Licensing issues using propertiery codecs
Hi all, Lets say i am using ffmpeg library to help me in encoding videos using WMV2, FLV and H263 codecs. The software i am writing is a commercial product. Is there any issues on using those codecs on the videos i had produced? Appreciate any advice and links to useful articles.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:03:53AM +0800, chuanjiang lo wrote:
Hi all,
Lets say i am using ffmpeg library to help me in encoding videos using WMV2, FLV and H263 codecs. The software i am writing is a commercial product.
Is there any issues on using those codecs on the videos i had produced?
Appreciate any advice and links to useful articles.
You really need to ask a lawyer about this. Basically the situation is that you _should_ be able to do what you want just fine, but: - due to corrupt and incompetent patent office workers, there are bogus patents on file (in the usa, at least) covering many obvious techniques used in these codecs which also have a hundred years or more of prior art (but it's up to you to prove that in court if you get sued...) - due to corrupt legal system (again in the usa but other places too) the holders of these patents can probably screw you over with huge legal fees and crap without even taking you to court. and they'd rather not go to court since they don't have a case if they actually go to court... - these bastards are more likely to go after you if you're making money off what you're doing. etc. So really, you need to talk to a lawyer I think. Ffmpeg-user list is not the place for sound legal advice. Rich
I currently have 3 license agreements with the MPEG LA for H264, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. The cost is almost ZERO so it's really worth signing up. Here's the break down of my costs: 1) H264 - 100,000 units a year = free 2) MP4 - 50,000 units a year = free 3) MPEG-2 - $2.50 off every unit Ok, so what does UNIT mean? Unit means for every ENCODER and DECODER I build and sell has a monetary price. I don't plan to sell more than 5000 units a year so H264 and MP4 are free indefinitely for me. So why sign up? Because the MPEG LA will protect me from ANYONE claiming to own the IP on ANY portion of my encoder/decoder. For instance, there is *NO* ownership of the H263 format yet the header is nearly identical to MP4, the MPEG LA will actually protect me from anyone claiming to own H263 even though they don't. I have the in writing from the MPEG LA, but at the same time it means there are lots of yahoo's out there that WILL claim ownership of H263 just to squeeze your balls. It's damn cheap and took a week for them to FedEX the papers to me and have the signed. I don't know why more people aren't signing up to cover their assess. Here is a portion of the H263 explanation I got from the MPEG LA group: =============================================================== With regard to H.263, MPEG LA does not offer a license specifically for H.263 and I am not aware of any patent pool arrangement that has been established for H.263. That said, please permit me to provide a bit of background and summarize MPEG LA's position insofar as our MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License is concerned. As we previously discussed on the phone, an H.263 Baseline signal and an MPEG-4 Visual Short Header signal are technically identical and indistinguishable. In addition, MPEG-4 Visual with Short Header is a subset of the MPEG-4 Visual Simple Profile. As a result, an MPEG-4 Visual decoder that is capable of decoding a Simple Profile signal will decode an H.263 Baseline signal generated by an H.263 Baseline encoder. Similarly, an MPEG-4 Visual Short Header signal generated by an MPEG-4 Visual Simple Profile encoder can be decoded by an H.263 Baseline decoder. Therefore, if a royalty is paid on an H.263 Baseline encoder or H.263 Baseline decoder (for example, if a product includes an H.263 Baseline encoder/decoder and a Licensee to our MPEG-4 Visual License pays royalties on such product under the MPEG-4 Visual License), such product will be viewed as licensed in accordance with the terms of the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License. On Sep 21, 2006, at 11:03 PM, chuanjiang lo wrote:
Hi all,
Lets say i am using ffmpeg library to help me in encoding videos using WMV2, FLV and H263 codecs. The software i am writing is a commercial product.
Is there any issues on using those codecs on the videos i had produced?
Appreciate any advice and links to useful articles. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user at mplayerhq.hu http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:39:41AM -0400, Simon Lord wrote:
I currently have 3 license agreements with the MPEG LA for H264, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. The cost is almost ZERO so it's really worth signing up.
Here's the break down of my costs:
1) H264 - 100,000 units a year = free 2) MP4 - 50,000 units a year = free 3) MPEG-2 - $2.50 off every unit
Ok, so what does UNIT mean? Unit means for every ENCODER and DECODER I build and sell has a monetary price. I don't plan to sell more than 5000 units a year so H264 and MP4 are free indefinitely for me. So why sign up? Because the MPEG LA will protect me from ANYONE claiming to own the IP on ANY portion of my encoder/decoder. For instance, there is *NO* ownership of the H263 format yet the header [...]
I already said once, this is NOT the place to spam advertisements for MPEG-LA. Doing that here is kinda like going in a christian church and telling people you've got this great deal where you can make sure nothing bad happens to you in life, and it's SOOOO CHEAPP paying that guy with the hooves and horns that how could you turn it down?? :)) Rich
I currently have 3 license agreements with the MPEG LA for H264, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. The cost is almost ZERO so it's really worth signing up. Here's the break down of my costs: 1) H264 - 100,000 units a year = free 2) MP4 - 50,000 units a year = free 3) MPEG-2 - $2.50 off every unit Ok, so what does UNIT mean? Unit means for every ENCODER and DECODER I build and sell has a monetary price. I don't plan to sell more than 5000 units a year so H264 and MP4 are free indefinitely for me. So why sign up? Because the MPEG LA will protect me from ANYONE claiming to own the IP on ANY portion of my encoder/decoder. For instance, there is *NO* ownership of the H263 format yet the header is nearly identical to MP4, the MPEG LA will actually protect me from anyone claiming to own H263 even though they don't. I have the in writing from the MPEG LA, but at the same time it means there are lots of yahoo's out there that WILL claim ownership of H263 just to squeeze your balls. It's damn cheap and took a week for them to FedEX the papers to me and have the signed. I don't know why more people aren't signing up to cover their assess. Here is a portion of the H263 explanation I got from the MPEG LA group: =============================================================== With regard to H.263, MPEG LA does not offer a license specifically for H.263 and I am not aware of any patent pool arrangement that has been established for H.263. That said, please permit me to provide a bit of background and summarize MPEG LA's position insofar as our MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License is concerned. As we previously discussed on the phone, an H.263 Baseline signal and an MPEG-4 Visual Short Header signal are technically identical and indistinguishable. In addition, MPEG-4 Visual with Short Header is a subset of the MPEG-4 Visual Simple Profile. As a result, an MPEG-4 Visual decoder that is capable of decoding a Simple Profile signal will decode an H.263 Baseline signal generated by an H.263 Baseline encoder. Similarly, an MPEG-4 Visual Short Header signal generated by an MPEG-4 Visual Simple Profile encoder can be decoded by an H.263 Baseline decoder. Therefore, if a royalty is paid on an H.263 Baseline encoder or H.263 Baseline decoder (for example, if a product includes an H.263 Baseline encoder/decoder and a Licensee to our MPEG-4 Visual License pays royalties on such product under the MPEG-4 Visual License), such product will be viewed as licensed in accordance with the terms of the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License. On Sep 21, 2006, at 11:03 PM, chuanjiang lo wrote:
Hi all,
Lets say i am using ffmpeg library to help me in encoding videos using WMV2, FLV and H263 codecs. The software i am writing is a commercial product.
Is there any issues on using those codecs on the videos i had produced?
Appreciate any advice and links to useful articles. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user at mplayerhq.hu http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
Hi On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:40:26AM -0400, Simon Lord wrote:
I currently have 3 license agreements with the MPEG LA for H264, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. The cost is almost ZERO so it's really worth signing up.
Here's the break down of my costs:
1) H264 - 100,000 units a year = free 2) MP4 - 50,000 units a year = free 3) MPEG-2 - $2.50 off every unit
Ok, so what does UNIT mean? Unit means for every ENCODER and DECODER I build and sell has a monetary price. I don't plan to sell more than 5000 units a year so H264 and MP4 are free indefinitely for me. So why sign up? Because the MPEG LA will protect me from ANYONE claiming to own the IP on ANY portion of my encoder/decoder. For
so if i sue you for violating the copyright on ffmpeg mpeg-la will protect you? or if i have a patent on h.264 and i sue you mpeg-la will protect you? thats what you said, but its obviously not going to happen, i suggest that you ask a lawyer working for you (NOT mpeg-la) about these things of course you can do and belive what you want but then please dont post it on a mailinglist pretending to understand more then 1% of the related stuff
instance, there is *NO* ownership of the H263 format
no, there are plenty of patents on H.263 AFAIK which are obviously all owned by some people or companies
yet the header is nearly identical to MP4,
not at all, a tiny subset of H.263 must be decoded by all mpeg4 decoders whats outside of that tiny subset is outside the mpeg-la license which shouldnt mean that noone can sue you for whats inside this subset just that the few mpeg-la members wont sue you (or rather that you could point at the contract you have if they sue you)
the MPEG LA will actually protect me from anyone claiming to own H263
really? can you quote that part of your contract? is there a single case where the mpeg-la went to court to protect anyone who signed their license? [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB In the past you could go to a library and read, borrow or copy any book Today you'd get arrested for mere telling someone where the library is
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:03:27PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:40:26AM -0400, Simon Lord wrote:
I currently have 3 license agreements with the MPEG LA for H264, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. The cost is almost ZERO so it's really worth signing up.
funding your enemy is never a worthwhile thing to do...
so if i sue you for violating the copyright on ffmpeg mpeg-la will protect you? or if i have a patent on h.264 and i sue you mpeg-la will protect you? [...]
the MPEG LA will actually protect me from anyone claiming to own H263
really? can you quote that part of your contract? is there a single case where the mpeg-la went to court to protect anyone who signed their license?
agree totally. imnsho the mpeg-la is just pulling a lot of bullshit on you to make it _look_ like they're your friend and they're protecting you... rich
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:40:26AM -0400, Simon Lord wrote:
I currently have 3 license agreements with the MPEG LA for H264, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. The cost is almost ZERO so it's really worth signing up.
Here's the break down of my costs:
1) H264 - 100,000 units a year = free 2) MP4 - 50,000 units a year = free 3) MPEG-2 - $2.50 off every unit
Ok, so what does UNIT mean? Unit means for every ENCODER and DECODER I build and sell has a monetary price. I don't plan to sell more than 5000 units a year so H264 and MP4 are free indefinitely for me.
You'd better be careful about what they mean. After all if you're distributing a product based on FFmpeg you must provide the source to the FFmpeg part under LGPL, and other people in turn can redistribute this work under LGPL. If you've modified FFmpeg at all, it will also have your company's copyright on those modified parts, and maybe MPEG-LA will consider that as "more units"... :)
So why sign up? Because the MPEG LA will protect me from ANYONE claiming to own the IP on ANY portion of my encoder/decoder. For
This list is not the place to advocate for MPEG-LA...
It's damn cheap and took a week for them to FedEX the papers to me and have the signed. I don't know why more people aren't signing up to cover their assess.
Um, maybe because you didn't read the terms of the contract before you signed it. Or maybe just because they don't want to be funding their enemy. Rich
Hello, Rich Felker wrote:
if you're distributing a product based on FFmpeg you must provide the source to the FFmpeg part under LGPL, and other people in turn can redistribute this work under LGPL.
doesn't this rule only apply for releases under the GPL, but not for LGPL? regards
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 04:59:13PM +0200, Borat wrote:
Hello,
Rich Felker wrote:
if you're distributing a product based on FFmpeg you must provide the source to the FFmpeg part under LGPL, and other people in turn can redistribute this work under LGPL.
doesn't this rule only apply for releases under the GPL, but not for LGPL?
I suggest you read the LGPL. Rich
participants (6)
-
borat＠subsense.com -
dalias＠aerifal.cx -
lochuanjiang＠gmail.com -
michaelni＠gmx.at -
slord＠karbonized.com -
slord＠marelina.com