MPEG2 and H264 for non-professional use only?!

[combatentropy]

I do not intend to add to the fear, uncertainty, and doubt about shooting on MPEG-4.

I get it. It's not likely to happen. I think we all here get that.

I guess this is a sore spot with me. I have had many similar run-in's with copyright law for the past 15 years, where I read the fine print, tried to do the right thing, and met a brick wall. If you're a small business owner trying to get clearance for something, they either don't answer you at all or answer with a ridiculous figure (like thousands of dollars for a song in something that you are making hundreds of dollars on).

The MPEG-LA thing is a little clearer than the song-in-video thing. But it still reminds me how messed up it all is (not as messed up as Pakistan, I know, but this is a video making site, remember?).

I guess deep down what I was really longing for was a reform of copyright and patent law, but I'm not going to get that by just complaining on this forum. So, I guess I'll stop ranting.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

H.264 and all other patent encumbered formats are horrid, and their use should always be discouraged unless there is no other viable option. DVDs and Blu-Rays already use patent encumbered formats, so if you want to distribute such discs, you have no choice but to pay the royalties (which as others have pointed out, is often done by the replicator).

But there is no rational reason to support the use of such codecs in other scenarios. When people post videos here for others to use, why not use a Free format such as Theora or Dirac, rather than h.264? For most web video, the technical advantages of h.264 are irrelevant. So why promote a format that only serves the interests of those who own the rights to it, rather than a format that everyone can benefit from legally?

Remember that not everyone has access to free legal codec options. If you're running GNU/Linux, there is NO legal way to play back h.264 without paying someone, because there are no officially licensed decoders available with the OS the way there are with Mac OS or Windows. The closest available are from Fluendo, and those aren't free. Asking me to either pay someone or violate patent law in order to watch your video isn't very nice.

Sure, one can argue that Theora and Dirac could possibly have some patent issues as well that no one yet knows about, but that's true of virtually any software. Why use and promote something that you KNOW is encumbered rather than something that probably isn't?

It is also important to remember that just because MPEG-LA isn't charging or going after end users right now doesn't mean they won't later on. As long as the patents are valid, it's really up to them. Sure, it would be a public relations nightmare, and possibly legally unenforceable, but that won't matter to you one bit once you're out of business due to your lawyer's fees trying to defend against their frivolous lawsuits.

There is plenty of FUD on both sides of this issue, but it seems to me that there is virtually no down side to supporting Free multimedia formats whenever possible.


On a related note: Barry mentioned that DVCPRO-HD was the only "safe" format to shoot in for the truly paranoid. I know no one here is a patent lawyer, but can anyone find any info on if the DV format is patented? I did some pretty extensive searching, and couldn't find anything, making me think that if there were any patents they have since expired. Since DVCPRO-HD is based directly on the DV codec, it stands to reason that perhaps it might emerge as a legitimate Free multimedia format for HD acquisition, editing, and even distribution. Sounds too good to be true, but it would be great if that were truly the case.

 

[hazydave]

And --- it still sounds like if I make and distribute wedding videos on Blu-ray I gotta mail a check to the MAFIAA-LA

Technically, you do. By policy, they're not interested in small fish, yet. When you're making $100,000 or more on that wedding video, they may come a'callin.

The licensing here is really unusual in the greater industry. After all, they're basically talking about patent licensing -- that's their only basis for this being something you have to pay for. And I guess they're using this fairly new "method" patent concept... the same reason that the PTO is granting patents that are little more than <thing we've done for 1,000 year> + <on the internet>.

Normally, a patent has to apply to a real and useful invention of some kind. You can patent a machine, and in the early 80s, the US PTO ruled that the presence of software alone doesn't make a system unpatentable. But "software patents" are still largely applied as patents using software running on hardware.

Now we have MPEG. When you create a video, you have a system of hardware and software doing something useful -- clearly patentable, and thus, the money Panasonic et. al. pay to put an AVCHD encoder on my HMC40. But the thing produced by that... it's a document, not a machine, not a process. I need another machine... my PC, for example, to decode that video and use it some other way. That's also a paid patent license.

But they seem to be claiming ownership in some way of that "document".... the video I shot. That's like Intel or Microsoft claiming royalties on your video, or the radio I'm designing for my day job, just based on using a Windows PC to create it. I don't understand how there is any legal basis for that.

 

[hazydave]

The Patent Jungle

The Patent Jungle

But there is no rational reason to support the use of such codecs in other scenarios. When people post videos here for others to use, why not use a Free format such as Theora or Dirac, rather than h.264? For most web video, the technical advantages of h.264 are irrelevant. So why promote a format that only serves the interests of those who own the rights to it, rather than a format that everyone can benefit from legally?

Actually, there's a big draw for H.264 on the web... small devices. The same reason Apple's pushing so hard (and misdirecting much of the industry) on their "valient battle" against the proprietary Adobe Flash, to be replaced by the open standard HTML5 (with, of course, the open but proprietary H.264 CODEC... that's an essential ingrediant of their efforts). H.264 is accelerated on pretty much every small device: PMPs, PDAs, Smart phones. Other CODECs aren't, in general. Something much simpler, like VP3/Theora might manage to play, but issues of performance, battery life, etc. still remain. And it's a fairly daunting task to update players, since there are so many different video accelerators on these things.

But for a venue like this, sure... we ought to know better. And doing interesting things with open formats will make more people support them, over time.

Sure, one can argue that Theora and Dirac could possibly have some patent issues as well that no one yet knows about, but that's true of virtually any software. Why use and promote something that you KNOW is encumbered rather than something that probably isn't?

I'm still kind of hoping to see Google come riding in on a white horse. They're currently the only major browser supplier openly supporting both H.264 and Theora... and hopefully, generic use of the <VIDEO> tag. Locking in any CODEC in the browser, H.264 or Theora, is part of a polticial posture, but ultimately bad for users. Not simply because users aren't necessarily offered a choice, but because this will ultimately hinder evolution online. What happens when I want to put up a VP8 or Dirac video, in a <VIDEO> tag? The correct answer is that web browsers should just be web browsers, not video decoders. Get the <VIDEO> file, call the OS, and if the OS's media subsystem (they all have 'em) can't decode it, fail the tag. Easy enough, and it ensures that new video types will work, content people can fight it out on the relative merits, without someone like Apple, Microsoft, or even Google dictating their pet solution.

And Google bought On2, and the rumor is that they're planning to open source the new VP8 CODEC at Google I/O later this month. VP8 is supposedly 40-60% more efficient than H.264 on low bitrate video. If they wanted to, Google could bundle the VP8 CODEC with Chrome and start serving up the higher quality stuff on YouTube in VP8. So if you don't have VP8 support, you see lower resolution... which is just dandy for pocket-sized devices anyway... anything much over 800x480 is overkill for a smartphone or PMP. While there's so much remiss out there that the HTML5 committee couldn't agree on a single "primary format" for video (as they'd call it for DVD or Blu-Ray). But unless there's some diversity from major players, and support for diversity in web browsers, it will all go H.264, simply because both Apple and Microsoft are preaching "H.264-only" (even though Safari supports Theora if you install the Quicktime driver, and the current Theora distro claims to hack IE8 to support Theora... not that I really run IE8 or anything).

As for the patents.. sure, but the clock does tick. All of the relevant MPEG-2 patents ought to be gone by 2016 if not earlier. Dirac is not likely to bump into any fundamental MPEG patents, being wavelet based. The basic idea of wavelet video predates MPEG-1, including at least one chip that did the encoding in hardware. It was generally considered too complex for software back in those days, and the DCT stuff caught the big momentum. Sure, there could be other MPEG-LA patents applicable... they cover nearly everything you can imagine. A major flaw of the way the MPEG people do things is that the patent pool idea has every company scambling to get their patents in the pool... same reason Microsoft jumped through hoops to get WMV9 -> VC-1 into the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray specs.

So you have to worry about things like file containers... MP4, MPEG-2 TS, etc. I'm pretty certain MXF is entirely clearly of patents, so there's one. Much of the MP4 container format comes from Apple Quicktime, which was released in 1991, so the patents, if any are left, will be gone next year. Doesn't mean they didn't drop some more in there, but the basic format should be clean. MPEG-2 TS goes back at least to 1996.

It is also important to remember that just because MPEG-LA isn't charging or going after end users right now doesn't mean they won't later on. As long as the patents are valid, it's really up to them.

Yup. They pretty much promise to start coming after web video in 2015... that's was supposed to start about now, but they pushed it back. The basic H.264 patents probably start to expire in 2021 or 2022, so they'll have some years in there. And, naturally, they'll try to get something better out to replace H.264 in time for those patents to start making coin. That could actually backfire, of course, depending on what really does get successful online.

Sure, it would be a public relations nightmare, and possibly legally unenforceable, but that won't matter to you one bit once you're out of business due to your lawyer's fees trying to defend against their frivolous lawsuits.

Yup. Lots of these things work simply by intimidation... you and I don't have the cash to fight it, even if we're opposed to it and don't believe in the legality. This is where you get someone like the EFF to jump in and help. Of course, you have to get sued first.

On a related note: Barry mentioned that DVCPRO-HD was the only "safe" format to shoot in for the truly paranoid. I know no one here is a patent lawyer, but can anyone find any info on if the DV format is patented?

That's a good question. DV was based on JPEG. JPEG was publically finalized in 1992, but was actually in use based on JPEG committee draft specs before that. In 2002 Forgent Networks asserted claims on JPEG based on several patents from 1986. Those were invalidated by prior art, and expired some years ago anyway. The first DV specs were published in 1992, so patents would be gone in 2012. I couldn't find any, anyway, neither could the Library of Congress: http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000183.shtml

 

[Otis Grapsas]

In order for a media to flourish, a patent free production and distribution is required. It's not about cost, it's about freedom.

One day we will only be able to release our new book in a computer format controlled by a corporation, and we will only be able to read it in a portable device controlled by a corporation. And that will be only if the corporation approves the content, because the technology provider will have full control, effectively becoming a publisher. These things are always in the small print. They will simply not release your book if they don't like it and there will be no other publishers around. We will remember the days when a hard copy edition of 400 pages of literature on quality paper cost only $0.40 per unit to produce and was accessible to practically anyone on the planet because distribution cost and profit scaled with salaries and the cost of living in each country. It was 10 euro for a european and 1.5 euro for a chinese. You believe a kid living in some village in china can afford the latest electronic reading devices and the european level electronic book pricing? We are able to print and distribute copies of our book ourselves today if we don't find a publisher. This is freedom of expression in its purest form.

Think about it. Paper and pencil is all that is required to write a book. Then, the typewriter came, it was cheap, did not require upgrades, and once could serve you for decades. Now, we have learned to live with licensing for an operating system, licensing for a word processor. Yes, they don't cost much. But we should try to use the alternatives to anything that becomes a de facto standard and a monopoly, free software in this case. It's not about the money, it's about freedom for the future generations.

Audio can be uncompressed, stored in standard containers supported by many operating systems, practically open and accessible, editable on free software. It should be exactly the same for video. Technology should be accessible. What if all our audio was controlled by a single file format/codec? What if all our bayer video was recorded on a single closed source raw container with licensing and expensive editing cost such as Cineform Raw? Why should we accept this to happen in compressed video? Because the licensing is cheap? We will not be able to edit or distribute without licensing. Isn't that the real problem? Doesn't this affect the freedom of choice, the cost of production, the cost of distribution and artistic freedom?

We don't have to live with the monopolies. We have options. Perhaps we sometimes have to settle for a smaller feature set because our free software is not as developed as the product from the large corporation, but it's worth the time and trouble.

I believe the open source community and the broadcasters funded by the goverment will eventually find a solution to the compressed video codec problem. Those who think that it's not a problem because we are talking about cents, should change their zoom lens with a wide angle prime.

 

[Otis Grapsas]

Btw, both Microsoft and Apple HTML5 are H264 only. They don't even support any codecs they ship with the OS I believe. Internet Explorer and Safari are helping the H264 monopoly.

Statistics from encoding.com:

http://blog.encoding.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Q110_formatTrends_100percent.jpg

According to Steve Jobs, "a patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other open source codecs". Perhaps Theora uses patented methods, but the main reason is that it might compete the H264 monopoly, now that the other enemies of the monopoly are dying. Writing a codec is complex and there are only a few ways to get it right, some of them eventually patented due to actual innovation or inadequate searching by the patent authorities. Any codec challenging H264 will be eliminated. There is no way an open source developer can win against these guys. The only possible patent free codecs at this time and at the present state of the art IMHO are uncompressed or intraframe. Those can hardly compete with H264 in efficiency of course.

 

[VGurcu]

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).

'Edison Trust' article was excellent tx for posting, however you may be overly optimistic about 'what didnt happen a 100 years ago wouldn't happen today' statement.

A hundred years ago there was common sense.

A hundred years ago it would be impossible for FCC(Federal communucation Comission) to hand over the control of the net to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.

No corporation would be given the right to patent a living organism. You would laugh at the (threat of litigation) possibility of a ban on scientific research for patented seeds. Today it is reality.

So 'The Times They Are a-Changin'...' politically & economically(these 2 cannot be separated) anything is possible.

It is not about whether they come after small fish, or covering their asses, it is about control.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

This is an important topic, let's not get it locked by bringing politics into things.

While h.264 clearly has the advantage in terms of corporate backing and promotion, it isn't impossible for a Free format such as Theora or VP8 to win in the end. Remember something doesn't have to actually have the majority in order to matter -- all it has to have is a sufficient market share to jusitify developers and businesses to provide compatibility for it.

Look at Firefox. It still hasn't hit the 51% mark when it comes to overall browser usage, but it is clearly used by a large enough percentage that (almost) everyone takes it into account when developing websites, apps, etc. It wasn't that long ago that ActiveX was widespread, but with Firefox's success it has been marginalized.

The same could easily be true for Theora, Dirac, or most likely VP8 if Google frees it.

 

[Mike Harvey]

Granting a US president the suspension of habeas corpus wouldnt be dreamt of a 100 years ago.

1) Actually, it was suspended during the Civil War (150 years ago), the 1870's against the KKK (135 years ago), and WWII (65 years ago).

2) Let's not make this political. TwistedLincoln is right... this is an interesting topic, let's not get the thread locked.

 

[VGurcu]

This is an important topic, let's not get it locked by bringing politics into things.

Fair enough, I'll edit & delete my post where you think is political -without further comment-.

 

[Otis Grapsas]

Wiki mentions that Theora was mentioned and recommended by HTML5 as the standard video format because it was not affected by known patents. On December 10 2007 the HTML specs was updated and this was changed with a general description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video#Supported_video_formats

Only Safari and Internet Explorer chose not to support Theora. Everything else supports it. These two browsers shape the market because they come preinstalled with the respective operating systems so we can predict the future of Theora.

EDIT: Actually I believe Microsoft and Apple could have problems if this gets to a european court. Based on the current market shares and their power on the browser market, it is easy to prove their decision supports a future monopoly of H264. I believe they can be forced to include support for Theora and other codecs. Microsoft got an 1.6 billion fine on preinstalling their browser. Perhaps this is not as important to them.

 

[robertrogoz]

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.

A theft is a theft is a theft is a theft. Like musicians don't have bills to pay?

 

[combatentropy]

A theft is a theft is a theft is a theft. Like musicians don't have bills to pay?

I do not advocate stealing.
I advocate reasonable fees.

99 cents is a reasonable fee for a song.

If they made it as easy as iTunes to get synchronization rights for songs for independent films (a web form, charging maybe $25-100 per track) the artists would make gazillions from all the little independents who would rather pay that than go by, "Oh, I'm probably too small a fish. Just hope I never make it big!" (crosses fingers)

Likewise for patent-encumbered video codec usage. They either need to:

(A) set up an online form for all producers great and small to fill in a few details about their video (length, audience size or number of copies, etc.), pay a reasonable fee (a few cents or dollars for most independents), put in a credit card number, and download a license code for that work.

-or-

(B) Not charge anything at all ever, and say that.

This way of doing it now, with a disclaimer in the camera manual that says one thing, and a phone call conversation that says another, and having to rely on word of mouth and your best second guess of what they are really going to do, is contemptible.

 

[robertrogoz]

Let's name things like they are: downloading music without paying for it is a theft. So is downloading software. So would be using your material without your consent (regardless if the money is involved or not). So the woman, mentioned by you, downloading songs and not paying for it is nothing more then a thief and should be treated as such.
And how is it OK for a guy to get paid for video recording/editing a wedding and not securing rights to the music?
I don't think you are advocating reasonable fees or even solution- I think you are advocating a complete double standard and hypocrisy.
There is plenty of royalty free music. You can also place an add on craigslist for local musicians to use their music. You can make a contract and pay them agreed sum, thus supporting likewise starving artist. All you have to do is think for a bit out of the box and you can be creative without braking the law.

 

[VGurcu]

A theft is a theft is a theft is a theft. Let's name things like they are: downloading music without paying for it is a theft.

Morally it sounds right, right? But what if you are stealing from thieves who not only steal from you, also from the musicians?

Read the quote below (Courtney Love's revealing dirty secrets of music industry)

Why can't MP3.com pay each artist a fixed amount based on the number of their downloads? Why on earth should MP3.com pay $120 billion to four distribution companies, who in most cases won't have to pay a nickel to the artists whose copyrights they've stolen through their system of organized theft?

Rest is here, very informative:
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html

So at the end of the day money doesnt go to the musicians.
Two wrongs doesn't make a right, but copyright evangelists like yourself -knowingly or not- serving a corrupted system feeding a few parasitical billion dollar recording companies.

So the woman, mentioned by you, downloading songs and not paying for it is nothing more then a thief and should be treated as such.

On a similar moral ground, this woman is no more or less a thief than the systematic theft created by legal means she has been subjected to throughout her life. It is not okay to steal a song, but stealing through .........................................(fill in the blank as you wish as I dont want to sound political) is the accepted moral norm.

All you have to do is think for a bit out of the box and you can be creative without braking the law.

How ironic it is when all you do is to stay in the box and suggesting others to 'think out of the box' Perfect illusion. Also, sorry to break the news, but not a single day passes without a law abiding citizen breaking the law at least a dozen times a day.

 

[robertrogoz]

What you are saying is a pile of garbage imo. Musicians know or should know what the contracts are before hand. So if you don't like it don't sign it. As the matter of fact a lot of them don't and some of them are very successful with self releases and marketing.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

Downloading a song without permission is copyright infringement. That is clearly a civil and often criminal offense, but it is NOT the same as theft.

There's a huge difference between stealing something from someone (and thus depriving them of the use and enjoyment of their goods), and failing to pay royalties or licensing fees.

Even if one believes that copyright infringement IS morally equivalent to stealing (which I don't), no court in the US would ever award 1.72 million dollars in damages to someone who had two CDs stolen out of their backpack (which would amount to 24 songs)...

Returning to the topic at hand, the ability to easily pay royalty fees for distibution in an automated and transparent process would be a great benefit for everyone. I agree that most people would just go ahead and pay the license fees for their wedding videos, short filems, etc if they could do so in a way that wouldn't require two dozen phone calls, a lawyer, and thousands of dollars.

 

[yoclay]

A theft is a theft is a theft is a theft. Like musicians don't have bills to pay?

Theft? Give me a break.

All of this stuff gets priced into record companies projections anyhow. The music companies are not losing money. They are making less exponential growth compared to previous years. But believe me, they are still making a profit. They diversified a long time ago based on these projections.

These music companies claim they are doing it for the musicians. What a pile of crap. The musicians get a pittance, the same pittance they have been getting for many years. Frequently less than 3%. That kind of theft hasn't changed.

The only problem the record companies have, is that they haven't figured out how to harness this new digital format in a completely monopolistic manner, which is how they earned most of their revenue in the past anyhow. By re-releasing the same old catalogs in new formats.

And while we are at it, why don't we speak about DVD zones? This is completely illegal. Why can't I play a film I purchased legally and commercially in the US on my European computer, or in Asia. Why should I have to chose which Zone I must be locked into after only a few viewings of foreign and US films? Do I have to buy the same film in Europe and have two copies just to watch it on different continents? Apple and all the computer makers have been supporting this in conjunction with the studios. FOR NO KNOWN REASON OTHER THAN TO MAKE MORE PROFIT. The US has legal conventions against this. Has the justice department done anything about this?

No.

As far as I am concerned when it comes to downloading, these companies get what they deserve.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

While I find the concept insane, I don't think that DVD region coding is illegal, at least not in the US. While anti-trust laws would probably make such region coding illegal domestically (like restricting a DVD to only play in the midwest, for example), I doubt the Justice Department here would have any jurisdiction over how films are sold overseas, even if they are made by US companies. And locking out players here to keep overseas movies from playing would likely be seen as protecting US interests by keeping movie sales domestic, and would probably be looked at in the same light as tariffs, etc.

I do find it interesting that there has been such little resistance to the absurd amounts of DRM that comes with the Blu-Ray format. The fact that independent filmmakers would have to pay a hefty fee for the mandatory AACS DRM in order to publish on Blu-Ray is nuts. If a filmmaker wants to sell the content that they made without the evil restrictions of DRM, they aught to be able to.

 

[yoclay]

While I find the concept insane, I don't think that DVD region coding is illegal, at least not in the US. While anti-trust laws would probably make such region coding illegal domestically (like restricting a DVD to only play in the midwest, for example), I doubt the Justice Department here would have any jurisdiction over how films are sold overseas, even if they are made by US companies. And locking out players here to keep overseas movies from playing would likely be seen as protecting US interests by keeping movie sales domestic, and would probably be looked at in the same light as tariffs, etc.

I do find it interesting that there has been such little resistance to the absurd amounts of DRM that comes with the Blu-Ray format. The fact that independent filmmakers would have to pay a hefty fee for the mandatory AACS DRM in order to publish on Blu-Ray is nuts. If a filmmaker wants to sell the content that they made without the evil restrictions of DRM, they aught to be able to.

Region Coding violates the WIPO international copyright treaty and has already been officially nullified in Hong Kong and Australia. The US signed on. They just have conveniently forgotten to enforce it in their own country.

Interesting that enforcing copyright law is an issue for US media companies when it is in their favor such as against downloading of films, but which they conveniently overlook in the instance of regional coding for those very same films.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.