Slashdot Log In
Apple Delays QuickTime 6 Over Proposed MPEG-4 Licenses
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Feb 13, 2002 02:31 AM
from the loose-the-chickens-for-free-range-eggs dept.
from the loose-the-chickens-for-free-range-eggs dept.
znu writes: "Apple announced at the QuickTime Live! conference today that there's a public preview of QuickTime 6 with full MPEG-4 support ready to ship, but the terms of the proposed MPEG-4 license are holding it back. For those who haven't been following this, MPEG wants $0.25 per encoder/decoder for MPEG-4, up to $2 million per company per year. Apple is fine with that. But MPEG also wants content distributers to pony up $0.02/hour for any content that's distributed for profit. Apple feels that determining just what is "for profit" will be problematic, and that this pricing will seriously inhibit MPEG-4 adoption.
You are encouraged to complain to MPEG LA about this situation."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Greedy bastards! (Score:2)
Re:Greedy bastards! (Score:5, Funny)
The 25 cents per encoder/decoder is bad enough, but then charging by the hour as well?
You know, I don't really have a problem with them charging $.25 per codec. The developers of the MPEG-4 standard deserve to be compensated for their time, and money is a pretty good universally understood medium (popped popcorn is often too bulky to mail in mass quantities, and oral pleasure from each purchaser could be difficult -- and in today's epidemiological climate, hazardous). So more power to 'em, I say.
The $.02/hour scheme does seem a little tough to enforce, though. I mean, if I'm selling for-profit movies (and really, there's only one type of movie that's truly profitable on the World Wide Pr0n Repository), don't you think it would be in my best interests to lowball the estimate just a teensy bit? "Well, I'm going to sell movies encoded in MPEG-4, but only, um, three hours' worth. Yeah, that's the ticket! Three hours -- here's your six cents. Bye!"
Seems to me like this is yet another case of greed being foiled by stupidity.
Parent
Re:Greedy bastards! (Score:3, Interesting)
If the program is gratis (like free beer) but it's not a free software, it can be possible to control how many people are using it, so you can control how much money you have to pay to MPEG people. But if it's a free software, you can't control how many people are using it.
So I suppose, you wanted to say:
which is exaclty right. We already have proprietary Quicktime [apple.com] or Windows Media [microsoft.com] players to download for free. Apple and Microsoft can pay $2M/year for MPEG-4 but if they don't want to, they can always offer a fixed number of copies to download, forcing you ro gegister [arachnoid.com]. But people making a free software movie player [mplayerhq.hu], can't force such restrictions.Re:Greedy bastards! (Score:5, Interesting)
We already have proprietary Quicktime
If you mean proprietary as in fully documented [apple.com] (you probably want to start in the API section) and open you'd be correct. In fact, there are several projects started that will play Quicktime movies fine under Linux.*
Perhaps you meant the proprietary and closed Sorenson codec?
*Of course, they won't be able to play the ones that use the Sorenson codec, which is the most popular codec to use with Quicktime
Parent
Re:Greedy bastards! (Score:3, Informative)
You just don't get it do you??? Even after he explained it very very clearly. So I'm going to try again, speaking very s l o w l y.
If I write an open, free, GPL, lovely player which uses MPEG4 and stick it on my website, I am required to pay $0.25 for each user. How the hell do I know how many users there are? Because it's free, people can download, modify and distribute my player all over the place. All MPEG have to do is prove that more people are using it that *I* have paid for, and they can sue me, send me off to jail, whatever. Therefore, it is impossible (well maybe the word should be impractical) for anyone to use MPEG4 in a free (as in speech) app.
In the case of free (as in beer) then people, legally, must only download it from me, or my affiliates (or at least I could make that a license provision). Then whatever lovely business model I have which supports giving away all this good stuff will have to be modified to pay the $0.25 per download. No biggy.
Re:Greedy bastards! (Score:5, Informative)
We're not talking here about which audio format do you want to store your ripped CDs in. We're not even talking about which video codec do the corporations and artists want to use to publish their movies and streaming video (which by the way, is a matter of saving milions of dollars). I'm not talking about Ogg Vorbis [xiph.org] vs. MPEG-1/2 audio layer 3 -- I'm talking about Ogg Tarkin [xiph.org] vs. MPEG-4, in the terms of license and in the context of free software. Maybe read what I said [slashdot.org]:
All I was talking about is free software [gnu.org]. I thought I was clear enough.Parent
Re:Greedy bastards! (Score:2)
Another source (Score:5, Informative)
hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Tarkin (Score:5, Informative)
That said, the definitions for the project aren't certain at all right now. No one knows if it's going to be for streaming video or just plain compressed video. There's even been talk of using it as a professional editing standard, but that's not likely to be a focus. Right now, Tarkin is so new it's scary. It's going to be an exciting project to follow, but don't expect anything too soon.
Parent
Re:Tarkin (Score:2, Informative)
but aren't we already using mpeg4? (Score:2)
or is this just a myth ?
Re:but aren't we already using mpeg4? (Score:2, Informative)
DivX 4 is based on the MoMuSys MPEG4 implementation. The license for this specifies that derived versions must remain compatible with the MPEG4 specs, so DivX 4 is basically the same as MPEG4 (but DivX uses AVI as a container format instead of QuickTime). FFmpeg has a codec for MPEG4, and it can play most DivX 4 videos.
Re:but aren't we already using mpeg4? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, divx.com says "DivX is the most widely distributed MPEG-4 compatible", which I take to mean it is similar to MPEG-4 but is a completely different codec.
I could be wrong, but that's what I've gathered from what I've read on the web. If anyone knows more about this, feel free to correct me.
Parent
Re:but aren't we already using mpeg4? (Score:5, Informative)
1) MPEG-4 is a compression standard just like MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, not a specific CODEC (implementation), so the DivX implementation is just as much MPEG-4 as are Microsoft's, Phillip's or Apple's. It's meaningless to say "it's similar to MPEG-4 but is a completely new CODEC".
2) The MPEG-4 patents cover the algorithms not the implementation (in fact the source of a reference implementation is available for free, and was the basis for the rewritten DivX implementation). There's no way around the MPEG-4 licencing - MPEG LA could one day choose to shut down the open source MPEG-4 implementations (or DivX for that matter, if they don't abide by the licencing requirements).
3) The original poster referred to "Quicktime, MPEG, AVI and DivX" as if they are comparable, but these are all different things:
- Quicktime is a file/stream container format that can use any CODEC. The most common CODEC used with Quicktime is Sorenson, but it can also use others such as MPEG-4 being discussed here, or the open source VP3.
- MPEG is a collection of standards which define two different container formats (MPEG-1/2 and MPEG-4 = Quicktime), plus the associated video and audio compresion standards (MPEG-1/2/4 video, MPEG-1/2 layer 3 audio - aka MP3, MPEG-2 AAC audio, etc).
- AVI is a non-streamable container format that like Quicktime can use any CODEC. Common CODECs used with AVI include the original ones like Cinepak, Intel Indeo, Motion JPEG, and the newer ones like Microsoft's MPEG-4 v3 (aka DivX 3) and DivX's MPEG-4 (aka DivX 4).
- DivX is nothing more than an MPEG-4 CODEC for the AVI container format, despite the marketing wizards at DivX Networks success in getting people to think of it as something else.
Parent
Re:hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Most music lovers are going to migrate to MP3, some to OGG for their personal use, and if you're talking video, everyone has started using divx for ease of use, and b/c everyone else is using it ;) hell, we're individuals and its easier to use something that everyone else uses, too
Commercial companies are the problem here. If you go to a commercial site, they could be using any one of the formats for video, depending on what all-knowing management decided would be the best idea.
If you ask me, there's the rub.
Accounting Nightmare (Score:2, Informative)
This is like IPIX. Send them a message. (Score:2, Informative)
But you can send them a message here [mpegla.com] explaining that a per-use licence is morally wrong and will stifle early adoption of MPEG-4
Quicktime 6 Links (Score:2, Redundant)
MPEG-4 licensing plan [com.com]
Plan for fees [mpegla.com]
Just ignore mpeg-4 ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Tarkin won't really get you much... (Score:4, Informative)
Tarkin's goal of an open source licence free CODEC is fine, but something like VP3 (source available, competetive compression, no licencing requirements - just a restriction that derived works still be able to decode VP3) is really good enough. If you look at the audio/video components of high quality A/V files then you'll notice that quality audio takes up at least as much - if not more - space as the video. Using conventional transform (DCT/wavelet) techniques to make video smaller is really a waste of time - the only break through will come from another approach (most likely overcomplete specification methods), and the overall savings in A/V file size are limited by the audio anyway.
Parent
The foolishness of licenced standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies that have "crate patented standards and get rich off the licencing" as part of their buisiness plan should be shunned by those who are seeking to make money by providing entertainment or information.
I personally a mystified that things like this MPEG insanity can and have survived. Open standards have reigned supreme on the internet, and nearly everywhere else, but somehow these proprietary video compression algorithms live on.
I don't pretend to be an expert on video codec's and the like, but I would like to believe that some sane individuals could develop an open video compression system and stop all of this idiocy
Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (Score:2)
You mean like Ogg Tarkin? [xiph.org]
Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, I can think of more contradictions to that statement than examples of it.
We are still using GIF, after all.
http://images.slashdot.org/title.gif {- See?
Oh, and there are a whole lot more more people using MP3 than Ogg.
Oh, and uh - Isn't Flash a pretty darn closed standard?
What about that Windows thing? I think it has a pretty wide installed user base. Doesn't it? Not to mention Internet Explorer.
Sorry, dude. I think your post was a bit off the mark. It's not that I don't agree that it would be nice if stuff was all free and opened and life was good and all, but uh -- well. It's not. Sucks plenty.
Parent
Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (Score:4, Insightful)
At the time at which GIF became standard, the licensing issues were not known, so it appeared to be an open standard.
MP3 might be a closed standard, but at least no license fees are to be paid for distributing players (as far as I know, they're only required for encoders) or content.
Also note that, similar to GIF, when MP3 took off, encoders were developed without paying license fees as well. The license fees were not requested before MP3 already was popular, and even then, there was a lot of discussion about whether this would stop MP3. But there was no free alternative ready at that time.
No, it's not. It's documented similar to PDF. Besides, I wouldn't exactly call Flash an internet standard, it's more a marketing and salespeople standard ;-)
The original poster didn't claim that all implementations of the standards were free, but that the standards themselves were. IP, HTTP, HTML etc. are all open standards. The fact that they're implemented by proprietary products like Windows or Internet Explorer doesn't make the standards less open.
Parent
Why wouldn't the TV model work on the net? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then they can go as far as to order merchandise for that show. "Click here to purchase a Transformers: Robots in Disguise Optimus Prime Toy for your kids." The can reward me for watching commercials. "Click now and we'll give you $1.00 off your next burger." They can even do things like broadcast a show live, just like TV does today for free. But if you want to see earlier episodes, you have to pay for a subscription to access them.
The idea of saying 'your time on the net is metered' scares me. Using the Internet for entertainment is a luxury, not a need. If the market thinks the price is unfair, then programs like Morpheus will suddenly reign supreme.
Re:Why wouldn't the TV model work on the net? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're paying for your content, one way or the other. One is with your time (watching commercials), the other is with your money.
People are used to paying for content by putting up with commercials, and after you get used to it, it hardly seems like it costs you much at all. But once you make it easy enough for people to ditch the commercials entirely, you can bet many will do that. Putting content on the internet makes it that much easier for people to ditch the commercials, thereby devaluing the amount the networks get paid for each ad.
There are at least two different ways to respond to this problem: 1) pay-per-view, or 2) make sure it's not easier to ditch the commercials. Which method do you think will cost the networks more to implement and enforce?
Until they can come up with a streaming protocol that makes you sit through the ads (either through ingenious new technology, or more likely though a half-baked, legally enforced "can't break this or else" protocol), you will probably see more of these pay-per-view strategies, since they are otherwise at a loss for how to keep making the same kind of profit off their content in this new medium.
The Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I find Apple's position extremely sensible. Charging per-use is the sort of accounting nightmare that a lot of webcasters want to avoid. Add to that the fact that, as Apple says, it is hard to draw the line in the grey area between for-profit and non-profit/for fun usage. This is especially irritating for Apple, as they want their technologies to be adapted by hobbyists.
If the MPEG Group wins, it would only be a matter of time before some smart-ass lawyer then starts collecting data on amateur webcasters, and claims that they are costing the MPEG Group revenue...
Re:The Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
A grey area, for certian, but one you can see why they'd want to avoid. I'm sure given how greedy many people seem to be getting these days that the MPEG group would try to slap them with a bill for all that content and they'd have to waste money fighting and perhaps paying it.
Parent
Re:The Irony (Score:3, Informative)
Especially when Apple released an open source MPEG 4 streaming server [apple.com] yesterday. There by, eternally making it impossible to ever collect any streaming revenue. Nice trick if you ask me.
My utopia (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I suggest that we all write nice letters to Mr. Futa and press our individual opinions.
Who should pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Apple is Pissed (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has invested a large amount of money in the MPEG4 format [apple.com]. They're not named in the license [apple.com] that we're all talking about, so I assume that they're not receiving any royalties. This would piss me off, but it's not what's annoying them.
The problem that they have is that the $0.02 (I know... an ironic amount...) per hour that the user of an encoder has to pay is a barrier to the acceptance of their product.
Apple want to be the (consumer) media platform of choice. They have no illusions of making money from producers [apple.com].
It's about streaming, not QT (Score:3, Interesting)
QuickTime Live Keynote (Score:4, Informative)
If you've got an hour to spare you might want to watch this too.
new meaning - corporation tax (Score:2)
"The marketplace recognizes the role that intellectual property rights play in the development of these technologies, and the good news is that the market understands the need for it to be respected and paid for."
"The citizens recognizes the role that taxation play in the development of these public services, and the good news is that the populous understands the need for it to be respected and paid for."
Or
"The serfs recognizes the role that levies play in the development of my kingdom, and the good news is that they understand the need for me to be respected and paid for."
A Microsoft Ploy ? (Score:3, Insightful)
MPEG-4 is being rolled out for set-top boxes for Cable Companies. The MPEG-LA license fee would add a charge of almost $ 15.00 per box per month to your cable bill. This would just about double my cable bill. This will kill MPEG-4 if it is not changed.
The speculation is that this is Microsoft (a member of the license pool) trying to squelch competition, without leaving any fingerprints.
Quicktime Streaming Server 4 has MPEG4 (Score:3, Informative)
"MPEG-4 Support: now you can serve ISO-compliant hinted MPEG-4 files to any ISO-compliant MPEG-4 client, including any MPEG-4 enabled device that supports playback of MPEG-4 streams over IP. You can serve on-demand or live MPEG-4 streams, and reflect playlists of MPEG-4 files."
I'll bet they tried to mention MPEG-4 as many times as possible.
You can now also stream MP3's with it, set up your own radio station! The streaming uses the standard Icecast streaming format so any MP3-player that supports streaming should work.
Apple: Go open... (Score:3, Interesting)
Executive Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply put:
MPEG-LA is a company that represents the patent holders of technolgy used by all the parts of a multimedia standard known as MPEG-4.
MPEG-LA says that if you want to sell a codec that infringes on any of their _extensive_ patents, you need to pay $0.25 per copy sold, up to $1M per year.
MPEG-LA says that if you want to USE a codec covered by their patents, you have to pay $0.02/hr per stream.
Apple refuses to make QuickTime 6 available until the usage fee is removed.
IMHO:
This is awesome, Apple is standing up for the rights of the individual to create multimedia content and publish it royalty free. Sure, they're saving themselves some $ since they stream video too. But consumers will be the ones paying that $0.02/hr if it sticks, via their Digital Cable subscription, their DirectTV subscription, watching streaming movies on the net, etc...
The $0.25 per codec sold is fair. Many of you might not think the underlying patents are fair, but that's a different issue. If the patents are fair, then it seems fair to charge $0.25 a copy for any other products sold that infringe on the patents.
-pmb
Re:Talk about throwing money around... (Score:2)
Re:Its a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Its a good thing (Score:3, Informative)
Bullcrap. If all the media playing software supports both patented MPEG-4 codecs AND Tarkin, which one do you think content producers are going to use? The one they have to pay hourly royalties on?! And when Apple and Microsoft release media players that support this finalized MPEG-4 standard, are they going to charge people $0.25 to download them or just absorb the cost for a free download? Or would *most* people actually hastle with going through an online payment system for such a small amount just so they can see the latest gee-wiz streamed content? I highly doubt it. And you don't really have a standard unless everyone's using it.
There is a very real opportunity here to take over the codec scene. But first we need a completed Tarkin codec and enough content that people will begin clamouring for it to be supported by default in Quicktime and Windows Media Player.
Re:But How Long Can They Do It? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if you want to know how long Apple can afford not to release the product, the answer is "forever": they can go with some other codec and rework the product. Then they can advertise that *their* system is free for use, unlike everyone else's.
Re:money for information (Score:2)
Dude, get over it. Information is valuable. Otherwise, you wouldn't give a shit about this issue, right? Things which are valuable are, by definition, worth money. Got it?
BTW I'm curious who provides the food you eat and the roof over your head.
MPEG can charge whatever they want, and Apple can tell them to shove it. That's what the free market is all about. I'll be happy to buy your fucking one-way ticket to China if you don't like it.
Re:Hotbot Search? (Score:2)
Re:Better yet! QUICKTIME FOR LINUX DAMIT (Score:2)
Re:investing in open-source software pays itself (Score:5, Informative)
Do you realize that sorenson is not the only codec that quicktime can use?
Personally, I've been using the open source vp3 [vp3.com] codec for a lot of the videos I've encoded lately.
In my opinion, it beats the free version of sorenson at moderate bit rates, and as the source code is available, someone should be able to plug it into one of the Quicktime frameworks [sourceforge.net] that run under [Free,Open,Net]BSD or Linux.
Parent