[homepage.git] / blog / tags / h264 / h264.rss

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version='2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/1.0/'>
        <channel>
                <title>Petter Reinholdtsen - Entries tagged h264</title>
                <description>Entries tagged h264</description>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/</link>

        
        <item>
                <title>MPEG LA on &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC Video&quot; 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>&lt;p&gt;After asking the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK)
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html&quot;&gt;why
they can broadcast and stream H.264 video without an agreement with
the MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt;, 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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I started by asking for more information about the various
licensing classes and what exactly is covered by the &quot;Internet
Broadcast AVC Video&quot; class that NRK pointed me at to explain why NRK
did not need a license for streaming H.264 video:

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;According to
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf&quot;&gt;a
MPEG LA press release dated 2010-02-02&lt;/a&gt;, there is no charge when
using MPEG AVC/H.264 according to the terms of &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC
Video&quot;.  I am trying to understand exactly what the terms of &quot;Internet
Broadcast AVC Video&quot; is, and wondered if you could help me.  What
exactly is covered by these terms, and what is not?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The only source of more information I have been able to find is a
PDF named
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf&quot;&gt;AVC
Patent Portfolio License Briefing&lt;/a&gt;, which states this about the
fees:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
 &lt;li&gt;Where End User pays for AVC Video
  &lt;ul&gt;
   &lt;li&gt;Subscription (not limited by title) – 100,000 or fewer
     subscribers/yr = no royalty; &amp;gt; 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers/yr =
     $25,000; &amp;gt;250,000 to 500,000 subscribers/yr = $50,000; &amp;gt;500,000 to
     1M subscribers/yr = $75,000; &amp;gt;1M subscribers/yr = $100,000&lt;/li&gt;

   &lt;li&gt;Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less = no royalty; &amp;gt;12 minutes in
     length = lower of (a) 2% or (b) $0.02 per title&lt;/li&gt;
  &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;

 &lt;li&gt;Where remuneration is from other sources
  &lt;ul&gt;
   &lt;li&gt;Free Television - (a) one-time $2,500 per transmission encoder or
     (b) annual fee starting at $2,500 for &amp;gt; 100,000 HH rising to
     maximum $10,000 for &amp;gt;1,000,000 HH&lt;/li&gt;

   &lt;li&gt;Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription)
     – no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License&lt;/li&gt;
  &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Am I correct in assuming that the four categories listed is the
categories used when selecting licensing terms, and that &quot;Internet
Broadcast AVC Video&quot; 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 &quot;title-by-title&quot; and &quot;Free Television&quot; in
the license terms for AVC/H.264?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Will a web service providing H.264 encoded video content in a
&quot;video on demand&quot; 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 &quot;Internet
Broadcast AVC Video&quot;, 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?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Note, this request and all answers will be published on the
Internet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The answer came quickly from Benjamin J. Myers, Licensing Associate
with the MPEG LA:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Finally, in the case where AVC Video is distributed for free
through an &quot;over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission&quot;, then
such content would constitute Free Television AVC Video and would be
subject to the applicable royalties.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For your reference, I have attached
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2015-07-07-mpeg-la.pdf&quot;&gt;a
.pdf copy of the AVC License&lt;/a&gt;. 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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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:

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
  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 (&quot;AVC video&quot;) 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.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;According to the answer, MPEG LA believe those using such tools for
non-personal or commercial use need a license with them:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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 (&quot;AVC VIDEO&quot;) 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&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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&#39;s AVC
Product as their own branded AVC Product).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Finally, I note that our AVC License provides worldwide coverage in
countries that have AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, including
Norway.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I hope this clarification is helpful.  If I may be of any further
assistance, just let me know.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The mentioning of Norwegian patents made me a bit confused, so I
asked for more information:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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 &amp;lt;URL:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx&lt;/a&gt;
&amp;gt; incorrectly, as I believed the &quot;NO&quot; 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?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Again, the quick answer explained how to read the list of patents
in that list:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Hva gjør at NRK kan distribuere H.264-video uten patentavtale med MPEG LA?</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Helt siden jeg i 2012 fikk beskjed fra MPEG LA om at
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html&quot;&gt;NRK
trengte patentavtale med dem&lt;/a&gt; hvis de distribuerte H.264-video til
sluttbrukere, har jeg lurt på hva som gjør at NRK ikke har slik
avtale.  For noen dager siden fikk jeg endelig gjort noe med min
undring, og sendte 2015-05-28 følgende epost til info (at) nrk.no med
tittel &quot;Hva gjør at NRK kan distribuere H.264-video uten patentavtale
med MPEG LA?&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jeg lurer på en ting rundt NRKs bruk av H.264-video på sine
websider samt distribusjon via RiksTV og kabel-TV.  Har NRK vurdert om
det er behov for en patentavtale med
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/&quot;&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt; slik det står i
programvarelisensene til blant annet Apple Final Cut Studio, Adobe
Premiere Pro, Avid og Apples Final Cut Pro X?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hvis dere har vurdert dette, hva var utfallet av en slik vurdering?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hvis dere ikke har vurdert dette, har NRK planer om å vurdere behovet
for patentavtale?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I følge en artikkel på
&lt;a href=&quot;https://nrkbeta.no/2012/02/01/siste-kutt-for-final-cut/&quot;&gt;NRK
Beta i 2012&lt;/a&gt; har NRK brukt eller testet både Apple Final Cut
Studio, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid og Apples Final Cut Pro X til bruk
for å redigere video før sending. Alle disse har bruksvilkår
understøttet av opphavsretten som sier at de kun kan brukes til å lage
filmer til personlig og ikke-kommersiell bruk - med mindre en har en
lisensavtale med MPEG LA om bruk av patenter utstedt i USA for H.264.
Se f.eks. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.avid.com/static/resources/common/documents/corporate/LICENSE.pdf&quot;&gt;bruksvilkårene for Avid&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html&quot;&gt;Adobe Premiere&lt;/a&gt; og &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf&quot;&gt;Apple Final
Cut Studio&lt;/a&gt; og søk etter &quot;MPEG LA&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Dette får meg til å lure på om det er brudd på opphavsretten å bruke
disse verktøyene i strid med bruksvilkårene uten patentavtale med MPEG
LA.  Men NRK bruker jo tilsynelatende disse verktøyene uten patentavtale
med MPEG LA.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I følge forfatteren av Open Broadcast Encoder finnes det to typer
H.264-relaterte avtaler en kan få med MPEG LA. Det er én for å lage
programvare og utstyr som produserer H.264-video, og en annen for å
kringkaste video som bruker H.264. Dette forteller meg at selv om
produsentene av utstyr og programvare som NRK bruker har en slik avtale
med MPEG LA, så trenges det en egen avtale for å kringkaste video på det
formatet.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I følge Ryan Rodriguez hos MPEG LA, da jeg spurte ham på epost i
juni 2012, har NRK ikke en slik avtale med MPEG LA. Han sa videre at
NRK trenger en slik avtale hvis NRK tilbyr H.264-kodet video til
sluttbrukere.  Jeg sjekket listen med
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&quot;&gt;organisasjoner
med avtale med MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt; og NRK står fortsatt ikke der.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jeg lurer dermed på hva som gjør at NRK kan bruke de overnevnte
videoredigeringsverktøyene, som tilsynelatende har krav om avtale med
MPEG LA for å kunne brukes slik NRK bruker dem, til å lage videofiler
for distribusjon uten å ha en avtale med MPEG LA om distribusjon av
H.264-video?  Dette er spesielt interessant å vite for oss andre som
også vurderer å spre H.264-video etter å ha redigert dem med disse mye
brukte videoredigeringsverktøyene.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Samme dag fikk jeg automatisk svar om at min henvendelse hadde fått
saksid 1294699.  Jeg fikk deretter følgende respons fra NRK
2015-06-09:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hei, beklager lang svartid, men det tok litt tid å finne ut hvem som kunne
svare på dette.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For selskaper som leverer h.264 til sluttbrukere på nett (f.eks
NRKs nett- tv utgaver som bruker h.264) - og som leverer slike
tjenester uten betaling fra forbrukere – er det heller ikke påkrevd
noen patentavtale.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&quot;&gt;http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Med vennlig hilsen
&lt;br&gt;Gunn Helen Berg
&lt;br&gt;Informasjonskonsulent, Publikumsservice&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;NRK
&lt;br&gt;Strategidivisjonen
&lt;Br&gt;Sentralbord: +47 23 04 70 00
&lt;br&gt;Post: NRK Publikumsservice, 8608 Mo i Rana
&lt;br&gt;nrk.no / info (at) nrk.no&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

Da dette ikke helt var svar på det jeg lurte på, sendte jeg samme dag
oppfølgerepost tilbake:

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[Gunn Helen Berg]
&lt;br&gt;&gt; Hei, beklager lang svartid, men det tok litt tid å finne ut hvem som
&lt;br&gt;&gt; kunne svare på dette.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Takk for svar.  Men det besvarte ikke helt det jeg spurte om.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&gt; For selskaper som leverer h.264 til sluttbrukere på nett (f.eks NRKs
&lt;br&gt;&gt; nett- tv utgaver som bruker h.264) - og som leverer slike tjenester
&lt;br&gt;&gt; uten betaling fra forbrukere – er det heller ikke påkrevd noen
&lt;br&gt;&gt; patentavtale.
&lt;br&gt;&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&gt; http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Spørsmålet er ikke kun om MPEG LA krever patentavtale eller ikke
(hvilket ikke helt besvares av pressemeldingen omtalt over, gitt at
pressemeldingen kom i 2010, to år før MPEG LA ansvarlige for
internasjonal lisensiering egen Ryan Rodriguez fortalte meg på epost
at NRK trenger en lisens.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Det er uklart fra pressemeldingen hva &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC
Video&quot; konkret betyr, men i følge en
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf&quot;&gt;presentasjon
fra MPEG LA med tema &quot;AVC PAtent Portfoli License Briefing&quot; datert
2015-05-15&lt;/a&gt; gjelder &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC Video&quot; kun kringkasting
på Internet som ikke tilbyr valg av enkeltinnslag (&quot;not
title-by-title&quot;), hvilket jo NRK gjør på sine nettsider.  I tillegg
kringkaster jo NRK H.264-video også utenom Internet (RiksTV, kabel,
satelitt), hvilket helt klart ikke er dekket av vilkårene omtalt i
pressemeldingen.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Spørsmålet mitt er hvordan NRK kan bruke verktøy med bruksvilkår
som krever avtale med MPEG LA for det NRK bruker dem til, når NRK ikke
har avtale med MPEG LA.  Hvis jeg forsto spørsmålet riktig, så mener
NRK at dere ikke trenger avtale med MPEG LA, men uten slik avtale kan
dere vel ikke bruke hverken Apple Final Cut Studio, Adobe Premiere
Pro, Avid eller Apples Final Cut Pro X for å redigere video før
sending?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Mine konkrete spørsmål var altså:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Hvis NRK har vurdert om det er behov for en patentavtale med MPEG LA
   slik det er krav om i programvarelisensene til blant annet Apple
   Final Cut Studio, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid og Apples Final Cut Pro X,
   hva var utfallet av en slik vurdering? Kan jeg få kopi av vurderingen
   hvis den er gjort skriftlig?&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Hvis NRK ikke har vurdert dette, har NRK planer om å vurdere behovet
   for patentavtale?&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Hva slags saksnummer fikk min henvendelse i NRKs offentlige
   postjournal?  Jeg ser at postjournalen ikke er publisert for den
   aktuelle perioden ennå, så jeg fikk ikke sjekket selv.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Det hjelper å ha funnet rette vedkommende i NRK, for denne gangen
fikk jeg svar tilbake dagen etter (2015-06-10), fra Geir Børdalen i
NRK:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hei Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jeg har sjekket saken med distribusjonssjef for tv, Arild Hellgren
(som var teknologidirektør da bakkenettet ble satt opp). NRK v/
Hellgren hadde møte med MPEG LA sammen med den europeiske
kringkastingsunionen EBU før bakkenettet for TV ble satt opp
(igangsatt høsten 2007). I dette møtet ble det avklart at NRK/EBU ikke
trengte noen patentavtale for h.264 i forbindelse med oppsett av
bakkenettet eller bruk av MPEG4 h.264 som kompresjonsalgoritme fordi
tjenesten «in full»(nor: helt) var betalt av utsendelseselskapene og
ikke av forbrukerne.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrk.no/oppdrag/digitalt-bakkenett-1.3214555&quot;&gt;http://www.nrk.no/oppdrag/digitalt-bakkenett-1.3214555&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Det er også klart slått fast at selskaper som leverer video basert
på MPEG4 h.264 til sluttbrukere på nett, heller ikke påkrevd noen
patentavtale – så lenge de leverer slike tjenester uten betaling fra
sluttbrukere.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&quot;&gt;http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;p&gt;“MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will
continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to
end users (known as “Internet Broadcast AVC Video”) during the entire
life of this License. MPEG LA previously announced it would not charge
royalties for such video through December 31, 2015 (see
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf&lt;/a&gt;),
and today’s announcement makes clear that royalties will continue not
to be charged for such video beyond that time. Products and services
other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video continue to be
royalty-bearing.”&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Vi har derfor ikke noe behov for å vurdere noen patentavtale med
MPEG LA.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Understreker for øvrig at NRK ikke er låst til MPEG4 – h.264 som
utsendelsesformat – og at vi har brukt og bruker flere andre
alternativer i våre tjenester. Ulike «devicer» har ofte behov for
forskjellige løsninger – og NRK har forsøkt å levere med best mulig
kvalitet /økonomi /stabilitet avhengig av
plattform. Produksjonsformater i NRK spenner for øvrig over en rekke
forskjellige formater – hvor MPEG4 bare er en av disse. Når NRK kjøper
teknisk utstyr er betaling for kodekstøtte ofte en del av
anskaffelsesprisen for denne maskinvaren (enten dette er spesialiserte
enkodere eller forskjellige typer produksjonsutstyr).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Vennlig hilsen
&lt;br&gt;Geir Børdalen&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;________________________________________
&lt;br&gt;Geir Børdalen
&lt;br&gt;Investeringsansvarlig NRK / Hovedprosjektleder - Origo
&lt;br&gt;Avdeling for utvikling, innovasjon, investering og eiendom
&lt;br&gt;NRK medietjenester
&lt;br&gt;Sentralbord: +47 23 04 70 00
&lt;br&gt;Post: NRK, AUTV (RBM5), Pb. 8500 Majorstuen, 0340 Oslo
&lt;br&gt;nrk.no
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Et godt og grundig svar, som var informativt om hvordan NRK tenker
rundt patentavtale med MPEG LA, men heller ikke helt besvarte det jeg
lurte på, så jeg sendte epostoppfølging samme dag.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[Geir Børdalen]
&lt;br&gt;&gt; Hei Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hei, og takk for raskt svar.  Er min henvendelse journalført slik
at den dukker opp i NRKs postjournal?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Svaret ditt var meget nyttig, og jeg forstår ut fra det du skriver
at avklaringen med MPEG LA rundt H.264-distribusjon via bakkenettet
gjelder alle TV-kanaler i Norge.  Hvilke saksnummer fikk dokumenter
som ble opprettet i forbindelse med det omtalte møtet NRK v/Hellgren
og EBU hadde med MPEG LA (dvs. referater, avtaler, etc),
f.eks. dokumentet der formuleringen &quot;in full&quot; som du omtaler
finnes?&lt;p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Men det er et par ting jeg fortsatt ikke forstår.  Det ene er
hvorfor NRKs forståelse av hva &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC Video&quot; dekker
ser ut til å avvike fra det som presenteres i
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf&quot;&gt;lysark
fra MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt; i mai, der MPEG LA på lysark med overskriften
&quot;AVC/H.264 License Terms Participation Fees&quot; og undertittel &quot;Where
remuneration is from other sources&quot; skriver &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC
Video (not title-by-title, not subscription) – no royalty for life of
the AVC Patent Portfolio License&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Her leser jeg MPEG LA dithen at det kun er kringkasting uten
abonnement via Internet som er dekket at vilkårne omtalt i
pressemeldingen, mens jeg forstår deg dithen at NRK mener NRKs
nettsider som også har enkeltfilmer og innslag (som jeg forstår dekket
av formuleringen &quot;title-by-title&quot;) dekkes av &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC
Video&quot; fra MPEG LA.  Hva baserer dere denne tolkningen på?  Jeg har
ikke sett noe skriftlig fra MPEG LA som støtter NRKs tolkning, og
lurer på om dere har andre kilder enn den pressemeldingen fra 5 år
tilbake, der NRKS forståelse av hva &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC Video&quot;
dekker er beskrevet?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Det andre er at eposten din ikke nevnte spørsmålet mitt om
bruksvilkårene til videoredigeringsverktøyene som NRK bruker.  Disse
har som tidligere nevnt krav om at de kun skal brukes til private og
ikke-kommersielle formål med mindre en har avtale med MPEG LA, og uten
avtale med MPEG LA kan det jo virke som om NRK bruker verktøyene i
strid med bruksvilkårene.  Hva gjør at disse bruksvilkårene ikke
gjelder for NRK?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Noen minutter senere får jeg foreløpig siste svar i
føljetongen:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hei igjen&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Vårt dokumentarkiv har fått en kopi (journalføringsnr kan jeg
dessverre ikke gi deg).&lt;p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&gt; Svaret ditt var meget nyttig, og jeg forstår ut fra det du
&lt;br&gt;&gt; skriver at avklaringen med MPEG LA rundt H.264-distribusjon via
&lt;br&gt;&gt; bakkenettet gjelder alle TV-kanaler i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Svar: Kan ikke svare for andre enn for NRK/EBU - og for bakkenettet
i Norge er det kun NRK som er et lisensbasert selskap. Kan ikke gi noe
svar på saksnr på dokumenter eller ytterligere informasjon da jeg selv
ikke var del i dette.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&gt; Men det er et par ting jeg fortsatt ikke forstår.  ...&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Svar: Kan ikke gå ytterligere inn i dette fra min side og mitt
fagfelt som er produksjon/publisering og systemstrukturene bak
disse. For øvrig ligger det etter vår formening ingen begrensninger
for NRK i mulighetene til publisering mht til kodek i
produksjonssystemer. Som tidligere skrevet mener vi at NRK ikke
trenger noen avtale med MPEG LA og støtter oss til det vi allerede har
kommunisert i forrige epost.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Mvh
&lt;br&gt;Geir Børdalen&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Det syntes vanskelig å komme videre når NRK ikke ønsker å gå inn i
problemstillingen rundt bruksvilkårene til videoredigeringsverktøyene
NRK bruker, så jeg sendte takk for svarene og avsluttet utvekslingen
så langt:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Tusen takk for rask respons, og oppklarende forklaring om hvordan
NRK tenker rundt MPEG LA.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jeg vil høre med NRK-arkivet for å se om de kan spore opp de
omtalte dokumentene.  Jeg setter pris på om du kan dele titler, dato
eller annen informasjon som kan gjøre det enklere for arkivet å finne
dem.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Når det gjelder hvordan bruksvilkårene til
videoredigeringsverktøyene skal tolkes, så skal jeg høre med MPEG LA
og produsentene av verktøyene for å forsøke å få klarhet i hva de
mener er rikgig rettstilstand.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jeg ble litt klokere, men fortsatt er det uklart for meg hva som er
grunnlaget til NRK for å se bort fra bruksvilkår i
videoredigeringsprogramvare som krever MPEG LA-avtale til alt annet
enn privat og ikke-kommersiell bruk.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Frikanalen, Norwegian TV channel for technical topics</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Frikanalen__Norwegian_TV_channel_for_technical_topics.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Frikanalen__Norwegian_TV_channel_for_technical_topics.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/&quot;&gt;Norwegian Unix User Group&lt;/a&gt;,
where I am a member, and where people interested in free software,
open standards and UNIX like operating systems like Linux and the BSDs
come together, record our monthly technical presentations on video.
The purpose is to document the talks and spread them to a wider
audience.  For this, the the Norwegian nationwide open channel
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.frikanalen.no/&quot;&gt;Frikanalen&lt;/a&gt; is a useful venue.
Since a few days ago, when I figured out the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://beta.frikanalen.no/api/&quot;&gt;REST API&lt;/a&gt; to program the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://beta.frikanalen.tv/guide/&quot;&gt;channel time schedule&lt;/a&gt;,
the channel has been filled with NUUG talks, related recordings and
some Creative Commons licensed TED talks (from archive.org).  I fill
all &quot;leftover bits&quot; on the channel with content from NUUG, which at
the moment is almost 17 of 24 hours every day.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The list of NUUG videos
&lt;a href=&quot;http://beta.frikanalen.tv/organization/82&quot;&gt;uploaded so far&lt;/a&gt;
include things like a
&lt;a href=&quot;http://beta.frikanalen.tv/video/625090&quot;&gt;one hour talk by John
Perry Barlow when he visited Oslo&lt;/a&gt;, a presentation of
&lt;a href=&quot;http://beta.frikanalen.tv/video/624275&quot;&gt;Haiku, the BeOS
re-implementation&lt;/a&gt;, the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://beta.frikanalen.tv/video/624493&quot;&gt;history of FiksGataMi,
the Norwegian version of FixMyStreet&lt;/a&gt;, the good old
&lt;a href=&quot;http://beta.frikanalen.tv/video/623566&quot;&gt;Warriors of the net
video&lt;/A&gt; and many others.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;We have a large backlog of NUUG talks not yet uploaded to
Frikanalen, and plan to upload every useful bit to the channel to
spread the word there.  I also hope to find useful recordings from the
Chaos Computer Club and Debian conferences and spread them on the
channel as well.  But this require locating the videos and their meta
information (title, description, license, etc), and preparing the
recordings for broadcast, and I have not yet had the spare time to
focus on this.  Perhaps you want to help.  Please join us on IRC,
&lt;a href=&quot;irc://irc.freenode.net/%23nuug&quot;&gt;#nuug on irc.freenode.net&lt;/a&gt;
if you want to help make this happen.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But as I said, already the channel is already almost exclusively
filled with technical topics, and if you want to learn something new
today, check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.frikanalen.tv/se&quot;&gt;Ogg Theora
web stream&lt;/a&gt; or use one of the other ways to get access to the
channel.  Unfortunately the Ogg Theora recoding for distribution still
do not properly sync the video and sound.  It is generated by recoding
a internal MPEG transport stream with MPEG4 coded video (ie H.264) to
Ogg Theora / Vorbis, and we have not been able to find a way that
produces acceptable quality.  Help needed, please get in touch if you
know how to fix it using free software.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>The Norwegian open channel Frikanalen - 24x7 on the Internet</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_Norwegian_open_channel_Frikanalen___24x7_on_the_Internet.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_Norwegian_open_channel_Frikanalen___24x7_on_the_Internet.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;The Norwegian nationwide open channel
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.frikanalen.no/&quot;&gt;Frikanalen&lt;/a&gt; is still going
strong.  It allow everyone to send the video they want on national
television.  It is a TV station administrated completely using a web
browser, running only &lt;ahref=&quot;https://github.com/Frikanalen&quot;&gt;Free
Software&lt;/a&gt;, providing &lt;ahref=&quot;http://beta.frikanalen.tv/api&quot;&gt;a REST
api&lt;/a&gt; for administrators and members, and with distribution on the
national DVB-T distribution network RiksTV.  But only between 12:00
and 17:30 Norwegian time.  This has finally changed, after many years
with limited distribution.  A few weeks ago, we set up a Ogg Theora
stream via icecast to allow everyone with Internet access to check out
the channel the rest of the day.  This is presented on
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.frikanalen.tv/se&quot;&gt;the Frikanalen web site now&lt;/a&gt;.  And
since a few days ago, the channel is also available
via &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.uninett.no/iptv-tilgang&quot;&gt;multicast on
UNINETT&lt;/a&gt;, available for those using IPTV TVs and set-top boxes in
the Norwegian National Research and Education network.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you want to see what is on the channel, point your media player
to one of these sources.  The first should work with most players and
browsers, while as far as I know, the multicast UDP stream only work
with VLC.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://video.nuug.no/frikanalen.ogv&quot;&gt;http://video.nuug.no/frikanalen.ogv&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
  &lt;li&gt;udp://@224.17.43.129:1234&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Ogg Theora / icecast stream is not working well, as the video
and audio is slightly out of sync.  We have not been able to figure
out how to fix it.  It is generated by recoding a internal MPEG
transport stream with MPEG4 coded video (ie H.264) to Ogg Theora /
Vorbis, and the result is less then stellar.  If you have ideas how to
fix it, please let us know on frikanalen (at) nuug.no.  We currently
use this with ffmpeg2theora 0.29:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
./ffmpeg2theora.linux &amp;lt;OBE_gemini_URL.ts&amp;gt; -F 25 -x 720 -y 405 \
 --deinterlace --inputfps 25 -c 1 -H 48000 --keyint 8 --buf-delay 100 \
 --nosync -V 700 -o - | oggfwd video.nuug.no 8000 &amp;lt;pw&amp;gt; /frikanalen.ogv
&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you get the multicast UDP stream working, please let me know, as
I am curious how far the multicast stream reach.  It do not make it to
my home network, nor any other commercially available network in
Norway that I am aware of.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Hvordan vurderer regjeringen H.264-patentutfordringen?</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvordan_vurderer_regjeringen_H_264_patentutfordringen_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvordan_vurderer_regjeringen_H_264_patentutfordringen_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;For en stund tilbake spurte jeg Fornyingsdepartementet om hvilke
juridiske vurderinger rundt patentproblemstillingen som var gjort da
H.264 ble tatt inn i &lt;a href=&quot;http://standard.difi.no/&quot;&gt;statens
referansekatalog over standarder&lt;/a&gt;.  Stig Hornnes i FAD tipset meg
om følgende som står i oppsumeringen til høringen om
referansekatalogen versjon 2.0, som jeg siden ved hjelp av en
innsynsforespørsel fikk tak i
&lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&amp;do=get&amp;target=kongelig-resolusjon.pdf&quot;&gt;PDF-utgaven av&lt;/a&gt;
datert 2009-06-03 (saksnummer 200803291, saksbehandler Henrik
Linnestad).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Der står det følgende om problemstillingen:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;4.4 Patentproblematikk&lt;/strong&gt;

&lt;p&gt;NUUG og Opera ser det som særlig viktig at forslagene knyttet til
lyd og video baserer seg på de royalty-frie standardene Vorbis, Theora
og FLAC.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Kommentarene relaterer seg til at enkelte standarder er åpne, men
inneholder tekniske prosedyrer som det i USA (og noen andre land som
Japan) er gitt patentrettigheter til. I vårt tilfelle berører dette
spesielt standardene Mp3 og H.264, selv om Politidirektoratet peker på
at det muligens kan være tilsvarende problematikk også for Theora og
Vorbis.  Dette medfører at det i USA kan kreves royalties for bruk av
tekniske løsninger knyttet til standardene, et krav som også
håndheves. Patenter kan imidlertid bare hevdes i de landene hvor
patentet er gitt, så amerikanske patenter gjelder ikke andre steder
enn USA.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Spesielt for utvikling av fri programvare er patenter
problematisk. GPL, en &quot;grunnleggende&quot; lisens for distribusjon av fri
programvare, avviser at programvare kan distribueres under denne
lisensen hvis det inneholder referanser til patenterte rutiner som
utløser krav om royalties. Det er imidlertid uproblematisk å
distribuere fri programvareløsninger under GPL som benytter de
aktuelle standardene innen eller mellom land som ikke anerkjenner
patentene. Derfor finner vi også flere implementeringer av Mp3 og
H.264 som er fri programvare, lisensiert under GPL.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I Norge og EU er patentlovgivningen langt mer restriktiv enn i USA,
men det er også her mulig å få patentert metoder for løsning av et
problem som relaterer seg til databehandling. Det er AIF bekjent ikke
relevante patenter i EU eller Norge hva gjelder H.264 og Mp3, men
muligheten for at det finnes patenter uten at det er gjort krav om
royalties eller at det senere vil gis slike patenter kan ikke helt
avvises.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;AIF mener det er et behov for å gi offentlige virksomheter mulighet
til å benytte antatt royaltyfrie åpne standarder som et likeverdig
alternativ eller i tillegg til de markedsledende åpne standardene.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Det ser dermed ikke ut til at de har vurdert patentspørsmålet i
sammenheng med opphavsrettsvilkår slik de er formulert for f.eks.
Apple Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid og Sorenson-verktøyene,
der det kreves brukstillatelse for patenter som ikke er gyldige i
Norge for å bruke disse verktøyene til annet en personlig og ikke
kommersiell aktivitet når det gjelder H.264-video.  Jeg må nok lete
videre etter svar på det spørsmålet.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Do you need an agreement with MPEG-LA to publish and broadcast H.264 video in Norway?</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Do_you_need_an_agreement_with_MPEG_LA_to_publish_and_broadcast_H_264_video_in_Norway_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Do_you_need_an_agreement_with_MPEG_LA_to_publish_and_broadcast_H_264_video_in_Norway_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:10:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Two years later, I am still not sure if it is legal here in Norway
to use or publish a video in H.264 or MPEG4 format edited by the
commercially licensed video editors, without limiting the use to
create &quot;personal&quot; or &quot;non-commercial&quot; videos or get a license
agreement with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com&quot;&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt;.  If one
want to publish and broadcast video in a non-personal or commercial
setting, it might be that those tools can not be used, or that video
format can not be used, without breaking their copyright license.  I
am not sure.
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;Back
then&lt;/a&gt;, I found that the copyright license terms for Adobe Premiere
and Apple Final Cut Pro both specified that one could not use the
program to produce anything else without a patent license from MPEG
LA.  The issue is not limited to those two products, though.  Other
much used products like those from Avid and Sorenson Media have terms
of use are similar to those from Adobe and Apple.  The complicating
factor making me unsure if those terms have effect in Norway or not is
that the patents in question are not valid in Norway, but copyright
licenses are.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;These are the terms for Avid Artist Suite, according to their
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.avid.com/US/about-avid/legal-notices/legal-enduserlicense2&quot;&gt;published
end user&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.avid.com/static/resources/common/documents/corporate/LICENSE.pdf&quot;&gt;license
text&lt;/a&gt; (converted to lower case text for easier reading):&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;18.2. MPEG-4. MPEG-4 technology may be included with the
software. MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this notice: &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This product is licensed under the MPEG-4 visual patent portfolio
license for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer for (i)
encoding video in compliance with the MPEG-4 visual standard (“MPEG-4
video”) and/or (ii) decoding MPEG-4 video that was encoded by a
consumer engaged in a personal and non-commercial activity and/or was
obtained from a video provider licensed by MPEG LA to provide MPEG-4
video.  No license is granted or shall be implied for any other
use. Additional information including that relating to promotional,
internal and commercial uses and licensing may be obtained from MPEG
LA, LLC.  See http://www.mpegla.com. This product is licensed under
the MPEG-4 systems patent portfolio license for encoding in compliance
with the MPEG-4 systems standard, except that an additional license
and payment of royalties are necessary for encoding in connection with
(i) data stored or replicated in physical media which is paid for on a
title by title basis and/or (ii) data which is paid for on a title by
title basis and is transmitted to an end user for permanent storage
and/or use, such additional license may be obtained from MPEG LA,
LLC. See http://www.mpegla.com for additional details.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;18.3. H.264/AVC. H.264/AVC technology may be included with the
software.  MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this notice:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Note the requirement that the videos created can only be used for
personal or non-commercial purposes.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Sorenson Media software have
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sorensonmedia.com/terms/&quot;&gt;similar terms&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;With respect to a license from Sorenson pertaining to MPEG-4 Video
Decoders and/or Encoders: Any such product is licensed under the
MPEG-4 visual patent portfolio license for the personal and
non-commercial use of a consumer for (i) encoding video in compliance
with the MPEG-4 visual standard (“MPEG-4 video”) and/or (ii) decoding
MPEG-4 video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a personal and
non-commercial activity and/or was obtained from a video provider
licensed by MPEG LA to provide MPEG-4 video. No license is granted or
shall be implied for any other use. Additional information including
that relating to promotional, internal and commercial uses and
licensing may be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC. See
http://www.mpegla.com.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;With respect to a license from Sorenson pertaining to MPEG-4
Consumer Recorded Data Encoder, MPEG-4 Systems Internet Data Encoder,
MPEG-4 Mobile Data Encoder, and/or MPEG-4 Unique Use Encoder: Any such
product is licensed under the MPEG-4 systems patent portfolio license
for encoding in compliance with the MPEG-4 systems standard, except
that an additional license and payment of royalties are necessary for
encoding in connection with (i) data stored or replicated in physical
media which is paid for on a title by title basis and/or (ii) data
which is paid for on a title by title basis and is transmitted to an
end user for permanent storage and/or use. Such additional license may
be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC. See http://www.mpegla.com for
additional details.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Some free software like
&lt;a href=&quot;https://handbrake.fr/&quot;&gt;Handbrake&lt;/A&gt; and
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ffmpeg.org/&quot;&gt;FFMPEG&lt;/a&gt; uses GPL/LGPL licenses and do
not have any such terms included, so for those, there is no
requirement to limit the use to personal and non-commercial.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Mer oppfølging fra MPEG-LA om avtale med dem for å kringkaste og publisere H.264-video</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_oppf_lging_fra_MPEG_LA_om_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_oppf_lging_fra_MPEG_LA_om_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;I føljetongen om H.264
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html&quot;&gt;forlot
jeg leserne i undring&lt;/a&gt; om hvor pakken fra MPEG-LA tok veien, og om
hvilke selskaper i Norge som har avtale med MPEG-LA.  Da Ryan hos
MPEG-LA dro på ferie sendte jeg min melding videre til hans kollega,
og dagen etter fikk jeg følgende svar derfra:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:32:34 +0000
&lt;br&gt;From: Sidney Wolf &amp;lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Cc: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thank you for your message. As you know, Ryan is currently our of the
office, so it will be my pleasure to assist you.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Per your request, attached please find an electronic copy of the
AVC Patent Portfolio License. Please note that the electronic copy of
the License is provided as a convenience and for informational
purposes only. When concluding the Licenses, only the hard copies
provided by MPEG LA may be used.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;To your question, MPEG LA lists our Licensees on our website
according to each program.  The lists are in alphabetical order, so it
is very easy to search.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I hope that this was helpful. If we can be of additional
assistance, please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Sidney A. Wolf
&lt;br&gt;Manager, Global Licensing
&lt;br&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Selv om et epostvedlegg er nyttig for mottakeren, så håpet jeg å få
et dokument jeg kunne dele med alle leserne av bloggen min, og ikke et
som må deles på individuell basis.  Opphavsretten krever godkjenning
fra rettighetsinnehaver før en kan gjøre slikt, så dermed fulgte jeg
opp med et spørsmål om dette var greit.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 20:25:06 +0200
&lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: Sidney Wolf &amp;lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Cc: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thank you for your reply.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;[Sidney Wolf]
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Per your request, attached please find an electronic copy of the AVC
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Patent Portfolio License. Please note that the electronic copy of
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; the License is provided as a convenience and for informational
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; purposes only. When concluding the Licenses, only the hard copies
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; provided by MPEG LA may be used.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This is useful for me to learn, but the reason I asked for the
Internet address of the licensing document was to ensure I could
publish a link to it when I discuss the topic of H.264 licensing here
in Norway, and allow others to verify my observations.  I can not do
the same with an email attachment.  Thus I would like to ask you if it
is OK with MPEG LA that I publish this document on the Internet for
others to read?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; To your question, MPEG LA lists our Licensees on our website
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; according to each program. The lists are in alphabetical order, so
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; it is very easy to search.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I am afraid this do not help me locate Norwegian companies in the
list of Licensees.  I do not know the name of all companies and
organisations in Norway, and thus do not know how to locate the
Norwegian ones on that list.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I hope that this was helpful. If we can be of additional assistance,
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Absoutely helpful to learn more about how MPEG LA handle licensing.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;--
&lt;br&gt;Happy hacking
&lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jeg håpet også at det skulle være mulig å få vite hvilke av de
mange hundre som har avtale med MPEG-LA om bruk av H.264 som holdt til
i Norge.  Begge mine håp falt i grus med svaret fra MPEG-LA.

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:42:39 +0000
&lt;br&gt;From: Sidney Wolf &amp;lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: &#39;Petter Reinholdtsen&#39; &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Cc: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thank you for your reply.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;We appreciate the additional explanation you have provided and for
asking our permission to publish the electronic copy of the License in
advance of doing so.  Typically, MPEG LA prefers to distribute the
electronic copies of our Licenses to interested parties. Therefore,
please feel free to send interested parties to the AVC portion of our
website, http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Intro.aspx for
their further reference.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As previously mentioned, MPEG LA maintains a list of Licensees in good
standing on our website according to each program. Due to the large
volume of Licensees, it would be administratively impractical to
provide this level of detail to interested parties.  Therefore, I am
afraid we are not in a position to assist you with your request.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Sidney A. Wolf
&lt;br&gt;Manager, Global Licensing
&lt;br&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Men takket være epostvedlegget kunne jeg søke på Google etter
setningen &quot;WHEREAS, a video standard commonly referred to as AVC has
been defined and is referred to in this Agreement as the “AVC
Standard” (as more fully defined herein below)&quot; som finnes i avtalen,
og lokalisere en kopi fra 2007 av
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1342960/000119312509050004/dex1024.htm&quot;&gt;lisensavtalen
mellom MPEG-LA og DivX, Inc.&lt;/a&gt;, slik at mine lesere kan se hvordan
avtalen så ut da.  Jeg har ikke sammenlignet tekstene for å se om noe
har endret seg siden den tid, men satser på at teksten er representativ.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jeg aner fortsatt ikke hvor FedEx tok veien med pakken fra
MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Update 2012-07-06: Jeg er visst ikke den første som forsøker å få
klarhet i problemstillinger rundt H.264, og kom nettopp over en veldig
interessant bloggpost fra 2010 hos LibreVideo med tittelen
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA
answers some questions about AVC/H.264 licensing&lt;/a&gt;.  Anbefales!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Departementenes servicesenter har ingen avtale om bruk av H.264 med MPEG-LA</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Departementenes_servicesenter_har_ingen_avtale_om_bruk_av_H_264_med_MPEG_LA.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Departementenes_servicesenter_har_ingen_avtale_om_bruk_av_H_264_med_MPEG_LA.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Da fikk jeg nettopp svar fra
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dss.dep.no/&quot;&gt;Departementenes servicesenter&lt;/a&gt;
(DSS) på
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;mitt
spørsmål om avtale rundt bruk av H.264&lt;/a&gt;.  De har ingen avtale med
MPEG LA eller dets representanter.  Her er svaret.

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:04:42 +0000
&lt;br&gt;From: Nielsen Mette Haga &amp;lt;Mette-Haga.Nielsen (at) dss.dep.no&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;petter.reinholdtsen (at) ...&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;CC: Postmottak &amp;lt;Postmottak (at) dss.dep.no&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Subject: SV: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H.264-relaterte avtaler&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;DSS har ikke inngått noen egen lisensavtale med MPEG-LA eller noen som
representerer MPEG-LA i Norge. Videoløsningen på regjeringen.no er
levert av Smartcom:tv. Lisensforholdet rundt H.264 er ikke omtalt i
vår avtale med Smartcom.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Vennlig hilsen&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Mette Haga Nielsen
&lt;br&gt;Fung. seksjonssjef&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Departementenes servicesenter&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Informasjonsforvaltning

&lt;p&gt;Mobil 93 09 83 51
&lt;br&gt;E-post mette-haga.nielsen (at) dss.dep.no&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hvis den norske regjeringen representert ved DSS ikke har slik
avtale, så kan en kanskje konkludere med at det ikke trengs?  Jeg er
ikke trygg på at det er god juridisk grunn å stå på, men det er i det
minste interessant å vite at hverken NRK eller DSS har funnet det
nødvendig å ha avtale om bruk av H.264.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Det forklarer ikke hvordan de kan ignorere bruksvilkårene knyttet
til bruk av opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale de bruker til
videoproduksjon, med mindre slike vilkår kan ignoreres av selskaper og
privatpersoner i Norge.  Har de lov til å bryte vilkårene, eller har
de brutt dem og så langt sluppet unna med det?  Jeg aner ikke.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>MPEG-LA mener NRK må ha avtale med dem for å kringkaste og publisere H.264-video</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Etter at NRK
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html&quot;&gt;nektet
å spore opp eventuell avtale med MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt; eller andre om bruk av
MPEG/H.264-video etter at jeg &lt;a
href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;ba
om innsyn i slike avtaler&lt;/a&gt;, tenkte jeg at i stedet for å forsøke å
få NRK til å finne en slik avtale, så burde det være like enkelt å
spørre MPEG-LA om de hadde avtale med NRK.  Spørsmålet ble sendt før
jeg fikk tips fra Kieran Kunhya om hvor listen over lisensinnehavere
&quot;in Good Standing&quot; befant seg.  MPEG-LA svarte meg i dag, og kan
fortelle at NRK ikke har noen avtale med dem, så da er i det minste det
slått fast.  Ikke overraskende mener MPEG-LA at det trengs en avtale
med MPEG-LA for å streame H.264, men deres rammer er jo
rettstilstanden i USA og ikke Norge.  Jeg tar dermed den delen av
svaret med en klype salt.  Jeg er dermed fortsatt ikke klok på om det
trengs en avtale, og hvis det trengs en avtale her i Norge, heller
ikke sikker på om NRK har en avtale med noen andre enn MPEG-LA som
gjør at de ikke trenger avtale direkte med MPEG-LA.  Jeg håper NRKs
jurister har vurdert dette, og at det er mulig å få tilgang til
vurderingen uansett om de trenger en avtale eller ikke.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Her er epostutvekslingen med MPEG-LA så langt.  Håper ikke
utvekslingen fører til NRK plutselig får en litt uventet pakke fra
MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:29:37 +0200
&lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: licensing-web (at) mpegla.com
&lt;br&gt;Subject: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hi.  I have a small question for you, that I hope it is OK that I
ask.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Is there any license agreements between MPEG-LA and NRK, &amp;lt;URL:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrk.no/&quot;&gt;http://www.nrk.no/&lt;/a&gt; &amp;gt;, the
Norwegian national broadcasting cooperation?  I am not sure if they
need one, and am just curious if such agreeement exist.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The postal address is&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
  NRK
  &lt;br&gt;Postbox 8500, Majorstuen
  &lt;br&gt;0340 Oslo
  &lt;br&gt;Norway
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;if it make it easier for you to locate such agreement.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Can you tell me how many entities in Norway have an agreement with
MPEG-LA, and the name of these entities?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;--
&lt;br&gt;Happy hacking
&lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I dag, to dager senere, fikk jeg følgende svar:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:11:17 +0000
&lt;br&gt;From: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&gt;
&lt;br&gt;CC: MD Administration &amp;lt;MDAdministration (at) mpegla.com&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;To begin, I will assume that you are referring to AVC/H.264
technology in your message below, as this technology is commonly used
in the transmission of video content.  In that case, please allow me
to briefly summarize the coverage provided by our AVC Patent Portfolio
License.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Our AVC License provides coverage for end products and video
services 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
associated with the end products/video they offer.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;While the Norwegian Broadcast Corporation (NRK) is not currently a
Licensee to MPEG LA&#39;s AVC License (or any other Portfolio License
offered by MPEG LA), if NRK offers AVC Video to End Users for
remuneration (for example, Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
Television, or Internet Broadcast AVC Video), then NRK will need to
conclude the AVC License and may be responsible for paying applicable
royalties associated with the AVC Video it distributes.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Today I will send you a FedEx package containing a copy of our AVC
License for your review.  You should receive the License document
within the next few days.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, MPEG LA currently has several Norwegian Licensees that
can be found under the &quot;Licensees&quot; header within the respective
portion of our website.  For example, you may find our list of
Licensees in Good Standing to our AVC License in the AVC portion of
our website,
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.  I look forward to hearing from you again
soon.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Best regards,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ryan&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ryan M. Rodriguez
&lt;br&gt;Licensing Associate
&lt;br&gt;MPEG LA
&lt;br&gt;5425 Wisconsin Avenue
&lt;br&gt;Suite 801
&lt;br&gt;Chevy Chase, MD 20815
&lt;br&gt;U.S.A.
&lt;br&gt;Phone:  +1 (301) 986-6660 x211
&lt;br&gt;Fax:    +1 (301) 986-8575
&lt;br&gt;Email: rrodriguez (at) mpegla.com&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Meldingen om utsendt FedEx-pakke var så merkelig at jeg
øyeblikkelig sendte svar tilbake og spurte hva i alle dager han mente,
da han jo ikke hadde fått noen postadresse som nådde meg.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:36:15 +0200
&lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Cc: MD Administration &amp;lt;MDAdministration (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;[Ryan Rodriguez]
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thank you for your quick reply.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Today I will send you a FedEx package containing a copy of our AVC
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; License for your review.  You should receive the License document
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; within the next few days.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The part about sending a FedEx package confused me, though.  I did not
&lt;br&gt;give you my address, nor am I associated with NRK in any way, so I hope
&lt;br&gt;you did not try to send me a package using the address of NRK.  If you
&lt;br&gt;would send me the Internet address of to the document, it would be more
&lt;br&gt;useful to me to be able to download it as an electronic document.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Meanwhile, MPEG LA currently has several Norwegian Licensees that can
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; be found under the &quot;Licensees&quot; header within the respective portion
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; of our website.  For example, you may find our list of Licensees in
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Good Standing to our AVC License in the AVC portion of our website,
&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;How can I recognize the Norwegian licensees?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;--
&lt;br&gt;Happy hacking
&lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Selv om jeg svarte kun noen minutter etter at jeg fikk eposten fra
MPEG-LA, fikk jeg eposten under som automatisk var beskjed på min
siste epost.  Får håpe noen likevel følger opp &quot;FedEx-pakken&quot;.  For å
øke sjansen for at noen revurderer utsending av pakke uten mottaker,
videresendte jeg min epost til swolf (at) mpegla.com, så får vi se.
Har ikke hørt noe mer 3 timer senere, så jeg mistenker at ingen leste
min epost tidsnok.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:36:20 +0000
&lt;br&gt;From: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
&lt;br&gt;Subject: Automatic reply: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thank you for your message.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I will be out of the office until Thursday, July 5 and will respond
to all messages upon my return.  If this is a matter that requires
immediate attention, please contact Sidney Wolf (swolf (at)
mpegla.com)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Best regards,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ryan&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ryan M. Rodriguez
&lt;br&gt;Licensing Associate
&lt;br&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Litt klokere, men fortsatt ikke klok på mitt opprinnelige spørsmål,
som er om en trenger avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere eller
kringkaste H.264-video i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>NRK nekter å finne og utlevere eventuell avtale med MPEG-LA</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:10:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg fikk nettopp svar fra NRK på
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;min
forespørsel om kopi av avtale&lt;/a&gt; med MPEG-LA eller andre om bruk av
MPEG og/eller H.264.  Svaret har fått saksreferanse 2011/371 (mon tro
hva slags sak fra 2011 dette er?) hos NRK og lyder som følger:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Svar på innsynsbegjæring i MPEG / H.264-relaterte
avtaler&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Viser til innsynsbegjæring av 19. juni 2012. Kravet om innsyn
gjelder avtale som gjør at NRK «ikke er begrenset av de generelle
bruksvilkårene som gjelder for utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller
H.264».&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I henhold til offentleglova § 28 annet ledd må innsynskravet gjelde
en bestemt sak eller i rimelig utstrekning saker av en bestemt
sak. Det er på det rene at det aktuelle innsynskravet ikke gjelder en
bestemt sak. Spørsmålet som reiser seg er om identifiseringsgraden er
tilstrekkelig. I Justisdepartementets «Rettleiar til offentleglova»
står følgende:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;«Kravet om at innsynskravet må gjelde ei bestemt sak er til hinder
for at eit innsynskrav kan gjelde alle saker av ein bestemt art, utan
at den enkelte saka blir identifisert.  Ein kan med andre ord i
utgangspunktet ikkje krevje innsyn i til dømes alle saker om
utsleppsløyve hos Statens forureiningstilsyn frå dei siste tre åra,
med mindre ein identifiserer kvar enkelt sak, til dømes med tilvising
til dato, partar eller liknande.»&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Vedrørende denne begrensningen har Justisdepartementet uttalt
følgende (Lovavdelingens uttalelser JDLOV-2010-3295):&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;«Bakgrunnen for avgrensinga av kva innsynskravet kan gjelde,
er fyrst og fremst at meir generelle innsynskrav, utan noka form for
identifikasjon av kva ein eigentleg ynskjer, ville vere svært
vanskelege å handsame for forvaltninga.»&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I samme sak uttaler Lovavdelingen følgende:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;«Det følgjer vidare av offentleglova § 28 andre ledd at det `i
rimeleg utstrekning&#39; kan krevjast innsyn i `saker av ein bestemt
art&#39;. Vilkåret om at eit innsynskrav berre `i rimeleg utstrekning&#39; kan
gjelde saker av ein bestemt art, er i hovudsak knytt til kor
arbeidskrevjande det vil vere å finne fram til dei aktuelle
dokumenta. I tillegg reknar vi med at vilkåret kan gje grunnlag for å
nekte innsyn i tilfelle der innsynskravet er så omfattande (gjeld så
mange dokument) at arbeidsmengda som ville gått med til å handsame
det, er større enn det ein `i rimeleg utstrekning&#39; kan krevje (sjølv
om det nok skal mykje til).»&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;NRK har ikke noen egen sammenstilling over avtaler innenfor
bestemte områder som omtales i innsynsbegjæringen. De måtte søkes på
vanlig måte. I tillegg finnes ikke noen automatisert måte å finne
avtaler som «ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som
gjelder for utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H.264». En slik
gjennomgang av avtaler måtte gjøres manuelt av en person med
spesialistkunnskap. Dette vil kreve at NRK avsetter omfattende
ressurser for å finne frem relevante avtaler og for deretter å vurdere
om de dekkes av det innsynsbegjæringen omfattes.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;På bakgrunn av dette nekter NRK innsyn, med den begrunnelsen at
innsynskravet er så omfattende at arbeidsmengden for å håndtere kravet
vil være langt større enn det som i rimelig utstrekning kan kreves i
henhold til offentleglova § 28 annet ledd.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Avslag på deres innsynsbegjæring kan påklages til Kultur- og
kirkedepartementet innen tre uker fra det tidspunkt avslaget kommer
frem til mottakeren, i henhold til reglene i offentleglova § 32,
jf. forvaltningsloven kapittel VI. Klagen skal stiles til Kultur- og
kirkedepartementet, og sendes til NRK.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;NRK er imidlertid etter Offentleglova forpliktet å gi ut journaler,
slik at en eventuell søknad om innsyn kan tydeligere identifisere
hvilke dokumenter som det ønskes innsyn i. NRKs offentlige journaler
for inneværende og forrige måned ligger ute på
NRK.no/innsyn. Journaler som går lengre tilbake i tid, kan sendes ut
på forespørsel til innsyn (at) nrk.no.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Med hilsen
&lt;br&gt;Dokumentarkivet i NRK
&lt;br&gt;v/ Elin Brandsrud
&lt;br&gt;Tel. direkte: 23 04 29 29
&lt;br&gt;Post: RBM3, Postboks 8500 Majorstuen, 0340 Oslo
&lt;br&gt;innsyn (at) nrk.no&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Svaret kom
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2012-06-25-video-mpegla-nrk.pdf&quot;&gt;i
PDF-form som vedlegg på epost&lt;/a&gt;.  Jeg er litt usikker på hvordan jeg
best går videre for å bli klok, men jeg har jo i hvert fall tre uker
på å vurdere om jeg skal klage.  Enten må nok forespørselen
reformuleres eller så må jeg vel klage.  Synes jo det er merkelig at
NRK ikke har bedre kontroll med hvilke avtaler de har inngått.  Det
burde jo være noen i ledelsen som vet om de har signert en avtale med
MPEG-LA eller ikke...&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2012-06-25 20:20: Et google-søk på &quot;2011/371 nrk&quot;
sendte meg til postjournalen for
&lt;a href=&quot;http://nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.8212365!offentligjournal19062012.pdf&quot;&gt;2012-06-19&lt;/a&gt;
og
&lt;a href=&quot;http://nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.8214156!offentligjournal20062012.pdf&quot;&gt;2012-06-20&lt;/a&gt;
hos NRK som viser mine forespørsler og viser at sakens tittel hos NRK
er &quot;Graphic Systems Regions MA 2378/10E&quot;.  Videre søk etter &quot;Graphic
Systems Regions&quot; viser at dette er saken til et anbud om
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://no.mercell.com/m/mts/Tender/27179412.aspx&quot;&gt;a graphics
system for 12 or 13 sites broadcasting regional news&lt;/a&gt;&quot; hos Mercell
Sourcing Service, også omtalt på
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publictenders.net/tender/595705&quot;&gt;Public
Tenders&lt;/a&gt; og
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.doffin.no/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JAN155521&quot;&gt;Doffin&lt;/a&gt;.
Jeg er dog usikker på hvordan dette er relatert til min
forespørsel.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2012-06-25 22:40: Ble tipset av Kieran Kunhya, fra
miljøet rundt
&lt;a href=&quot;http://code.google.com/p/open-broadcast-encoder/&quot;&gt;Open
Broadcast Encoder&lt;/a&gt;, at listen over de som har lisensavtale med
MPEG-LA er
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpeg-la.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&quot;&gt;tilgjengelig
på web&lt;/a&gt;.  Veldig fint å oppdage hvor den finnes, da jeg må ha lett
etter feil ting da jeg forsøke å finne den.  Der står ikke NRK, men
flere andre &quot;Broadcasting Company&quot;-oppføringer.  Lurer på om det betyr
at NRK ikke trenger avtale, eller noe helt annet?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Trenger en avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere og kringkaste H.264-video?</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Trengs det avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lovlig rett til å
distribuere og kringkaste video i MPEG4 eller med videokodingen H.264?
&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 og MPEG4 er jo ikke en
fri og åpen standard&lt;/a&gt; i henhold til
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html&quot;&gt;definisjonen
til Digistan&lt;/a&gt;, så i enkelte land er det ingen tvil om at du må ha
en slik avtale, men jeg må innrømme at jeg ikke vet om det også
gjelder Norge.  Det ser uansett ut til å være en juridisk interessant
problemstilling.  Men jeg tenkte her om dagen som så, at hvis det er
nødvendig, så har store aktører som
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrk.no/&quot;&gt;NRK&lt;/a&gt; og
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/&quot;&gt;regjeringen&lt;/a&gt; skaffet seg en
slik avtale.  Jeg har derfor sendt forespørsel til begge (for
regjeringen sin del er det Departementenes Servicesenter som gjør
jobben), og bedt om kopi av eventuelle avtaler de har om bruk av MPEG
og/eller H.264 med MPEG-LA eller andre aktører som opererer på vegne
av MPEG-LA.  Her er kopi av eposten jeg har sendt til
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dss.dep.no/&quot;&gt;Departementenes Servicesenter&lt;/a&gt;.
Forespørselen til NRK er veldig lik.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:18:33 +0200
&lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;br&gt;To: postmottak@dss.dep.no
&lt;br&gt;Subject: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H.264-relaterte avtaler
 
&lt;p&gt;Hei.  Jeg ber herved om innsyn og kopi av dokumenter i DSS relatert
til avtaler rundt bruk av videoformatene MPEG og H.264.  Jeg er
spesielt interessert i å vite om DSS har lisensavtale med MPEG-LA
eller noen som representerer MPEG-LA i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;MPEG og H.264 er videoformater som brukes både til kringkasting
(f.eks. i bakkenett og kabel-TV) og videopublisering på web, deriblant
via Adobe Flash.  MPEG-LA, &amp;lt;URL:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpeg-la.com/&quot;&gt;http://www.mpeg-la.com/&lt;/a&gt; &amp;gt;, er
en organisasjon som har fått oppgaven, av de kjente rettighetshavere
av immaterielle rettigheter knyttet til MPEG og H.264, å selge
bruksrett for MPEG og H.264.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Via regjeringen.no kringkastes med MPEG og H.264-baserte
videoformater, og dette ser ut til å være organisert av DSS.  Jeg
antar dermed at DSS har avtale med en eller annen aktør om dette.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;F.eks. har Adobe Premiere Pro har følgende klausul i følge &amp;lt;URL:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html&quot;&gt;http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html&lt;/a&gt;
&amp;gt;:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

  &lt;p&gt;6.17. AVC DISTRIBUTION. The following notice applies to software
  containing AVC import and export functionality: 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 (&quot;AVC VIDEO&quot;) 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. SEE
  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Her er det kun &quot;non-commercial&quot; og &quot;personal and non-commercial&quot;
aktivitet som er tillatt uten ekstra avtale med MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Et annet tilsvarende eksempel er Apple Final Cut Pro, som har
følgende klausul i følge &amp;lt;URL:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf&quot;&gt;http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
&amp;gt;:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

  &lt;p&gt;15. Merknad om H.264/AVC. Hvis Apple-programvaren inneholder
  funksjonalitet for AVC-koding og/eller AVC-dekoding, krever
  kommersiell bruk ekstra lisensiering og følgende gjelder:
  AVC-FUNKSJONALITETEN I DETTE PRODUKTET KAN KUN ANVENDES AV
  FORBRUKERE OG KUN FOR PERSONLIG OG IKKE- KOMMERSIELL BRUK TIL (i)
  KODING AV VIDEO I OVERENSSTEMMELSE MED AVC-STANDARDEN (&quot;AVC-VIDEO&quot;)
  OG/ELLER (ii) DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO SOM ER KODET AV EN FORBRUKER TIL
  PERSONLIG OG IKKE-KOMMERSIELL BRUK OG/ELLER DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO
  FRA EN VIDEOLEVERANDØR SOM HAR LISENS TIL Å TILBY
  AVC-VIDEO. INFORMASJON OM ANNEN BRUK OG LISENSIERING KAN INNHENTES
  FRA MPEG LA L.L.C. SE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
  
&lt;p&gt;Tilsvarende gjelder for andre programvarepakker, kamera, etc som
bruker MPEG og H.264, at en må ha en avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lov
til å bruke programmet/utstyret hvis en skal lage noe annet enn
private filmer og i ikke-kommersiell virksomhet.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jeg er altså interessert i kopi av avtaler DSS har som gjør at en
ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som gjelder for
utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Nå venter jeg spent på svaret.  Jeg planlegger å blogge om svaret
her.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>HTC One X - Your video?  What do you mean?</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article243690.ece&quot;&gt;an
article today&lt;/a&gt; published by Computerworld Norway, the photographer
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urke.com/eirik/&quot;&gt;Eirik Helland Urke&lt;/a&gt; reports
that the video editor application included with
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.htc.com/www/smartphones/htc-one-x/#specs&quot;&gt;HTC One
X&lt;/a&gt; have some quite surprising terms of use.  The article is mostly
based on the twitter message from mister Urke, stating:

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/urke/status/194062269724897280&quot;&gt;Drøy
brukeravtale: HTC kan bruke MINE redigerte videoer kommersielt. Selv
kan jeg KUN bruke dem privat.&lt;/a&gt;&quot;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I quickly translated it to this English message:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&quot;Arrogant user agreement: HTC can use MY edited videos
commercially.  Although I can ONLY use them privately.&quot;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#39;ve been unable to find the text of the license term myself, but
suspect it is a variation of the MPEG-LA terms I
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html&quot;&gt;discovered
with my Canon IXUS 130&lt;/a&gt;.  The HTC One X specification specifies that
the recording format of the phone is .amr for audio and .mp3 for
video.  AMR is
&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Multi-Rate_audio_codec#Licensing_and_patent_issues&quot;&gt;Adaptive
Multi-Rate audio codec&lt;/a&gt; with patents which according to the
Wikipedia article require an license agreement with
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.voiceage.com/&quot;&gt;VoiceAge&lt;/a&gt;.  MP4 is
&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing&quot;&gt;MPEG4 with
H.264&lt;/a&gt;, which according to Wikipedia require a licence agreement
with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I know why I prefer
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;free and open
standards&lt;/a&gt; also for video.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>What is missing in the Debian desktop, or why my parents use Kubuntu</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_is_missing_in_the_Debian_desktop__or_why_my_parents_use_Kubuntu.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_is_missing_in_the_Debian_desktop__or_why_my_parents_use_Kubuntu.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:10:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;While at Debconf11, I have several times during discussions
mentioned the issues I believe should be improved in Debian for its
desktop to be useful for more people.  The use case for this is my
parents, which are currently running Kubuntu which solve the
issues.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I suspect these four missing features are not very hard to
implement.  After all, they are present in Ubuntu, so if we wanted to
do this in Debian we would have a source.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;

&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Simple GUI based upgrade of packages.&lt;/strong&gt; When there
are new packages available for upgrades, a icon in the KDE status bar
indicate this, and clicking on it will activate the simple upgrade
tool to handle it.  I have no problem guiding both of my parents
through the process over the phone.  If a kernel reboot is required,
this too is indicated by the status bars and the upgrade tool.  Last
time I checked, nothing with the same features was working in KDE in
Debian.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Simple handling of missing Firefox browser
plugins.&lt;/strong&gt; When the browser encounter a MIME type it do not
currently have a handler for, it will ask the user if the system
should search for a package that would add support for this MIME type,
and if the user say yes, the APT sources will be searched for packages
advertising the MIME type in their control file (visible in the
Packages file in the APT archive).  If one or more packages are found,
it is a simple click of the mouse to add support for the missing mime
type.  If the package require the user to accept some non-free
license, this is explained to the user.  The entire process make it
more clear to the user why something do not work in the browser, and
make the chances higher for the user to blame the web page authors and
not the browser for any missing features.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Simple handling of missing multimedia codec/format
handlers.&lt;/strong&gt; When the media players encounter a format or codec
it is not supporting, a dialog pop up asking the user if the system
should search for a package that would add support for it.  This
happen with things like MP3, Windows Media or H.264.  The selection
and installation procedure is very similar to the Firefox browser
plugin handling.  This is as far as I know implemented using a
gstreamer hook.  The end result is that the user easily get access to
the codecs that are present from the APT archives available, while
explaining more on why a given format is unsupported by Ubuntu.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Better browser handling of some MIME types.&lt;/strong&gt; When
displaying a text/plain file in my Debian browser, it will propose to
start emacs to show it.  If I remember correctly, when doing the same
in Kunbutu it show the file as a text file in the browser.  At least I
know Opera will show text files within the browser.  I much prefer the
latter behaviour.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ol&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;There are other nice features as well, like the simplified suite
upgrader, but given that I am the one mostly doing the dist-upgrade,
it do not matter much.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I really hope we could get these features in place for the next
Debian release.  It would require the coordinated effort of several
maintainers, but would make the end user experience a lot better.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>The video format most supported in web browsers?</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;The video format struggle on the web continues, and the three
contenders seem to be Ogg Theora, H.264 and WebM.  Most video sites
seem to use H.264, while others use Ogg Theora.  Interestingly enough,
the comments I see give me the feeling that a lot of people believe
H.264 is the most supported video format in browsers, but according to
the Wikipedia article on
&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video&quot;&gt;HTML5 video&lt;/a&gt;,
this is not true.  Check out the nice table of supprted formats in
different browsers there.  The format supported by most browsers is
Ogg Theora, supported by released versions of Mozilla Firefox, Google
Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany, Origyn Web Browser and
BOLT browser, while not supported by Internet Explorer nor Safari.
The runner up is WebM supported by released versions of Google Chrome
Chromium Opera and Origyn Web Browser, and test versions of Mozilla
Firefox.  H.264 is supported by released versions of Safari, Origyn
Web Browser and BOLT browser, and the test version of Internet
Explorer.  Those wanting Ogg Theora support in Internet Explorer and
Safari can install plugins to get it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;To me, the simple conclusion from this is that to reach most users
without any extra software installed, one uses Ogg Theora with the
HTML5 video tag.   Of course to reach all those without a browser
handling HTML5, one need fallback mechanisms.  In
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/&quot;&gt;NUUG&lt;/a&gt;, we provide first fallback to a
plugin capable of playing MPEG1 video, and those without such support
we have a second fallback to the Cortado java applet playing Ogg
Theora.  This seem to work quite well, as can be seen in an &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20110111-semantic-web/&quot;&gt;example
from last week&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The reason Ogg Theora is the most supported format, and H.264 is
the least supported is simple.  Implementing and using H.264
require royalty payment to MPEG-LA, and the terms of use from MPEG-LA
are incompatible with free software licensing.  If you believed H.264
was without royalties and license terms, check out
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 – Not The Kind Of
Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Simon Phipps.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A incomplete list of sites providing video in Ogg Theora is
available from
&lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/List_of_Theora_videos&quot;&gt;the
Xiph.org wiki&lt;/a&gt;, if you want to have a look.  I&#39;m not aware of a
similar list for WebM nor H.264.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Update 2011-01-16 09:40: A question from Tollef on IRC made me
realise that I failed to make it clear enough this text is about the
&amp;lt;video&amp;gt; tag support in browsers and not the video support
provided by external plugins like the Flash plugins.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Chrome plan to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &amp;lt;video&amp;gt;</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Today I discovered
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digi.no/860070/google-dropper-h264-stotten-i-chrome&quot;&gt;via
digi.no&lt;/a&gt; that the Chrome developers, in a surprising announcement,
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html&quot;&gt;yesterday
announced&lt;/a&gt; plans to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &amp;lt;video&amp;gt; in
the browser.  The argument used is that H.264 is not a &quot;completely
open&quot; codec technology.  If you believe H.264 was free for everyone
to use, I recommend having a look at the essay
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 – Not The Kind Of
Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  It is not free of cost for creators of video
tools, nor those of us that want to publish on the Internet, and the
terms provided by MPEG-LA excludes free software projects from
licensing the patents needed for H.264.  Some background information
on the Google announcement is available from
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osnews.com/story/24243/Google_To_Drop_H264_Support_from_Chrome&quot;&gt;OSnews&lt;/a&gt;.
A good read. :)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Personally, I believe it is great that Google is taking a stand to
promote equal terms for everyone when it comes to video publishing on
the Internet.  This can only be done by publishing using free and open
standards, which is only possible if the web browsers provide support
for these free and open standards.  At the moment there seem to be two
camps in the web browser world when it come to video support.  Some
browsers support H.264, and others support
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theora.org/&quot;&gt;Ogg Theora&lt;/a&gt; and
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.webmproject.org/&quot;&gt;WebM&lt;/a&gt;
(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diracvideo.org/&quot;&gt;Dirac&lt;/a&gt; is not really an option
yet), forcing those of us that want to publish video on the Internet
and which can not accept the terms of use presented by MPEG-LA for
H.264 to not reach all potential viewers.
Wikipedia keep &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video&quot;&gt;an
updated summary&lt;/a&gt; of the current browser support.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Not surprising, several people would prefer Google to keep
promoting H.264, and John Gruber
&lt;a href=&quot;http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions&quot;&gt;presents
the mind set&lt;/a&gt; of these people quite well.  His rhetorical questions
provoked a reply from Thom Holwerda with another set of questions
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10_Questions_for_John_Gruber_Regarding_H_264_WebM&quot;&gt;presenting
the issues with H.264&lt;/a&gt;. Both are worth a read.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Some argue that if Google is dropping H.264 because it isn&#39;t free,
they should also drop support for the Adobe Flash plugin.  This
argument was covered by Simon Phipps in
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/01/google-and-h264---far-from-hypocritical/index.htm&quot;&gt;todays
blog post&lt;/a&gt;, which I find to put the issue in context.  To me it
make perfect sense to drop native H.264 support for HTML5 in the
browser while still allowing plugins.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I suspect the reason this announcement make so many people protest,
is that all the users and promoters of H.264 suddenly get an uneasy
feeling that they might be backing the wrong horse.  A lot of TV
broadcasters have been moving to H.264 the last few years, and a lot
of money has been invested in hardware based on the belief that they
could use the same video format for both broadcasting and web
publishing.  Suddenly this belief is shaken.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;An interesting question is why Google is doing this.  While the
presented argument might be true enough, I believe Google would only
present the argument if the change make sense from a business
perspective.  One reason might be that they are currently negotiating
with MPEG-LA over royalties or usage terms, and giving MPEG-LA the
feeling that dropping H.264 completely from Chroome, Youtube and
Google Video would improve the negotiation position of Google.
Another reason might be that Google want to save money by not having
to pay the video tax to MPEG-LA at all, and thus want to move to a
video format not requiring royalties at all.  A third reason might be
that the Chrome development team simply want to avoid the
Chrome/Chromium split to get more help with the development of Chrome.
I guess time will tell.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Update 2011-01-15: The Google Chrome team provided
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html&quot;&gt;more
background and information on the move&lt;/a&gt; it a blog post yesterday.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;The
Digistan definition&lt;/a&gt; of a free and open standard reads like this:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
as follows:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;

&lt;li&gt;A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
open decision-making procedure available to all interested
parties.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The standard has been published and the standard specification
document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
distribute, and use it freely.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
products based on the standard.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
and open standard according to this definition.  Here is a short
writeup of what I have been able to gather so far.  I brought up the
topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
&lt;a href=&quot;http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html&quot;&gt;in
July 2009&lt;/a&gt;, for those that want to see some background information.
According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Free from vendor capture?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
Ogg Theora specification.  It can be argued that the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/&quot;&gt;Xiph foundation&lt;/A&gt; is such vendor, but
given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
obvious that this is a real risk.  One issue with the Xiph
foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
control the foundation) are not easily available on the web.  I&#39;ve
been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
where is is spent in the foundation.  It is thus not obvious for an
external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
specification.  But it seem unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
claim it to be, this point is fulfilled.  If Xiph foundation is
controlled by a single vendor, it isn&#39;t, but I have not found any
documentation indicating this.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;According to
&lt;a href=&quot;http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf&quot;&gt;a report&lt;/a&gt;
prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
report is correct.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Specification freely available?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The specification for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/&quot;&gt;Ogg
container format&lt;/a&gt; and both the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/&quot;&gt;Vorbis&lt;/a&gt; and
&lt;a href=&quot;http://theora.org/doc/&quot;&gt;Theora&lt;/a&gt; codeces are available on
the web.  This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:

&lt;blockquote&gt;

Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
specification compliance.

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt&quot;&gt;RFC 3533&lt;/a&gt;, and
this is the term:&lt;p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
translate it into languages other than English.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
this term seem to be fulfilled.  There might be a problem with the
missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
thus reuse it in other specifications.  Not quite sure if that is a
requirement for the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Royalty-free?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
Theora format.
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;
and
&lt;a href=&quot;http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit&quot;&gt;Steve
Jobs&lt;/a&gt; in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
them.  Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
without paying any royalties.  For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
than any real problem with Ogg Theora.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No constraints on re-use?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation.  Given the
background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
this.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
see if they are free and open standards.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Best å ikke fortelle noen at streaming er nedlasting...</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;I dag la jeg inn en kommentar på en sak hos NRKBeta
&lt;a href=&quot;http://nrkbeta.no/2010/10/27/bakom-blindpassasjer-del-1/&quot;&gt;om
hvordan TV-serien Blindpassasjer ble laget&lt;/a&gt; i forbindelse med at
filmene NRK la ut ikke var tilgjengelig i et
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;fritt og
åpent format&lt;/a&gt;.  Dette var det jeg skrev publiserte der 07:39.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Vi fikk en kommentar rundt måten streamet innhold er beskyttet fra
nedlasting.  Mange av oss som kan mer enn gjennomsnittet om systemer
som dette, vet at det stort sett er mulig å lure ut ting med den
nødvendige forkunnskapen.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Haha.  Å streame innhold er det samme som å laste ned innhold, så å
beskytte en stream mot nedlasting er ikke mulig.  Å skrive noe slikt
er å forlede leseren.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Med den bakgrunn blir forklaringen om at noen rettighetshavere kun
vil tillate streaming men ikke nedlasting meningsløs.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Anbefaler forresten å lese
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm&quot;&gt;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;
om hva som ville være konsekvensen hvis digitale avspillingssperrer
(DRM) fungerte.  Det gjør de naturligvis ikke teknisk - det er jo
derfor de må ha totalitære juridiske beskyttelsesmekanismer på plass,
men det er skremmende hva samfunnet tillater og NRK er med på å bygge
opp under.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ca. 20 minutter senere får jeg følgende epost fra Anders Hofseth i
NRKBeta:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From: Anders Hofseth &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: &quot;pere@hungry.com&quot; &amp;lt;pere@hungry.com&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Cc: Eirik Solheim &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;, Jon Ståle Carlsen &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;, Henrik Lied &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: &quot;Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1&quot;
&lt;br&gt;Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:58:44 +0200&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hei Petter.
&lt;br&gt;Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon,
men om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt
om å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er
fjernet og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Med hilsen,
&lt;br&gt;-anders&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ring meg om noe er uklart: 95XXXXXXX&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Ble så fascinert over denne holdningen, at jeg forfattet og sendte
over følgende svar.  I og med at debatten er fjernet fra NRK Betas
kommentarfelt, så velger jeg å publisere her på bloggen min i stedet.
Har fjernet epostadresser og telefonnummer til de involverte, for å
unngå at de tiltrekker seg uønskede direkte kontaktforsøk.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere@hungry.com&gt;
&lt;br&gt;To: Anders Hofseth &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Cc: Eirik Solheim &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;,
&lt;br&gt;        Jon Ståle Carlsen &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;,
&lt;br&gt;        Henrik Lied &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: &quot;Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1&quot;
&lt;br&gt;Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:24:34 +0200&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;[Anders Hofseth]
&lt;br&gt;&gt; Hei Petter.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hei.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&gt; Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men
&lt;br&gt;&gt; om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om
&lt;br&gt;&gt; å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
&lt;br&gt;&gt; særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Godt å se at du er enig i at dette er en interessant diskusjon.  Den
vil nok fortsette en stund til.  :)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Må innrømme at jeg synes det er merkelig å lese at dere i NRK med
vitende og vilje ønsker å forlede rettighetshaverne for å kunne
fortsette å legge ut arkivmateriale.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Kommentarer og diskusjoner i bloggene til NRK Beta påvirker jo ikke
faktum, som er at streaming er det samme som nedlasting, og at innhold
som er lagt ut på nett kan lagres lokalt for avspilling når en ønsker
det.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Det du sier er jo at klarering av arkivmateriale for publisering på
web krever at en holder faktum skjult fra debattfeltet på NRKBeta.
Det er ikke et argument som holder vann. :)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&gt; Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet
&lt;br&gt;&gt; og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
&lt;br&gt;&gt; konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Personlig ønsker jeg at NRK skal slutte å stikke hodet i sanden og
heller være åpne på hvordan virkeligheten fungerer, samt ta opp kampen
mot de som vil låse kulturen inne.  Jeg synes det er en skam at NRK
godtar å forlede publikum.  Ville heller at NRK krever at innhold som
skal sendes skal være uten bruksbegresninger og kan publiseres i
formater som heller ikke har bruksbegresninger (bruksbegresningene til
H.264 burde få varselbjellene i NRK til å ringe).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;At NRK er med på DRM-tåkeleggingen og at det kommer feilaktive
påstander om at &quot;streaming beskytter mot nedlasting&quot; som bare er egnet
til å bygge opp om en myte som er skadelig for samfunnet som helhet.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Anbefaler &amp;lt;URL:&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&quot;&gt;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&lt;/a&gt;&gt; og en
titt på
&amp;lt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html&quot;&gt;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html&lt;/a&gt; &gt;.
for å se hva slags bruksbegresninger H.264 innebærer.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hvis dette innebærer at NRK må være åpne med at arkivmaterialet ikke
kan brukes før rettighetshaverene også innser at de er med på å skade
samfunnets kultur og kollektive hukommelse, så får en i hvert fall
synliggjort konsekvensene og antagelig mer flammer på en debatt som er
langt på overtid.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&gt; Ring meg om noe er uklart: XXX&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Intet uklart, men ikke imponert over måten dere håndterer debatten på.
Hadde du i stedet kommet med et tilsvar i kommentarfeltet der en
gjorde det klart at blindpassasjer-blogpostingen ikke var riktig sted
for videre diskusjon hadde dere i mine øyne kommet fra det med
ryggraden på plass.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;PS: Interessant å se at NRK-ansatte ikke bruker NRK-epostadresser.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Som en liten avslutning, her er noen litt morsomme innslag om temaet.
&amp;lt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft&quot;&gt;http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft&lt;/a&gt; &gt; og
&amp;lt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://patentabsurdity.com/&quot;&gt;http://patentabsurdity.com/&lt;/a&gt; &gt; hadde vært noe å kringkaste på
NRK1. :)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Vennlig hilsen,
&lt;br&gt;--
&lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Terms of use for video produced by a Canon IXUS 130 digital camera</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:55:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital
camera, a Canon IXUS 130.  It was instructive and very disturbing to
be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to
specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera.
Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras
are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway.  What is the
problem, you might ask?  It is software patents, MPEG-4, H.264 and the
MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences
without asking for permissions that is at risk.

&lt;p&gt;On page 27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is
written:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This product is licensed under AT&amp;T patents for the MPEG-4 standard
and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding
MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and
non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the
AT&amp;T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4
standard.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology
(MPEG-4/H.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and
non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations
holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to
read
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA&quot;&gt;Why
Our Civilization&#39;s Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the
MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Eugenia Loli-Queru and
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&quot;&gt;H.264 Is Not
The Sort Of Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Simon Phipps to learn more about
the issue.  The solution is to support the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;free and
open standards&lt;/a&gt; for video, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theora.org/&quot;&gt;Ogg
Theora&lt;/a&gt;, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Regjerningen forlater prinsippet om ingen royalty-betaling i standardkatalogen versjon 2</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg ble glad da regjeringen
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digi.no/817635/her-er-statens-nye-it-standarder&quot;&gt;annonserte&lt;/a&gt;
versjon 2 av
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Referansekatalogen_versjon2.pdf&quot;&gt;statens
referansekatalog over standarder&lt;/a&gt;, men trist da jeg leste hva som
faktisk var vedtatt etter
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2.html&quot;&gt;høringen&lt;/a&gt;.
De fleste av de valgte åpne standardene er gode og vil bidra til at
alle kan delta på like vilkår i å lage løsninger for staten, men
noen av dem blokkerer for de som ikke har anledning til å benytte
spesifikasjoner som krever betaling for bruk (såkalt
royalty-betaling).  Det gjelder spesifikt for H.264 for video og MP3
for lyd.  Så lenge bruk av disse var valgfritt mens Ogg Theora og Ogg
Vorbis var påkrevd, kunne alle som ønsket å spille av video og lyd
fra statens websider gjøre dette uten å måtte bruke programmer der
betaling for bruk var nødvendig.  Når det nå er gjort valgfritt for
de statlige etatene å bruke enten H.264 eller Theora (og MP3 eler
Vorbis), så vil en bli tvunget til å forholde seg til
royalty-belastede standarder for å få tilgang til videoen og
lyden.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Det gjør meg veldig trist at regjeringen har forlatt prinsippet om
at alle standarder som ble valgt til å være påkrevd i katalogen skulle
være uten royalty-betaling.  Jeg håper det ikke betyr at en har mistet
all forståelse for hvilke prinsipper som må følges for å oppnå
likeverdig konkurranse mellom aktørene i IT-bransjen.  NUUG advarte
mot dette i
&lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2&quot;&gt;sin
høringsuttalelse&lt;/a&gt;, men ser ut til å ha blitt ignorert.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2012-06-29: Kom over &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Refkat_v2.pdf&quot;&gt;en
rapport til FAD&lt;/a&gt; fra da versjon 1 av katalogen ble vedtatt, og der
er det tydelig at problemstillingen var kjent og forstått.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>When web browser developers make a video player...</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/When_web_browser_developers_make_a_video_player___.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/When_web_browser_developers_make_a_video_player___.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:50:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;As part of the work we do in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no&quot;&gt;NUUG&lt;/a&gt;
to publish video recordings of our monthly presentations, we provide a
page with embedded video for easy access to the recording.  Putting a
good set of HTML tags together to get working embedded video in all
browsers and across all operating systems is not easy.  I hope this
will become easier when the &amp;lt;video&amp;gt; tag is implemented in all
browsers, but I am not sure.  We provide the recordings in several
formats, MPEG1, Ogg Theora, H.264 and Quicktime, and want the
browser/media plugin to pick one it support and use it to play the
recording, using whatever embed mechanism the browser understand.
There is at least four different tags to use for this, the new HTML5
&amp;lt;video&amp;gt; tag, the &amp;lt;object&amp;gt; tag, the &amp;lt;embed&amp;gt; tag and
the &amp;lt;applet&amp;gt; tag.  All of these take a lot of options, and
finding the best options is a major challenge.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I just tested the experimental Opera browser available from &lt;a
href=&quot;http://labs.opera.com&quot;&gt;labs.opera.com&lt;/a&gt;, to see how it handled
a &amp;lt;video&amp;gt; tag with a few video sources and no extra attributes.
I was not very impressed.  The browser start by fetching a picture
from the video stream.  Not sure if it is the first frame, but it is
definitely very early in the recording.  So far, so good. Next,
instead of streaming the 76 MiB video file, it start to download all
of it, but do not start to play the video.  This mean I have to wait
for several minutes for the downloading to finish.  When the download
is done, the playing of the video do not start!  Waiting for the
download, but I do not get to see the video?  Some testing later, I
discover that I have to add the controls=&quot;true&quot; attribute to be able
to get a play button to pres to start the video.  Adding
autoplay=&quot;true&quot; did not help.  I sure hope this is a misfeature of the
test version of Opera, and that future implementations of the
&amp;lt;video&amp;gt; tag will stream recordings by default, or at least start
playing when the download is done.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The test page I used (since changed to add more attributes) is
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20090113-foredrag-om-foredrag/&quot;&gt;available
from the nuug site&lt;/a&gt;.  Will have to test it with the new Firefox
too.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In the test process, I discovered a missing feature.  I was unable
to find a way to get the URL of the playing video out of Opera, so I
am not quite sure it picked the Ogg Theora version of the video.  I
sure hope it was using the announced Ogg Theora support. :)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        </channel>
</rss>