- <div class="title"><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html">MPEG LA on "Internet Broadcast AVC Video" licensing and non-private use</a></div>
- <div class="date"> 7th July 2015</div>
- <div class="body"><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; > 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers/yr =
- $25,000; >250,000 to 500,000 subscribers/yr = $50,000; >500,000 to
- 1M subscribers/yr = $75,000; >1M subscribers/yr = $100,000</li>
-
- <li>Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less = no royalty; >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 > 100,000 HH rising to
- maximum $10,000 for >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 <URL:
-<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx">http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx</a>
-> 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>
+ <div class="title"><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_GNU_General_Public_License_is_not_magic_pixie_dust.html">The GNU General Public License is not magic pixie dust</a></div>
+ <div class="date">30th November 2015</div>
+ <div class="body"><p>A blog post from my fellow Debian developer Paul Wise titled
+"<a href="http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2015/11/27/sfc-supporter/">The
+GPL is not magic pixie dust</a>" explain the importance of making sure
+the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html">GPL</a> is enforced.
+I quote the blog post from Paul in full here with his permission:<p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p><a href="https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/"><img src="https://sfconservancy.org/img/supporter-badge.png" width="194" height="90" alt="Become a Software Freedom Conservancy Supporter!" align="right" border="0" /></a></p>
+
+<blockquote>
+The GPL is not magic pixie dust. It does not work by itself.<br/>
+
+The first step is to choose a
+<a href="https://copyleft.org/">copyleft</a> license for your
+code.<br/>
+
+The next step is, when someone fails to follow that copyleft license,
+<b>it must be enforced</b><br/>
+
+and its a simple fact of our modern society that such type of
+work<br/>
+
+is incredibly expensive to do and incredibly difficult to do.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><small>-- <a href="http://ebb.org/bkuhn/">Bradley Kuhn</a>, in
+<a href="http://faif.us/" title="Free as in Freedom">FaiF</a>
+<a href="http://faif.us/cast/2015/nov/24/0x57/">episode
+0x57</a></small></p>
+
+<p>As the Debian Website
+<a href="https://bugs.debian.org/794116">used</a>
+<a href="https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/intro/free.wml?r1=1.24&r2=1.25">to</a>
+imply, public domain and permissively licensed software can lead to
+the production of more proprietary software as people discover useful
+software, extend it and or incorporate it into their hardware or
+software products. Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL were created
+to close off this avenue to the production of proprietary software but
+such licenses are not enough. With the ongoing adoption of Free
+Software by individuals and groups, inevitably the community's
+expectations of license compliance are violated, usually out of
+ignorance of the way Free Software works, but not always. As Karen
+and Bradley explained in <a href="http://faif.us/" title="Free as in
+Freedom">FaiF</a>
+<a href="http://faif.us/cast/2015/nov/24/0x57/">episode 0x57</a>,
+copyleft is nothing if no-one is willing and able to stand up in court
+to protect it. The reality of today's world is that legal
+representation is expensive, difficult and time consuming. With
+<a href="http://gpl-violations.org/">gpl-violations.org</a> in hiatus
+<a href="http://gpl-violations.org/news/20151027-homepage-recovers/">until</a>
+some time in 2016, the <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/">Software
+Freedom Conservancy</a> (a tax-exempt charity) is the major defender
+of the Linux project, Debian and other groups against GPL violations.
+In March the SFC supported a
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/">lawsuit
+by Christoph Hellwig</a> against VMware for refusing to
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html">comply
+with the GPL</a> in relation to their use of parts of the Linux
+kernel. Since then two of their sponsors pulled corporate funding and
+conferences
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2015/nov/24/faif-carols-fundraiser/">blocked
+or cancelled their talks</a>. As a result they have decided to rely
+less on corporate funding and more on the broad community of
+individuals who support Free Software and copyleft. So the SFC has
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/nov/23/2015fundraiser/">launched</a>
+a <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/">campaign</a> to create
+a community of folks who stand up for copyleft and the GPL by
+supporting their work on promoting and supporting copyleft and Free
+Software.</p>
+
+<p>If you support Free Software,
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2015/nov/26/like-what-I-do/">like</a>
+what the SFC do, agree with their
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/principles.html">compliance
+principles</a>, are happy about their
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/">successes</a> in 2015,
+work on a project that is an SFC
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/members/current/">member</a> and or
+just want to stand up for copyleft, please join
+<a href="https://identi.ca/cwebber/image/JQGPA4qbTyyp3-MY8QpvuA">Christopher
+Allan Webber</a>,
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2015/nov/24/faif-carols-fundraiser/">Carol
+Smith</a>,
+<a href="http://www.jonobacon.org/2015/11/25/supporting-software-freedom-conservancy/">Jono
+Bacon</a>, myself and
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/sponsors/#supporters">others</a> in
+becoming a
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/">supporter</a>. For the
+next week your donation will be
+<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/nov/27/black-friday/">matched</a>
+by an anonymous donor. Please also consider asking your employer to
+match your donation or become a sponsor of SFC. Don't forget to
+spread the word about your support for SFC via email, your blog and or
+social media accounts.</p>
+
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>I agree with Paul on this topic and just signed up as a Supporter
+of Software Freedom Conservancy myself. Perhaps you should be a
+supporter too?</p>
projects / homepage.git / blobdiff