All things related to multicast

["Richard Mavrogeanes" <>]

H.264 is MPEG-4 (part 10)

If my memory serves, at least one Apple patent is for MPEG-4 file
format.

/rich


-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Eubanks 
[mailto:]
 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11:29 AM
To: Richard Mavrogeanes
Cc: Brent Draney; 

Subject: Re: Legality of using VLC 


On Apr 3, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Richard Mavrogeanes wrote:

> Possible.  The DVD hardware maker is (commonly) licensed.
>
> Apple also pays the royalty for MPEG-4 and AAC, allowing them to offer
> what appears to be 'free' decoding in QuickTime.  They are also a  
> patent
> holder.

Is Apple part of the MPEG-LA patent pool for H.264 or MPEG-4 ? My  
understanding from Dave Singer
was that it was not.

Marshall

>
> /rich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Draney 
> [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: Frank Fulchiero
> Cc: Richard Mavrogeanes; 
> ;
> ;
>  
> ;
>  
> 
> Subject: Re: Legality of using VLC
>
>
> I believe that Apple gets away with this because every machine
> they sell has a dvd and their os only runs on machines they sell.
> (the above may not be entirely true with OpenDarwin)
>
> This sounds like a one-to-one and onto argument for equivalence
> to me.
> Anyone by this argument?
>
> Brent
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>