All things related to multicast

[Frank Fulchiero <>]

Hi Richard,

I'm not sure the situation is always that simple.
For example, Dan Oachs pointed out this link from the MPEG LA,  
regarding H.264/AVC

"Internet broadcast (non-subscription, not title-by-title) – Since  
this market is still developing, no royalties will be payable for  
internet broadcast services (non-subscription, not title-by-title)  
during the initial term of the license (which runs through December  
31, 2010) and then shall not exceed the over-the-air free broadcast  
TV encoding fee during the renewal term."

http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_03-11-17_avc.html

Regarding players, the above states:

"Royalties to be paid by end product manufacturers for an encoder, a  
decoder or both (“unit”) begin at US $0.20 per unit after the first  
100,000 units each year.  There are no royalties on the first 100,000  
units each year.  Above 5 million units per year, the royalty is US  
$0.10 per unit."

So, even if something had to be paid for H.264 it would not be much.  
If it was determined that VLC is using the libavcodec codecs in a  
legal manner, in the country of use, then maybe no royalty need to be  
paid at all. And if QuickTime Player can be used as a decoder, Apple  
has already paid the license.

It appears it would be in everyone's interests, including VBrick's,  
if we could clarify that the use of VLC is legal, especially as you  
mention VBrick is losing money selling decoders. We are about 30% Mac  
here, and your player does not work on OSX, so we can only use VLC to  
view the MPEG2 stream from the VBrick we purchased from you.

I realize I'm mixing MPEG2 and MPEG4 in my quick overview, but I  
don't think we should assume that a license fee is automatically due  
to MPEG LA under all circumstances. And maybe modifications can be  
made to the player to bring it into legal conformance.

I'd like to suggest to Mark Essig that we put the discussion of the  
legal issues arising from the use of VLC on the Research Channel  
Working Group Internet2 Spring Meeting on April 23. This would  
include discussing licensing restrictions with associated codecs that  
are important to I2 video streaming (MPEG2, AVC, VC-1, MP2-3, AAC,  
etc.). In the meantime those that are interested may have the time to  
do some background research.

Many I2 institutions are using VLC informally or even as their  
"official" player. So, the danger is that we may not like the answer  
that we end up with, and it's always easier asking for forgiveness  
later than permission now...

So, if anyone thinks it's best to leave things be as they are, with  
no clear-cut legal determination, that's fine, we can just go on like  
this. But it seems to me we would have more control on the process if  
we take the initiative.

If anyone would be hurt by openly discussing legal issues surrounding  
VLC and associated codecs, please speak up. I am also not suggesting  
that VLC become any kind of "official" I2 player, there is plenty of  
room for QT, WMP, Flash, proprietary players, etc., depending on the  
task at hand.

If we are to put VLC discussion on the agenda, Dave Deveraux-Weber  
did such a great job last time, maybe he would volunteer again?

Frank Fulchiero
Digital Media Specialist
Connecticut College


On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Richard Mavrogeanes wrote:

> From the MPEGLA:
>
> Hi, Rich.
>
> Good to hear from you as always.
>
> VLC player is treated the same as any other product: it needs to be
> licensed under essential patents for each video codec as well as any
> other technologies it contains.  To the extent it is not so licensed,
> the product's provider along with anyone in the product chain is left
> with patent infringement liability.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dean
>
> Dean Skandalis
> Vice President, Licensing
> MPEG LA
> 4601 Willard Avenue
> Suite 200
> Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815
> U.S.A.