All things related to multicast

[Frank Fulchiero <>]

On Apr 2, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Richard Mavrogeanes wrote:

> VLC does not pay the royalty...which is some $2.50 per decoder  
> instance for MPEG-2 alone, and a different schedule for MPEG-4.   
> This is, by the way, why Microsoft does not include a MPEG-2 decoder.

If you have a DVD player in the computer, you (or someone) has  
already paid to use the MPEG-2 decoder. Why should one have to pay  
the decoder license twice?

> <opinion>
> The patent holders and the firm that represents them are too greedy  
> and make it far too difficult for an institution to be legal.  A  
> VLC user wishing to follow the rules is presented with an absurd  
> agreement that only makes sense for vendors.
>
> If a computer has a licensed decoder (e.g. a DVD player), then I  
> would argue the royalty has been paid.  But VLC makes no  
> distinction and therefore users risk infringement.
>
> On the other hand, going 55 mph in a 50 mph zone is illegal, but I  
> don't see too many people pulled over for this unless it's a police  
> 'excuse' for something else (and that may be the real risk VLC  
> users run).
> </opinion>

I'm not sure I agree with the above. Apple is hosting VLC downloads  
on their own servers, and they have pretty savvy lawyers. I doubt  
they would host a program that was inherently illegal to use, or  
inherently put their downloaders at risk.

They also work with the MPEG2 and MPEG4 licensing agencies on other  
issues, it would be hard to "hide" their VLC hosting.

The situation is more that Apple is offering you a free legal car to  
drive, and it's only illegal if you drive it over the speed limit.

The legality is what VLC is being used for, I believe. Just like a  
copying machine is legal, but not if you copy and distribute  
copyrighted works.

Have you heard of anyone being sued for using VLC, or been asked to  
stop using it?

Frank Fulchiero
Digital Media Specialist
Connecticut College