- <title>MPEG LA on "Internet Broadcast AVC Video" licensing and non-private use</title>
- <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html</link>
- <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html</guid>
- <pubDate>Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
- <description><p>After asking the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK)
-<a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html">why
-they can broadcast and stream H.264 video without an agreement with
-the MPEG LA</a>, I was wiser, but still confused. So I asked MPEG LA
-if their understanding matched that of NRK. As far as I can tell, it
-does not.</p>
-
-<p>I started by asking for more information about the various
-licensing classes and what exactly is covered by the "Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video" class that NRK pointed me at to explain why NRK
-did not need a license for streaming H.264 video:
-
-<p><blockquote>
-
-<p>According to
-<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf">a
-MPEG LA press release dated 2010-02-02</a>, there is no charge when
-using MPEG AVC/H.264 according to the terms of "Internet Broadcast AVC
-Video". I am trying to understand exactly what the terms of "Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video" is, and wondered if you could help me. What
-exactly is covered by these terms, and what is not?</p>
-
-<p>The only source of more information I have been able to find is a
-PDF named
-<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf">AVC
-Patent Portfolio License Briefing</a>, which states this about the
-fees:</p>
-
-<ul>
- <li>Where End User pays for AVC Video
- <ul>
- <li>Subscription (not limited by title) – 100,000 or fewer
- subscribers/yr = no royalty; &gt; 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers/yr =
- $25,000; &gt;250,000 to 500,000 subscribers/yr = $50,000; &gt;500,000 to
- 1M subscribers/yr = $75,000; &gt;1M subscribers/yr = $100,000</li>
-
- <li>Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less = no royalty; &gt;12 minutes in
- length = lower of (a) 2% or (b) $0.02 per title</li>
- </ul></li>
-
- <li>Where remuneration is from other sources
- <ul>
- <li>Free Television - (a) one-time $2,500 per transmission encoder or
- (b) annual fee starting at $2,500 for &gt; 100,000 HH rising to
- maximum $10,000 for &gt;1,000,000 HH</li>
-
- <li>Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription)
- – no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License</li>
- </ul></li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>Am I correct in assuming that the four categories listed is the
-categories used when selecting licensing terms, and that "Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video" is the category for things that do not fall into
-one of the other three categories? Can you point me to a good source
-explaining what is ment by "title-by-title" and "Free Television" in
-the license terms for AVC/H.264?</p>
-
-<p>Will a web service providing H.264 encoded video content in a
-"video on demand" fashing similar to Youtube and Vimeo, where no
-subscription is required and no payment is required from end users to
-get access to the videos, fall under the terms of the "Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video", ie no royalty for life of the AVC Patent
-Portfolio license? Does it matter if some users are subscribed to get
-access to personalized services?</p>
-
-<p>Note, this request and all answers will be published on the
-Internet.</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>The answer came quickly from Benjamin J. Myers, Licensing Associate
-with the MPEG LA:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-<p>Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We
-appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.</p>
-
-<p>As you are aware, MPEG LA offers our AVC Patent Portfolio License
-which provides coverage under patents that are essential for use of
-the AVC/H.264 Standard (MPEG-4 Part 10). Specifically, coverage is
-provided for end products and video content that make use of AVC/H.264
-technology. Accordingly, the party offering such end products and
-video to End Users concludes the AVC License and is responsible for
-paying the applicable royalties.</p>
-
-<p>Regarding Internet Broadcast AVC Video, the AVC License generally
-defines such content to be video that is distributed to End Users over
-the Internet free-of-charge. Therefore, if a party offers a service
-which allows users to upload AVC/H.264 video to its website, and such
-AVC Video is delivered to End Users for free, then such video would
-receive coverage under the sublicense for Internet Broadcast AVC
-Video, which is not subject to any royalties for the life of the AVC
-License. This would also apply in the scenario where a user creates a
-free online account in order to receive a customized offering of free
-AVC Video content. In other words, as long as the End User is given
-access to or views AVC Video content at no cost to the End User, then
-no royalties would be payable under our AVC License.</p>
-
-<p>On the other hand, if End Users pay for access to AVC Video for a
-specific period of time (e.g., one month, one year, etc.), then such
-video would constitute Subscription AVC Video. In cases where AVC
-Video is delivered to End Users on a pay-per-view basis, then such
-content would constitute Title-by-Title AVC Video. If a party offers
-Subscription or Title-by-Title AVC Video to End Users, then they would
-be responsible for paying the applicable royalties you noted below.</p>
-
-<p>Finally, in the case where AVC Video is distributed for free
-through an "over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission", then
-such content would constitute Free Television AVC Video and would be
-subject to the applicable royalties.</p>
-
-<p>For your reference, I have attached
-<a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2015-07-07-mpegla.pdf">a
-.pdf copy of the AVC License</a>. You will find the relevant
-sublicense information regarding AVC Video in Sections 2.2 through
-2.5, and the corresponding royalties in Section 3.1.2 through 3.1.4.
-You will also find the definitions of Title-by-Title AVC Video,
-Subscription AVC Video, Free Television AVC Video, and Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video in Section 1 of the License. Please note that the
-electronic copy is provided for informational purposes only and cannot
-be used for execution.</p>
-
-<p>I hope the above information is helpful. If you have additional
-questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel
-free to contact me directly.</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>Having a fresh copy of the license text was useful, and knowing
-that the definition of Title-by-Title required payment per title made
-me aware that my earlier understanding of that phrase had been wrong.
-But I still had a few questions:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-<p>I have a small followup question. Would it be possible for me to get
-a license with MPEG LA even if there are no royalties to be paid? The
-reason I ask, is that some video related products have a copyright
-clause limiting their use without a license with MPEG LA. The clauses
-typically look similar to this:
-
-<p><blockquote>
- This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for
- the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (a) encode
- video in compliance with the AVC standard ("AVC video") and/or (b)
- decode AVC video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a
- personal and non-commercial activity and/or AVC video that was
- obtained from a video provider licensed to provide AVC video. No
- license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. additional
- information may be obtained from MPEG LA L.L.C.
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>It is unclear to me if this clause mean that I need to enter into
-an agreement with MPEG LA to use the product in question, even if
-there are no royalties to be paid to MPEG LA. I suspect it will
-differ depending on the jurisdiction, and mine is Norway. What is
-MPEG LAs view on this?</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>According to the answer, MPEG LA believe those using such tools for
-non-personal or commercial use need a license with them:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-
-<p>With regard to the Notice to Customers, I would like to begin by
-clarifying that the Notice from Section 7.1 of the AVC License
-reads:</p>
-
-<p>THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR
-THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT
-RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC
-STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED
-BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM
-A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED
-OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE
-OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM</p>
-
-<p>The Notice to Customers is intended to inform End Users of the
-personal usage rights (for example, to watch video content) included
-with the product they purchased, and to encourage any party using the
-product for commercial purposes to contact MPEG LA in order to become
-licensed for such use (for example, when they use an AVC Product to
-deliver Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free Television or Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video to End Users, or to re-Sell a third party's AVC
-Product as their own branded AVC Product).</p>
-
-<p>Therefore, if a party is to be licensed for its use of an AVC
-Product to Sell AVC Video on a Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
-Television or Internet Broadcast basis, that party would need to
-conclude the AVC License, even in the case where no royalties were
-payable under the License. On the other hand, if that party (either a
-Consumer or business customer) simply uses an AVC Product for their
-own internal purposes and not for the commercial purposes referenced
-above, then such use would be included in the royalty paid for the AVC
-Products by the licensed supplier.</p>
-
-<p>Finally, I note that our AVC License provides worldwide coverage in
-countries that have AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, including
-Norway.</p>
-
-<p>I hope this clarification is helpful. If I may be of any further
-assistance, just let me know.</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>The mentioning of Norwegian patents made me a bit confused, so I
-asked for more information:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-
-<p>But one minor question at the end. If I understand you correctly,
-you state in the quote above that there are patents in the AVC Patent
-Portfolio that are valid in Norway. This make me believe I read the
-list available from &lt;URL:
-<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx">http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx</a>
-&gt; incorrectly, as I believed the "NO" prefix in front of patents
-were Norwegian patents, and the only one I could find under Mitsubishi
-Electric Corporation expired in 2012. Which patents are you referring
-to that are relevant for Norway?</p>
-
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>Again, the quick answer explained how to read the list of patents
-in that list:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-
-<p>Your understanding is correct that the last AVC Patent Portfolio
-Patent in Norway expired on 21 October 2012. Therefore, where AVC
-Video is both made and Sold in Norway after that date, then no
-royalties would be payable for such AVC Video under the AVC License.
-With that said, our AVC License provides historic coverage for AVC
-Products and AVC Video that may have been manufactured or Sold before
-the last Norwegian AVC patent expired. I would also like to clarify
-that coverage is provided for the country of manufacture and the
-country of Sale that has active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents.</p>
-
-<p>Therefore, if a party offers AVC Products or AVC Video for Sale in
-a country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents (for example,
-Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.), then that party would still need
-coverage under the AVC License even if such products or video are
-initially made in a country without active AVC Patent Portfolio
-Patents (for example, Norway). Similarly, a party would need to
-conclude the AVC License if they make AVC Products or AVC Video in a
-country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, but eventually Sell
-such AVC Products or AVC Video in a country without active AVC Patent
-Portfolio Patents.</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>As far as I understand it, MPEG LA believe anyone using Adobe
-Premiere and other video related software with a H.264 distribution
-license need a license agreement with MPEG LA to use such tools for
-anything non-private or commercial, while it is OK to set up a
-Youtube-like service as long as no-one pays to get access to the
-content. I still have no clear idea how this applies to Norway, where
-none of the patents MPEG LA is licensing are valid. Will the
-copyright terms take precedence or can those terms be ignored because
-the patents are not valid in Norway?</p>
+ <title>A program should be able to open its own files on Linux</title>
+ <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_program_should_be_able_to_open_its_own_files_on_Linux.html</link>
+ <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_program_should_be_able_to_open_its_own_files_on_Linux.html</guid>
+ <pubDate>Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
+ <description><p>Many years ago, when koffice was fresh and with few users, I
+decided to test its presentation tool when making the slides for a
+talk I was giving for NUUG on Japhar, a free Java virtual machine. I
+wrote the first draft of the slides, saved the result and went to bed
+the day before I would give the talk. The next day I took a plane to
+the location where the meeting should take place, and on the plane I
+started up koffice again to polish the talk a bit, only to discover
+that kpresenter refused to load its own data file. I cursed a bit and
+started making the slides again from memory, to have something to
+present when I arrived. I tested that the saved files could be
+loaded, and the day seemed to be rescued. I continued to polish the
+slides until I suddenly discovered that the saved file could no longer
+be loaded into kpresenter. In the end I had to rewrite the slides
+three times, condensing the content until the talk became shorter and
+shorter. After the talk I was able to pinpoint the problem &ndash;
+kpresenter wrote inline images in a way itself could not understand.
+Eventually that bug was fixed and kpresenter ended up being a great
+program to make slides. The point I'm trying to make is that we
+expect a program to be able to load its own data files, and it is
+embarrassing to its developers if it can't.</p>
+
+<p>Did you ever experience a program failing to load its own data
+files from the desktop file browser? It is not a uncommon problem. A
+while back I discovered that the screencast recorder
+gtk-recordmydesktop would save an Ogg Theora video file the KDE file
+browser would refuse to open. No video player claimed to understand
+such file. I tracked down the cause being <tt>file --mime-type</tt>
+returning the application/ogg MIME type, which no video player I had
+installed listed as a MIME type they would understand. I asked for
+<a href="http://bugs.gw.com/view.php?id=382">file to change its
+behavour</a> and use the MIME type video/ogg instead. I also asked
+several video players to add video/ogg to their desktop files, to give
+the file browser an idea what to do about Ogg Theora files. After a
+while, the desktop file browsers in Debian started to handle the
+output from gtk-recordmydesktop properly.</p>
+
+<p>But history repeats itself. A few days ago I tested the music
+system Rosegarden again, and I discovered that the KDE and xfce file
+browsers did not know what to do with the Rosegarden project files
+(*.rg). I've reported <a href="http://bugs.debian.org/825993">the
+rosegarden problem to BTS</a> and a fix is commited to git and will be
+included in the next upload. To increase the chance of me remembering
+how to fix the problem next time some program fail to load its files
+from the file browser, here are some notes on how to fix it.</p>
+
+<p>The file browsers in Debian in general operates on MIME types.
+There are two sources for the MIME type of a given file. The output from
+<tt>file --mime-type</tt> mentioned above, and the content of the
+shared MIME type registry (under /usr/share/mime/). The file MIME
+type is mapped to programs supporting the MIME type, and this
+information is collected from
+<a href="https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/desktop-entry-spec/">the
+desktop files</a> available in /usr/share/applications/. If there is
+one desktop file claiming support for the MIME type of the file, it is
+activated when asking to open a given file. If there are more, one
+can normally select which one to use by right-clicking on the file and
+selecting the wanted one using 'Open with' or similar. In general
+this work well. But it depend on each program picking a good MIME
+type (preferably
+<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml">a
+MIME type registered with IANA</a>), file and/or the shared MIME
+registry recognizing the file and the desktop file to list the MIME
+type in its list of supported MIME types.</p>
+
+<p>The <tt>/usr/share/mime/packages/rosegarden.xml</tt> entry for
+<a href="http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/shared-mime-info-spec">the
+Shared MIME database</a> look like this:</p>
+
+<p><blockquote><pre>
+&lt;?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?&gt;
+&lt;mime-info xmlns="http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/shared-mime-info"&gt;
+ &lt;mime-type type="audio/x-rosegarden"&gt;
+ &lt;sub-class-of type="application/x-gzip"/&gt;
+ &lt;comment&gt;Rosegarden project file&lt;/comment&gt;
+ &lt;glob pattern="*.rg"/&gt;
+ &lt;/mime-type&gt;
+&lt;/mime-info&gt;
+</pre></blockquote></p>
+
+<p>This states that audio/x-rosegarden is a kind of application/x-gzip
+(it is a gzipped XML file). Note, it is much better to use an
+official MIME type registered with IANA than it is to make up ones own
+unofficial ones like the x-rosegarden type used by rosegarden.</p>
+
+<p>The desktop file of the rosegarden program failed to list
+audio/x-rosegarden in its list of supported MIME types, causing the
+file browsers to have no idea what to do with *.rg files:</p>
+
+<p><blockquote><pre>
+% grep Mime /usr/share/applications/rosegarden.desktop
+MimeType=audio/x-rosegarden-composition;audio/x-rosegarden-device;audio/x-rosegarden-project;audio/x-rosegarden-template;audio/midi;
+X-KDE-NativeMimeType=audio/x-rosegarden-composition
+%
+</pre></blockquote></p>
+
+<p>The fix was to add "audio/x-rosegarden;" at the end of the
+MimeType= line.</p>
+
+<p>If you run into a file which fail to open the correct program when
+selected from the file browser, please check out the output from
+<tt>file --mime-type</tt> for the file, ensure the file ending and
+MIME type is registered somewhere under /usr/share/mime/ and check
+that some desktop file under /usr/share/applications/ is claiming
+support for this MIME type. If not, please report a bug to have it
+fixed. :)</p>