X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/blobdiff_plain/13721ef3a7c33941c5b40c3d67c027ccdf679502..e9ea059e7d236de2303d8b21b09cc1e597a02b9a:/blog/index.rss?ds=inline diff --git a/blog/index.rss b/blog/index.rss index 2a4b855a23..d2a8101202 100644 --- a/blog/index.rss +++ b/blog/index.rss @@ -6,6 +6,36 @@ http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ + + Lawrence Lessig interviewed Edward Snowden a year ago + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Lawrence_Lessig_interviewed_Edward_Snowden_a_year_ago.html + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Lawrence_Lessig_interviewed_Edward_Snowden_a_year_ago.html + Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:50:00 +0200 + <p>Last year, <a href="https://lessig2016.us/">US president candidate +in the Democratic Party</a> Lawrence interviewed Edward Snowden. The +one hour interview was +<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Sr96TFQQE">published by +Harvard Law School 2014-10-23 on Youtube</a>, and the meeting took +place 2014-10-20.</p> + +<p>The questions are very good, and there is lots of useful +information to be learned and very interesting issues to think about +being raised. Please check it out.</p> + +<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/o_Sr96TFQQE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> + +<p>I find it especially interesting to hear again that Snowden did try +to bring up his reservations through the official channels without any +luck. It is in sharp contrast to the answers made by the Norwegian +prime minister Erna Solberg said 2013-11-06 to the Norwegian +Parliament, +<a href="https://tale.holderdeord.no/speeches/s131106/68">claiming +Snowden is no Whistle-Blower</a> because he should have taken up his +concerns internally and using official channels. It make me sad +that this is the political leadership we have here in Norway.</p> + + + The Story of Aaron Swartz - Let us all weep! http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_Story_of_Aaron_Swartz___Let_us_all_weep_.html @@ -497,268 +527,5 @@ historie.</p> - - MPEG LA on "Internet Broadcast AVC Video" licensing and non-private use - http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html - http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html - Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:50:00 +0200 - <p>After asking the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK) -<a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html">why -they can broadcast and stream H.264 video without an agreement with -the MPEG LA</a>, I was wiser, but still confused. So I asked MPEG LA -if their understanding matched that of NRK. As far as I can tell, it -does not.</p> - -<p>I started by asking for more information about the various -licensing classes and what exactly is covered by the "Internet -Broadcast AVC Video" class that NRK pointed me at to explain why NRK -did not need a license for streaming H.264 video: - -<p><blockquote> - -<p>According to -<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf">a -MPEG LA press release dated 2010-02-02</a>, there is no charge when -using MPEG AVC/H.264 according to the terms of "Internet Broadcast AVC -Video". I am trying to understand exactly what the terms of "Internet -Broadcast AVC Video" is, and wondered if you could help me. What -exactly is covered by these terms, and what is not?</p> - -<p>The only source of more information I have been able to find is a -PDF named -<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf">AVC -Patent Portfolio License Briefing</a>, which states this about the -fees:</p> - -<ul> - <li>Where End User pays for AVC Video - <ul> - <li>Subscription (not limited by title) – 100,000 or fewer - subscribers/yr = no royalty; &gt; 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers/yr = - $25,000; &gt;250,000 to 500,000 subscribers/yr = $50,000; &gt;500,000 to - 1M subscribers/yr = $75,000; &gt;1M subscribers/yr = $100,000</li> - - <li>Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less = no royalty; &gt;12 minutes in - length = lower of (a) 2% or (b) $0.02 per title</li> - </ul></li> - - <li>Where remuneration is from other sources - <ul> - <li>Free Television - (a) one-time $2,500 per transmission encoder or - (b) annual fee starting at $2,500 for &gt; 100,000 HH rising to - maximum $10,000 for &gt;1,000,000 HH</li> - - <li>Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription) - – no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License</li> - </ul></li> -</ul> - -<p>Am I correct in assuming that the four categories listed is the -categories used when selecting licensing terms, and that "Internet -Broadcast AVC Video" is the category for things that do not fall into -one of the other three categories? Can you point me to a good source -explaining what is ment by "title-by-title" and "Free Television" in -the license terms for AVC/H.264?</p> - -<p>Will a web service providing H.264 encoded video content in a -"video on demand" fashing similar to Youtube and Vimeo, where no -subscription is required and no payment is required from end users to -get access to the videos, fall under the terms of the "Internet -Broadcast AVC Video", ie no royalty for life of the AVC Patent -Portfolio license? Does it matter if some users are subscribed to get -access to personalized services?</p> - -<p>Note, this request and all answers will be published on the -Internet.</p> -</blockquote></p> - -<p>The answer came quickly from Benjamin J. Myers, Licensing Associate -with the MPEG LA:</p> - -<p><blockquote> -<p>Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We -appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.</p> - -<p>As you are aware, MPEG LA offers our AVC Patent Portfolio License -which provides coverage under patents that are essential for use of -the AVC/H.264 Standard (MPEG-4 Part 10). Specifically, coverage is -provided for end products and video content that make use of AVC/H.264 -technology. Accordingly, the party offering such end products and -video to End Users concludes the AVC License and is responsible for -paying the applicable royalties.</p> - -<p>Regarding Internet Broadcast AVC Video, the AVC License generally -defines such content to be video that is distributed to End Users over -the Internet free-of-charge. Therefore, if a party offers a service -which allows users to upload AVC/H.264 video to its website, and such -AVC Video is delivered to End Users for free, then such video would -receive coverage under the sublicense for Internet Broadcast AVC -Video, which is not subject to any royalties for the life of the AVC -License. This would also apply in the scenario where a user creates a -free online account in order to receive a customized offering of free -AVC Video content. In other words, as long as the End User is given -access to or views AVC Video content at no cost to the End User, then -no royalties would be payable under our AVC License.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, if End Users pay for access to AVC Video for a -specific period of time (e.g., one month, one year, etc.), then such -video would constitute Subscription AVC Video. In cases where AVC -Video is delivered to End Users on a pay-per-view basis, then such -content would constitute Title-by-Title AVC Video. If a party offers -Subscription or Title-by-Title AVC Video to End Users, then they would -be responsible for paying the applicable royalties you noted below.</p> - -<p>Finally, in the case where AVC Video is distributed for free -through an "over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission", then -such content would constitute Free Television AVC Video and would be -subject to the applicable royalties.</p> - -<p>For your reference, I have attached -<a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2015-07-07-mpegla.pdf">a -.pdf copy of the AVC License</a>. You will find the relevant -sublicense information regarding AVC Video in Sections 2.2 through -2.5, and the corresponding royalties in Section 3.1.2 through 3.1.4. -You will also find the definitions of Title-by-Title AVC Video, -Subscription AVC Video, Free Television AVC Video, and Internet -Broadcast AVC Video in Section 1 of the License. Please note that the -electronic copy is provided for informational purposes only and cannot -be used for execution.</p> - -<p>I hope the above information is helpful. If you have additional -questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel -free to contact me directly.</p> -</blockquote></p> - -<p>Having a fresh copy of the license text was useful, and knowing -that the definition of Title-by-Title required payment per title made -me aware that my earlier understanding of that phrase had been wrong. -But I still had a few questions:</p> - -<p><blockquote> -<p>I have a small followup question. Would it be possible for me to get -a license with MPEG LA even if there are no royalties to be paid? The -reason I ask, is that some video related products have a copyright -clause limiting their use without a license with MPEG LA. The clauses -typically look similar to this: - -<p><blockquote> - This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for - the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (a) encode - video in compliance with the AVC standard ("AVC video") and/or (b) - decode AVC video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a - personal and non-commercial activity and/or AVC video that was - obtained from a video provider licensed to provide AVC video. No - license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. additional - information may be obtained from MPEG LA L.L.C. -</blockquote></p> - -<p>It is unclear to me if this clause mean that I need to enter into -an agreement with MPEG LA to use the product in question, even if -there are no royalties to be paid to MPEG LA. I suspect it will -differ depending on the jurisdiction, and mine is Norway. What is -MPEG LAs view on this?</p> -</blockquote></p> - -<p>According to the answer, MPEG LA believe those using such tools for -non-personal or commercial use need a license with them:</p> - -<p><blockquote> - -<p>With regard to the Notice to Customers, I would like to begin by -clarifying that the Notice from Section 7.1 of the AVC License -reads:</p> - -<p>THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR -THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT -RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC -STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED -BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM -A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED -OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE -OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM</p> - -<p>The Notice to Customers is intended to inform End Users of the -personal usage rights (for example, to watch video content) included -with the product they purchased, and to encourage any party using the -product for commercial purposes to contact MPEG LA in order to become -licensed for such use (for example, when they use an AVC Product to -deliver Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free Television or Internet -Broadcast AVC Video to End Users, or to re-Sell a third party's AVC -Product as their own branded AVC Product).</p> - -<p>Therefore, if a party is to be licensed for its use of an AVC -Product to Sell AVC Video on a Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free -Television or Internet Broadcast basis, that party would need to -conclude the AVC License, even in the case where no royalties were -payable under the License. On the other hand, if that party (either a -Consumer or business customer) simply uses an AVC Product for their -own internal purposes and not for the commercial purposes referenced -above, then such use would be included in the royalty paid for the AVC -Products by the licensed supplier.</p> - -<p>Finally, I note that our AVC License provides worldwide coverage in -countries that have AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, including -Norway.</p> - -<p>I hope this clarification is helpful. If I may be of any further -assistance, just let me know.</p> -</blockquote></p> - -<p>The mentioning of Norwegian patents made me a bit confused, so I -asked for more information:</p> - -<p><blockquote> - -<p>But one minor question at the end. If I understand you correctly, -you state in the quote above that there are patents in the AVC Patent -Portfolio that are valid in Norway. This make me believe I read the -list available from &lt;URL: -<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx">http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx</a> -&gt; incorrectly, as I believed the "NO" prefix in front of patents -were Norwegian patents, and the only one I could find under Mitsubishi -Electric Corporation expired in 2012. Which patents are you referring -to that are relevant for Norway?</p> - -</blockquote></p> - -<p>Again, the quick answer explained how to read the list of patents -in that list:</p> - -<p><blockquote> - -<p>Your understanding is correct that the last AVC Patent Portfolio -Patent in Norway expired on 21 October 2012. Therefore, where AVC -Video is both made and Sold in Norway after that date, then no -royalties would be payable for such AVC Video under the AVC License. -With that said, our AVC License provides historic coverage for AVC -Products and AVC Video that may have been manufactured or Sold before -the last Norwegian AVC patent expired. I would also like to clarify -that coverage is provided for the country of manufacture and the -country of Sale that has active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents.</p> - -<p>Therefore, if a party offers AVC Products or AVC Video for Sale in -a country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents (for example, -Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.), then that party would still need -coverage under the AVC License even if such products or video are -initially made in a country without active AVC Patent Portfolio -Patents (for example, Norway). Similarly, a party would need to -conclude the AVC License if they make AVC Products or AVC Video in a -country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, but eventually Sell -such AVC Products or AVC Video in a country without active AVC Patent -Portfolio Patents.</p> -</blockquote></p> - -<p>As far as I understand it, MPEG LA believe anyone using Adobe -Premiere and other video related software with a H.264 distribution -license need a license agreement with MPEG LA to use such tools for -anything non-private or commercial, while it is OK to set up a -Youtube-like service as long as no-one pays to get access to the -content. I still have no clear idea how this applies to Norway, where -none of the patents MPEG LA is licensing are valid. Will the -copyright terms take precedence or can those terms be ignored because -the patents are not valid in Norway?</p> - - -