- <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>
+ <div class="title"><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/N_r_nynorskoversettelsen_svikter_til_eksamen___.html">Når nynorskoversettelsen svikter til eksamen...</a></div>
+ <div class="date"> 3rd June 2017</div>
+ <div class="body"><p><a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/norge/Krever-at-elever-ma-fa-annullert-eksamen-etter-rot-med-oppgavetekster-622459b.html">Aftenposten
+melder i dag</a> om feil i eksamensoppgavene for eksamen i politikk og
+menneskerettigheter, der teksten i bokmåls og nynorskutgaven ikke var
+like. Oppgaveteksten er gjengitt i artikkelen, og jeg ble nysgjerring
+på om den fri oversetterløsningen
+<a href="https://www.apertium.org/">Apertium</a> ville gjort en bedre
+jobb enn Utdanningsdirektoratet. Det kan se slik ut.</p>
+
+<p>Her er bokmålsoppgaven fra eksamenen:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Drøft utfordringene knyttet til nasjonalstatenes og andre aktørers
+rolle og muligheter til å håndtere internasjonale utfordringer, som
+for eksempel flykningekrisen.</p>
+
+<p>Vedlegge er eksempler på tekster som kan gi relevante perspektiver
+på temaet:</p>
+<ol>
+<li>Flykningeregnskapet 2016, UNHCR og IDMC
+<li>«Grenseløst Europa for fall» A-Magasinet, 26. november 2015
+</ol>
+
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Dette oversetter Apertium slik:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Drøft utfordringane knytte til nasjonalstatane sine og rolla til
+andre aktørar og høve til å handtera internasjonale utfordringar, som
+til dømes *flykningekrisen.</p>
+
+<p>Vedleggja er døme på tekster som kan gje relevante perspektiv på
+temaet:</p>
+
+<ol>
+<li>*Flykningeregnskapet 2016, *UNHCR og *IDMC</li>
+<li>«*Grenseløst Europa for fall» A-Magasinet, 26. november 2015</li>
+</ol>
+
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Ord som ikke ble forstått er markert med stjerne (*), og trenger
+ekstra språksjekk. Men ingen ord er forsvunnet, slik det var i
+oppgaven elevene fikk presentert på eksamen. Jeg mistenker dog at
+"andre aktørers rolle og muligheter til ..." burde vært oversatt til
+"rolla til andre aktørar og deira høve til ..." eller noe slikt, men
+det er kanskje flisespikking. Det understreker vel bare at det alltid
+trengs korrekturlesning etter automatisk oversettelse.</p>
+</div>
+ <div class="tags">
+
+
+ Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian">debian</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/stavekontroll">stavekontroll</a>.
+
+
+ </div>
+ </div>
+ <div class="padding"></div>
+
+ <div class="entry">
+ <div class="title"><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Epost_inn_som_arkivformat_i_Riksarkivarens_forskrift_.html">Epost inn som arkivformat i Riksarkivarens forskrift?</a></div>
+ <div class="date">27th April 2017</div>
+ <div class="body"><p>I disse dager, med frist 1. mai, har Riksarkivaren ute en høring på
+sin forskrift. Som en kan se er det ikke mye tid igjen før fristen
+som går ut på søndag. Denne forskriften er det som lister opp hvilke
+formater det er greit å arkivere i
+<a href="http://www.arkivverket.no/arkivverket/Offentleg-forvalting/Noark/Noark-5">Noark
+5-løsninger</a> i Norge.</p>
+
+<p>Jeg fant høringsdokumentene hos
+<a href="https://www.arkivrad.no/aktuelt/riksarkivarens-forskrift-pa-horing">Norsk
+Arkivråd</a> etter å ha blitt tipset på epostlisten til
+<a href="https://github.com/hiOA-ABI/nikita-noark5-core">fri
+programvareprosjektet Nikita Noark5-Core</a>, som lager et Noark 5
+Tjenestegresesnitt. Jeg er involvert i Nikita-prosjektet og takket
+være min interesse for tjenestegrensesnittsprosjektet har jeg lest en
+god del Noark 5-relaterte dokumenter, og til min overraskelse oppdaget
+at standard epost ikke er på listen over godkjente formater som kan
+arkiveres. Høringen med frist søndag er en glimrende mulighet til å
+forsøke å gjøre noe med det. Jeg holder på med
+<a href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester/blob/master/docs/hoering-arkivforskrift.tex">egen
+høringsuttalelse</a>, og lurer på om andre er interessert i å støtte
+forslaget om å tillate arkivering av epost som epost i arkivet.</p>
+
+<p>Er du igang med å skrive egen høringsuttalelse allerede? I så fall
+kan du jo vurdere å ta med en formulering om epost-lagring. Jeg tror
+ikke det trengs så mye. Her et kort forslag til tekst:</p>