MPEG2 and H264 for non-professional use only?!

AdrianF said:
But how will that affect online distribution and the licenses that are theoretically payable here? Would the distributor still be liable for these payments in this case?

Exactly, world domination, insert Dr Evil laughter.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. They only care after a certain volume of subscribers (and viewings?). But now, they need us to expand the use of the codec in the new media. Then, we will need them and it will be a monopoly. What do you do when you own a de facto standard that is a monopoly?
 
Barry_Green said:
You change your name from "Apple Computer Inc" to "Apple, Inc." :P
Click to expand...

"Apple Computer" would sound funny when they announce they will stop producing computers:) I wonder why they bother with that stuff when they make more money with lower support cost on consumer devices.
 
You change your name from "Apple Computer Inc" to "Apple, Inc." :P
Click to expand...

Which will be nice, because then Apple will be able to sell records again:Drogar-BlackEye(DBG. If only I was clever enough to be a lawyer!
 
doorsharmony said:
I guess we should just wait and see what happens when big time filmmakers like Lucas try to make their films with DSLRs. What's more once the Scarlet comes out (when ever that might be... :P) we indies will be able to dodge that bullet completely with .R3D but still what do we export to??

Looks like the viewers are still vulnerable to a world of hurt though... poopy

good article!
Click to expand...

MYTH ALERT!!!!! Lucas is NOT shooting a feature on a DSLR. He hired Phil Bloom to do ONE SHOT that REQUIRED a very small form factor (inside airplane cockpit), as an EXPERIMENT. The result of the experiment will be either

1 - They throw out the shot
2 - They use DSLRs only for that kind of situation, until Red Epic ships. That kind of situation being ONLY when other, much higher quality cameras (of which there are many) CANNOT be used, and ONLY for shots lasting a few seconds or less.

If you think Lucas finds less than 720p res, no gradeability, moire, aliasing etc. etc. good enough for a whole feature you really need a reality check.
 
Hey Demistate, THANK YOU for posting that Engadget article. That really should be the final word in this overblown situation.

For those who want to skip the whole big article and get right to the point, here's the pertinent line:
First off, we've directly asked MPEG-LA whether or not using an H.264 camera simply to shoot video for a commercial purpose requires a license, and the answer is no.
Click to expand...

Done. End of thread. There is no liability to you, the content creator, for using an h.264 camera. If you want to distribute footage in the h.264 format, you may need a license from MPEG-LA. But this stuff about using a camcorder involving a licensing issue -- nonsense. Even MPEG-LA says so.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
MYTH ALERT!!!!! Lucas is NOT shooting a feature on a DSLR. He hired Phil Bloom to do ONE SHOT that REQUIRED a very small form factor (inside airplane cockpit), as an EXPERIMENT. The result of the experiment will be either

1 - They throw out the shot
2 - They use DSLRs only for that kind of situation, until Red Epic ships. That kind of situation being ONLY when other, much higher quality cameras (of which there are many) CANNOT be used, and ONLY for shots lasting a few seconds or less.

If you think Lucas finds less than 720p res, no gradeability, moire, aliasing etc. etc. good enough for a whole feature you really need a reality check.
Click to expand...

Not according to long time Lucas film producer Rick McCallum, who def says it was used for REDHAWKS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4xqrXcuTU0&feature=player_embedded

And it's pretty amazing that a man who could afford 70 mm film chooses to use any DSLR for any shot. Period.

john
 
Barry_Green said:
Read the Engadget article.
Click to expand...

I did.

I think they agree with me:

"it's obvious the MPEG-LA and its licensees should be clearer with customers about what's up with commercial licensing and who needs to pay for what. That hidden personal use fine print feels really sneaky, and pro users need to get some clarity on what's required of them -- you don't mess around with people's livelihoods in the fine print, you know? A clarification from the MPEG-LA and some bigger notices at the front of the manuals are needed in short order."

Am I afraid of getting sued? No, but it is not impossible.

Am I angry that the fine print, when read at face value, leads to this long discussion, wasting time and energy? Yes.
 
Barry_Green said:
That link was someone illegally downloading music.
Click to expand...

And the verdict was 1.72 million dollars for 24 songs.

My point was not that it is EXACTLY the same situation. My point is that you cannot trust corporations or even the judge to do what is fair.

1.72 million dollars?

For 24 songs?

Scratch that.

--- to do what is not ridiculously unfair.
 
combatentropy said:
And --- it still sounds like if I make and distribute wedding videos on Blu-ray I gotta mail a check to the MAFIAA-LA
Click to expand...

"AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

Man-Head-Exploding-information-over.jpg


PLEASE!!!!

"We gottcha now, scum bag filmmaker!"

police-raid-gay-bar.jpg


"When they kick in your front door how you gonna come? With you hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?"- Paul Simonon.

Ain't gonna happen. Don't cha read da papers? There is a lot of sh*t going on in this world we need to worry about, and since this forum has a no politics policy, I ain't gonna list them. However, worrying about the "Codec Cops" kicking in your door ain't one of them.

Of course, this just might be the thing that puts "Guerra" back into Guerrilla Filmmaking!
 
combatentropy said:
No, to tie all this up, why is it in the user's manuals to begin with?
Click to expand...
It's in the users manual so the camera companies can cover their collective butts. If MPEG-LA comes to them and says, "hey, you're letting people make money using our codec," they can say, "whoa, wait a minute. We told them they couldn't. We told them they could only use it for personal use." As unlikely as that is of happening. I'm not worried ONE BIT about this.
 
Is it likely to happen? No. Does it happen? Sometimes.

Woman gets sued for 1.72 million for 24 songs.
Man gets sued for putting copyrighted songs in his wedding video.
Record company charges fire department $64,000 for a couple of classical music tracks in a "memories" video they were giving away for free to their firefighters.

The so called "intellectual property" laws in this country are skewed.
 
Last edited:
This thread is pretty funny. Check into the history of filmmaking and you will see that Hollywood became the world wide center for filmmaking not only because of its great weather but because it was far enough away from east cost control of motion picture technology patients, established by the Edison Company, that independent filmmakers could thrive. This control over the filmmaking industry cumulated in the end of the Edison Trust, by a Supreme Court decision in 1915. I find it hard to think that MPEG-LA will try to pull off something that did not work for Thomas Alva Edison almost a hundred years ago (the suppression of the creative use and commercial exploitation of available technology).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company
 
combatentropy said:
Is it likely to happen? No. Does it happen? Sometimes.

Woman gets sued for 1.72 million for 24 songs.
Man gets sued for putting copyrighted songs in his wedding video.
Record company charges fire department $64,000 for a couple of classical music tracks in a "memories" video they were giving away for free to their firefighters.

The so called "intellectual property" laws in this country are skewed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in those examples, no one was sued for using the MP3 codec. They were sued for using the creative products of other content producers.

Apples and Oranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top