come with a licensing cost because we could cover commercial music with them? What about whistling a Beatles song in public? We could fine newborn babies because the COULD violate the low to great extend when they grow up. Guitars with song recognition chips that would cut off if we start playing something commercial without using their commercial use charging/scanner device? Think about that, you will only be allowed to play if are really bad at it:) Or they could ban any playback device that is not limited to a single headphone output. Anything with speakers could be illegal one day:)

The goverments should work together and try to do something about the GREED and the CONTROL. It's about art and distribution of ideas. Monopolies and anything that limits access to new forms of art in production or distribution should be confronted, regulated and hopefully eliminated. No corporation is above art and culture, the very essence of human progression.
 
I believe most of these corportations know their line is untenable. They have for the most part already diversified. Most of their investment (and therefore their profit) has always been in managing the distribution chains, not in the development of their artists. However they are losing control of these distribution chains as technology moves forward, and they know it, so they keep looking for other sources of revenue. They are even moving into venues now. This is why the price of tickets has risen so much. The future for the music industry is in touring and micro-payments. Most of these legal pursuits are simply delaying actions from their rear guard.
 
Last edited:
On the original subject of codecs...total bullsh!t. If I go to the paint store and buy some paint, go home and paint a picture and somehow manage to sell my pathetic daubs, then I have to turn around and cut the manufacturer of the paint in on the sale? Seriously. Bullsh!t. No matter the terms.
 
And that has absolutely nothing to do with what the codec licensing is talking about.

The codec licensing would come in if you sold the paint itself, not a painting you made with the paint. The codec licensing is talking about distributing footage in the h.264 format.

In your example you bought paint and used it to create something totally different. If you did that with the camcorder you would have no problem either. Shoot your footage, create your masterpiece, and distribute in Ogg Theora, no problem. Shoot your footage, create your masterpiece, and deliver in h.264, and ... yeah, you MAY have to get a license from MPEG-LA for that.
 
Barry_Green said:
And that has absolutely nothing to do with what the codec licensing is talking about.

The codec licensing would come in if you sold the paint itself, not a painting you made with the paint. The codec licensing is talking about distributing footage in the h.264 format.

In your example you bought paint and used it to create something totally different. If you did that with the camcorder you would have no problem either. Shoot your footage, create your masterpiece, and distribute in Ogg Theora, no problem. Shoot your footage, create your masterpiece, and deliver in h.264, and ... yeah, you MAY have to get a license from MPEG-LA for that.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, they allow us to sell/distribute a photo of the painting free of charge, but not the painting itself. And we are free to exhibit a photo of the painting but not the painting itself.

My creation uses the codec like media, just like paint, it's a solid analogy. I should be able to sell/distribute it as it comes out of the camera without limitations.

It's when media is also a patented technology that problems appear. It's a good reason to not use any paint of this type IMHO. It's paint that requires licensing. A de facto standard for an entire art/business sector is a huge problem.
 
Well, we're getting caught up in semantics here, but Justin said "buy the paint and then make a painting" (i.e., turn the paint into something other than what it was) and if that's the analogy, then it is akin to shooting the footage and turning the fotoage into something else (i.e., a finished product). If that's the case, the analogy holds, and there is no royalty due.

Patents on distribution codecs are indeed disturbing, and the simple fact of the matter is that it won't stand. MPEG-LA has already acknowledged that it doesn't care about the small distributor, they are concerned with collecting royalties from the major publishers on blu-ray and DVD sales, and as things move to internet distribution they'll want their royalties there too. And it can all be avoided by using a royalty-free distribution codec.
 
a good lawyer could argue that if you painted with that paint, you still need to pay for the picture of the painting. Because without that paint , you wouldn't be able to create the artwork. And if you choosed precisely that paint and not another one (free) it is because you found in that paint something great (performance ? availability ? ease of use ?) that was not available elsewhere.
So if no shop is selling other paint than this paint, they could easily enforce a tax on all artwork and pictures of artwork,
arguing that they don't need to proof you used their paint to make your picture, since it more than probable you used it, and leave the charge to you to proove you made that artwork without using their paint.
first step of such strategy is giving for free the paint, so everybody is using it, and even forget about developping another paint. (html5 is so great !.. it support only H264 ? that's great ! at least we will be all compatible)
 
Last edited:
This is getting awfully esoteric. Why not just read the Engadget article? There is no royalty due for anyone using any camera at all. None. Zero.

And if you don't distribute in h.264 or MPEG-2, there's no royalty due to anyone anywhere whatsoever. Zero.

And if you DO distribute in h.264 or MPEG-2, you *may* be expected to pay a royalty. But in reality, it's a nonissue. Millions and millions and millions of small producer DVDs have been sold in the last 15 years, without anybody paying a penny in royalties to anyone. And small producers can't afford to author and distribute on blu-ray. And even if they did, MPEG-LA doesn't care and isn't going to demand royalties from you.

And if you're a major distributor? Yes, you're going to pay royalties.
 
They earn their royalties when they sell playbacksystem. I think the license fee for VC1 and AVCHD in Bluray cost $0.1 each for every player sold. The same goes for software players. And of course they make money on their encoders.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, we're getting caught up in semantics here, but Justin said "buy the paint and then make a painting" (i.e., turn the paint into something other than what it was) and if that's the analogy, then it is akin to shooting the footage and turning the fotoage into something else (i.e., a finished product). If that's the case, the analogy holds, and there is no royalty due.

Patents on distribution codecs are indeed disturbing, and the simple fact of the matter is that it won't stand. MPEG-LA has already acknowledged that it doesn't care about the small distributor, they are concerned with collecting royalties from the major publishers on blu-ray and DVD sales, and as things move to internet distribution they'll want their royalties there too. And it can all be avoided by using a royalty-free distribution codec.
Click to expand...


So I have to cut the product to be able to sell it legally? How much cutting do I have to do? Can I just slap some titles on and call it good enough? The analogy corresponds straight from footage to painting--I created my product as soon as I hit the record button. I do cut my own projects, but what if I happen to be just shooting and handing the footage to the client to cut themselves? What if I'm selling stock footage?

I read a couple of articles and I don't remember if it was the Engadget one that said this, but you're basically beholden to them as soon as you hit record, if you're shooting their codec. An open-source codec on your end game might CYA for a while, a long while even, but who cares? It's damn principle of the thing, you know? The addendum to that article was that Theora actually infringes on the h.264 patent anyway. H.264 is royalty free (except for the big guys) until 2016. What happens then?
 
Looks like we might be in luck long term anyway -- Google released VP8 yesterday as Free Software. They claim it is not patent encumbered (they claim to own all the relevant patents since buying its creator ON2, and have given nearly unconditional patent licenses for them). Of course only time will tell if this is true, but if it is, h.264 might have some serious competition.

Initial testing seems to indicate the current (unpolished) VP8 isn't quite as good a h.264 (I've read it's more on par with XViD), it really doesn't matter. As long as its in the same ballpark it will still be great news.

More info: http://www.webmproject.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top