Possible Patent Infringement

[Crafters of Light]

Did a quick search on this here and didn't see anything common so I apologize if this is a redundant topic.

On another forum this question came up and there seems to be no complete answer.

It started with EULA statement of;
ANY USE OF THIS PRODUCT OTHER THAN CONSUMER PERSONAL USE IN ANY MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH THE MPEG-2 STANDARD FOR ENCODING VIDEO INFORMATION FOR PACKAGED MEDIA IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT A LICENSE UNDER APPLICABLE PATENTS IN THE MPEG-2 PATENT PORTFOLIO, WHICH LICENSE IS AVAILABLE FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C., 250 STEELE STREET, SUITE 300, DENVER, COLORADO 80206

So I googled that text and found it is attached to EULAs for all sorts of hardware and software including the common editing programs used here. There are similar worded for MPEG-4 and H.264/AVC formats as well.

I visited the MPEG LA website ( www.mpegla.com ) and they were just as cryptic (legal-eeze is always written in such baffling terms). But reading their "In the News" section, a couple of DVD manufacturers have been approached for infringements. Although most of the judgments appear to be against those selling products using hardware, it is very hard to tell if this applies only to the material used to create (hardware, software, media) or if it covers the created product as well.

I guess the $64000 question is, "What impact does this have on what we create and sell?"

 

[Anhar_Miah]

I would'nt worry too much, so long as you have encoded your video using legal software, you should be fine.

Anyway Patents are whole can of worms, with more legal loopholes than a rusty bucket. Eg The EU allows Reverse Engineering (for interoperability) and does not enforce software patents (so much of the MPEG2 Patents is pretty much worthless) take the example of FFmpeg as used in VLC (Video Lan Player)

technically speaking it would illegal to use it in the US!

Anhar

 

[ugafan]

i'm no lawyer, but it's my basic understanding that the companies have licensing agreements to use various formats.

lets say i use sony vegas. sony would have a license for mpeg-2. when i buy vegas they grant me a license to use their product. i'm allowed to use the mpeg-2 format because sony has a license for that format.

if you are using some independent free editing software, they may not have the license to use the mpeg-2 standard. therefore you wouldn't be able to distribute for profit because no one has the license to use it.

i'm not certain it works that way, but that was kind of the gist i got...

 

[TwistedLincoln]

In the United States (which DOES recognize software patents), this is a big issue.

If you read the EULAs of almost all major video editing suites (including Sony Vegas), you'll see that you are being granted a patent license only to use the included codecs for limited uses.

According to MPEG-LA, any commercial use of any of their patented codecs requires a sub-license and royalty payments.

In order to legally sell DVDs in the US, for example, you must pay a royalty to MPEG-LA of approx 3cents per disc (depending on which path you choose -- see http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-agreement.cfm)

FFMpeg & VLC are, as Anhar suggested, illegal to use in the United States if you don't have a patent licesne for the relevant codecs. Of course you could simply get those licenses, and *then* use FFMpeg.

I'm not a laywer either, but I have done a great deal of research on this, and to my knowledge, no prosumer video editing or DVD authoring software comes with the patent licenses needed to produce and distribute your video using patent-encumbered formats for commercial purposes.

 

[ullanta]

I'm not a laywer either, but I have done a great deal of research on this, and to my knowledge, no prosumer video editing or DVD authoring software comes with the patent licenses needed to produce and distribute your video using patent-encumbered formats for commercial purposes.

Right - there are different rights involved in encoding and distribution. Distribution is on a per-item basis, so no software package purchase can cover you for that. If, however, you have your products replicated at a professional replication house, they usually will be able to address these issues.

One reason for the slow development of Blu-Ray as a useful tool for the likes of us is the major complexity of the licensing issues, which makes DVD licensing look extremely simple in comparison.

 

[Crafters of Light]

I am not portaying a lawyer, real or fictional. After furhter research I have gathered the following.
These are excerpts form license portfolios and are left to the interpritation of others.

Let the further discussions begin.

MPEG-2
To make it easier for MPEG LA’s customers to account for their MPEG-2 Packaged Medium royalties, effective September 1, 2005, Licensees may elect a simplified option for reporting MPEG-2 Packaged Medium royalties under which they pay US $0.03 for each MPEG-2 video disc regardless of its specific content or playing time (except where the playing time is 12 minutes or less in which case the royalty would continue to be $0.01).

MPEG-4
Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less = no royalty; >12 minutes in length = lower of (a) 2% of first Arm’s-Length Sale or (b) $0.02 per title. Licensees are (a) replicators of physical media and (b) direct sellers of other media. (Definition of first Arm's-Length Sale "a transaction between two otherwise unrelated or affiliated parties?)

AVC/H.264
For (b) (1) where an end user pays directly for video services on a title-by-title basis (e.g.,
where viewer determines titles to be viewed or number of viewable titles are otherwise
limited), royalties for video greater than 12 minutes (there is no royalty for a title 12
minutes or less) are (beginning January 1, 2006) the lower of 2% of the price paid to the
Licensee (on first arms length sale of the video) or $0.02 per title (categories of licensees
include legal entities that are (i) replicators of physical media, and (ii) service/content
providers (e.g., cable, satellite, video DSL, internet and mobile) of VOD, PPV and
electronic downloads to end users)

 

[ugafan]

In the United States (which DOES recognize software patents), this is a big issue.

If you read the EULAs of almost all major video editing suites (including Sony Vegas), you'll see that you are being granted a patent license only to use the included codecs for limited uses.

According to MPEG-LA, any commercial use of any of their patented codecs requires a sub-license and royalty payments.

In order to legally sell DVDs in the US, for example, you must pay a royalty to MPEG-LA of approx 3cents per disc (depending on which path you choose -- see http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-agreement.cfm)

FFMpeg & VLC are, as Anhar suggested, illegal to use in the United States if you don't have a patent licesne for the relevant codecs. Of course you could simply get those licenses, and *then* use FFMpeg.

I'm not a laywer either, but I have done a great deal of research on this, and to my knowledge, no prosumer video editing or DVD authoring software comes with the patent licenses needed to produce and distribute your video using patent-encumbered formats for commercial purposes.

well that sucks.