FFMPEG violate MPEGLA licensing?

[Kuukunen]

Isn't the whole point of calling the patents "essential" that you can't make a H.264 decoder/encoder without violating them?
I'm pretty sure they know they are in fact most likely using algorithms covered by the patents, but again, it's better not to make legal claims like that when you're not qualified to make them.

[Guest]

Following up on the queries about DGMPGDec...

I do not supply binaries at neuron2.net. Users have to build it themselves or find the binaries elsewhere.

The AVC licensing has the 100,000 unit cutoff, under which no royalties are payable. The MPEG2 licensing requires a $2.50 royalty per unit without any cutoff! That is a terrible potential liability given that DGMPGDec is supplied free and is widely used.

I'd be interested in hearing from any possible binary hosts in non-liable countries.

[Rumbah]

What most people seem to forget is that patents have to be granted in every single country. So before they can sue anyone in that country they have to get the patents granted or otherwise they have nothing to sue about. So aside from the non commercial part I don't think that the MPEGLA companies hold any patents in Germany (or China).

And with the source code and binary distinction you could publish the source code as a book to export and spread as in the 80s and 90s for encryption software.

[Disabled]

Nice to see this is being discussed.
IMO, there are a few solutions for h264 related distribution becoming legal:
1) Every binary distributor registers with the MPEG LA and only allows 100,000 downloads per year.
2) Someone registers with the MPEG LA, creates a page, where people can register for free. With the registration, they "buy" a h264 licence, so I guess at least updates can be distributet for free. So one person can supply 100,000 Persons with h264 licenses.
Ideally one could create a platform, where more then one distributor supplies binaries, so distributors don't have to create a page on their own. Every distributor had to aquire a license and could support 100,000 persons again.
Note: IIRC Betaboy once claimed, they had to pay licenses even for updates, but I don't trust that statement. Someone should ask the MPEGLA about that though.
3) The Gentoo way: Distribute only the source with a script that builds the binary automatically. Thats of course a bit of a hassle for small things like x264. But ffmpeg has far bigger problems then the h264 license, they distribute many codecs without license and it would be quite a big problem to gain them all. So for those projects it would probably be the best solution.
4) If a distributor lives in a country that doesn't have software patents and he hosts his stuff in a country without software patents, he can safely distribute copies to people living in countries without software patents. If the distributor is allowed to distribute the software to US people is up to a court. He is probably not allowed to export it to the US, but if a US citizen "buys" it in another country and imports it to the
US, its probably legal. I don't know of any court decision about a similar things though.

IMO for x264 and similar, solution 1 & 2 would be the best. For ffmpeg solution 3 would be the only viable thing.
Projects like Megui that distribute ffmpeg code IMO only have solution 3 or 4.

On a side note: The h264 license costs a maximum of 0.20$ per license. So it might even be possible to distribute more then 100k licenses on an advertisement basis.

[quantum5uicid3]

i don't think gpl is compatible with mpeg-la license

[Guest]

i don't think gpl is compatible with mpeg-la license Can you elaborate on that please?

[Disabled]

You are probably right quantum. If you receive for instance x264 in the USA from a MPEG licensed distributor, you are not allowed to distribute the binary at will, because you need an MPEG LA license and after 100k copies, you have to pay them. So the licenses are incompatible. But under that premise, its impossible to distribute GPLd h264 binaries in the USA legally. Unless you do what DarkShikari did, ask every code contributor for the permission to commercially distribute the software, so you dual license the software: GPL for everyone who doesn't care about patents, and a second license together with an mpeg license for those who care about patents.

[Fr4nz]

This is a crystal-clear case which shows that software patents kill innovation and favour monopolies.
The legislation which regulates this matter should be heaviliy revisited.

[Guest]

So the licenses are incompatible. They are not incompatible. You just have multiple responsibilities to bear.

[Disabled]

GPL says if you get the software you are free to distribute it for free. Thats not the case in the USA, so they are incompatible.

[iwod]

No, FFmpeg is not aware of their legal standing. Straight from their legal page (http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html):

Simply put, FFmpeg doesn't know if they are in violation or not.

It is not they dont know. It is mainly because as a dev they dont care.

1. They are not based in US. And most of the dev aren't from US. They have no such thing as Software patent. Much like what EU and UK judges argues that US is trying to patents everything under the sun.

2. There are about Zillions of Software Patents. To read up everything and remember not implement them is totally impractical if that is even possible for human being.

3. Even if they are in violation of a patents, they are not providing any binaries. You are perfectly legal to download the source code and compile it for yourself even if you are in US.
Compiling in itself is not illegal. Using it is a different matter in US.

[quantum5uicid3]

Can you elaborate on that please?

philosophically more than legally, because the legalities of the gpl are equally murky waters. this is a discussion that transcends into the current state of United States patents on abstract ideas even if the simple machine or transformation test applies, ie algorithm patents. this is not a new or cut and dry discussion, it's almost like discussing politics or religion. :)

[Guest]

GPL says if you get the software you are free to distribute it for free. It seems that you are correct if a royalty applies. Here is the relevant section of GPL:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License. They are apparently compatible for the cases where no royalty applies, for example, the 100,000 AVC cutoff case.

[Disabled]

You are right neuron2, as long as its free it should be compatible. But in the end it is... half compatible? A little compatible? very compatible?
IMO if you enforce the gpl, they are incompatible.
Still if you get an MPEG license, the authors of the GPL software had to sue you to get into trouble. Then a judge had to interpret the GPL and tell right from wrong.

For x264, we could ask the x264 LLC, they might make an GPL exception for free licenses for GPL code. (link) (http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/2010-July/007508.html).

Pretty much all other projects use ffmpeg anyways (which this thread is about) and they have to many codecs to license that can't be licensed for free.

[seemees]

All h264 code made of A SINGLE programmers. And patent holders now FAR AWAY from true IDEA, that they HOLD. Without good free coding programmers we never have h264, CUDA, emulators and so on. Only reach company CAN PAY for license, and CAN ENSLAVE all of us. Cause new generation of programmers CAN NOT do a simple os code, simple edit, play and convert software. All "new tools" is MONSTRO being. 4Gigabytes, 8Gigabytes, 25Gigabytes. Are you Remember sony playstation 3 and all game for her? Its absurd theater. All game of sony playstation use h264 for video sequence. But all thouse product is emptyness. It's tones Gigabytes of nothing. And real pay
of user consist of true lie. "My product is cost $555.0". But why? Money is only paper - or you don't know it? One who prints the money - prints our all slaveness. If MPEGLA
hold patent. Let it hold. But all that we can give MPEGLA - is respect for good IDEA. And make from IDEA to stand alone program (binary) - it is ours. It is ours life. Think about patent of clear air. All who breath must get license for any single inhale. h264 is a planetary invention, like an sun shine.

With best regards, seemees

[bob0r]

...
I'd be interested in hearing from any possible binary hosts in non-liable countries.

For €10000 a month í'm your man.

[lych_necross]

It is not they dont know. It is mainly because as a dev they dont care. [...]
And that is the problem. They created a great piece of software without regard to others intellectual property and then release it worldwide (again without regard for others IP). For everyone's sake, I hope MPEG LA gets defeated and this whole mess goes away.

[quantum5uicid3]

"in re bilski", proves that the supreme court will not be doing away with software patents anytime soon. so the patents themselves will not be going away, what we can hope for is that the DOJ does actually take a good look at the mpeg-la and if any monopolistic abuses are occurring, take appropriate measures. us citizens write your congressman. :)

[Sharktooth]

And that is the problem. They created a great piece of software without regard to others intellectual property and then release it worldwide (again without regard for others IP). For everyone's sake, I hope MPEG LA gets defeated and this whole mess goes away.
If MPEG-LA gets defeated it would become a whole mess.
Every patent would have to be licensed by every single patent holder.
MPEG-LA is a patent pool and it is supposed to simplify things...
The ideal solution is MPEG-LA does exactly what it was created for with a bit of flexibility.

[Reimar]

And that is the problem. They created a great piece of software without regard to others intellectual property and then release it worldwide (again without regard for others IP).

This sounds a bit too much for an accusation to my tastes. What do you expect volunteers that usually don't earn any money with it to do on a subject that even a lawyer at best can tell you "well, probably it doesn't apply at all to you neither in your country of residence nor where the project is hosted, and in some other parts of the world 'they' can sue you into bancrupcy completely independent of whether they're right or wrong. But I'm not going to promise anything at all.".
Particularly since taking a license from MPEG-LA doesn't change that situation at all in principle, it just changes your chances.

[Ghitulescu]

Is the IRS compatible with VAT, to give an example from the US?

A licence is an agreement, nothing more.

You can distribute the code and the binaries both under GPL/GPL2 and MPEG-LA, provided you pay the royalties for MPEG-LA (part of the deal). Where's the legal problem? Where's the incompatibility? That a free developer should pay for other people to be happy with his free software? It's just a financial issue ...

[PatchWorKs]

Calm guyz, wait a moment.

FFMPEG is in the same position of XviD: sources doesn't violate laws, binaries does.

[mariush]

If MPEG-LA gets defeated it would become a whole mess.
Every patent would have to be licensed by every single patent holder.
MPEG-LA is a patent pool and it is supposed to simplify things...
The ideal solution is MPEG-LA does exactly what it was created for with a bit of flexibility.

In an ideal world, a company like MPEG-LA would be great.

However, as far as I understand, they started this and they were an exception as were accepted by US government as a company licensing a series of "essentials" patents, limited in number.

Over the years, every few months or so, MPEG-LA found more "essential" patents to add to the pool, thus extending artificially the time and preventing the standard from going free, and forcing people to pay licenses for longer time.

I think this was explained better in Nero's lawsuit press release, where they accuse them of monopoly or something like that.

Later edit: Yes, here it is:

Back in 1997, the MPEG-LA sought a promise from the US Department of Justice that it would not initiate any antitrust investigations against the licensing body. The DOJ expressed then that it currently had no intention of acting upon the MPEG-LA, but this lack of intention was conditioned on a number of things.

First, the MPEG-LA would engage with independent experts to ensure only essential patents would be placed in the MPEG-2 pool. They told the DOJ that the MPEG-2 pool constituted of 53 essential patents. Second, independent experts would "weed out nonessential patents" from the pool. Third, licensing terms would be "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory".

Nero claims none of these safeguards were honoured, and here's where it gets juicy; "absolute power has corrupted the MPEG-LA absolutely", according to Nero. First of all, the so-called independent expert was anything but independent. The expert helped form the MPEG-LA, helped in drafting the first MPEG-LA licensing agreements, answers questions from licensees on behalf of the MPEG-LA, has attended business settlement meetings on behalf of the MPEG-LA, and has testified before US congress on behalf of the MPEG-LA. Heck, he is listed on the MPEG-LA website as "MPEG-LA's US patent counsel".

Nero also claims that the MPEG-LA has unlawfully extended its patent pools by adding non-essential patents to the MPEG-2 patent pool. Even though the MPEG-LA told the DOJ there were only 53 essential MPEG-2 patents, the non-independent expert added round and about 800 more patents to the pool, extending the duration of the patent pool, since the old, 53 essential patents expired.

"On information and belief, MPEG LA has similarly extended the duration and scope of its monopoly power in the relevant technology markets for the licensing of patents relating to the MPEG-4 Visual and AVC [H264] standards by adding nonessential patents to its MPEG-4 Visual and AVC pools, which now contain more than 1000 and 1300 patents, respectively," Nero further claims.

Nero further claims that the MPEG-LA has "formulated and imposed licensing terms that are unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory", by charging different royalty rates from licensees for the same MPEG-2 license and by not making any downward adjustment in line with the "rapid and dramatic" decrease in costs of implementing the MPEG-2 standard. In addition, the MPEG-LA collects royalties for the same device multiple times (internal hardware, software, monitor, etc.), and the licensing body has failed to "communicate its policies equally to all licensees".


http://www.osnews.com/story/23346/Nero_Files_Antitrust_Case_Against_MPEG-LA

[Sharktooth]

im only saying the ideal solution is MPEG-LA keeps a FAIR patent pool and stops doing unfair practices.

[ender`]

You can distribute the code and the binaries both under GPL/GPL2 and MPEG-LA, provided you pay the royalties for MPEG-LA (part of the deal). Where's the legal problem? Where's the incompatibility? That a free developer should pay for other people to be happy with his free software? It's just a financial issue ...You're wrong here. GPL requires you to provide any patent free of charge to anybody who uses your GPL-licensed code, or any code derived from it. As far as I know, MPEG-LA does not grant you such a license, so you can't legally distribute code that is covered by a patent.

[zn]

ffmpeg guys probably need to add similar to lame project FAQ to website (if they haven't)

http://lame.sourceforge.net/tech-FAQ.txt


6. Does LAME use any MP3 patented technology?

LAME, as the name says, is *not* an encoder. LAME is a development
project which uses the open source model to improve MP3 technology.
Many people believe that compiling this code and distributing an
encoder which uses this code would violate some patents (in the US,
Europe and Japan). However, *only* a patent lawyer is qualified to
make this determination. The LAME project tries to avoid all these
legal issues by only releasing source code, much like the ISO
distributes MP3 "demonstration" source code. Source code is
considered as speech, which may contain descriptions of patented
technology. Descriptions of patents are in the public
domain.

Several companies plan on releasing encoders based on LAME, and
they intend to obtain all the appropriate patent licenses. At least
one company is now shipping a fully licensed version of LAME with
their portable MP3 player.

Note that under German Patent Law, §11(1) a patent doesn't cover
private acts with non-industrial purposes. Probably interesting for
developers is that a patent doesn't cover acts with experimental
purposes, that aim at the object of the patented invention (§11(2)).


btw, I made thread that may be interesting to some 3rd party developers, link:
When and why you CANNOT use FFMPEG in your programs! (not directly related to this thread)

[sneaker_ger]

slightly off-topic:
MPEG LA’s AVC License Will Not Charge Royalties for Internet Video That Is Free to End Users Through Life of License (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en)

[zn]

slightly off-topic:
MPEG LA’s AVC License Will Not Charge Royalties for Internet Video That Is Free to End Users Through Life of License (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en)

which didn't change much, firefox and other browsers still required to pay to include h.264 decoding

webm/vp8/ogg needs to make it to html5 specs to resolve problem...

[lych_necross]

MPEG LA decided to place a permanent royalty moratorium on AVC/H.264! Read all about it here! (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/08/mpeg-la-counters-google-webm-with-permanent-royalty-moratorium.ars) A very interesting move. I wonder how it will affect FFMPEG and the like.

[mariush]

which didn't change much, firefox and other browsers still required to pay to include h.264 decoding

webm/vp8/ogg needs to make it to html5 specs to resolve problem...

... and, the moment your website has any kind of ad, it's no longer free and you have to pay (if the video is longer than 12 minutes i guess)

[sneaker_ger]

... and, the moment your website has any kind of ad, it's no longer free and you have to pay (if the video is longer than 12 minutes i guess)

The articles I've read speak about websites that are free for end users, so ads wouldn't require you to pay royalties as long as the user doesn't have to pay.

[Sharktooth]

in megui rev 1704: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1430360&postcount=1398
it should be enough but im not a lawyer...
please note the official megui package you download from SF, includes NO patented softwares.

[Guest]

If they say yes and you serve them the binaries from a US server, aren't you in need of licensing? I don't see how a "choice screen" changes anything.

[Sharktooth]

we should move the update server too

[mariush]

I guess it's plausible deniability ... it's sort of the users' responsibility to abide the law. They could use a US server as proxy (forced by the company the person works in for example) but the binaries would end up to him in a country where there are no patents/ not illegal.

[Guest]

I think you guess wrong; that's totally implausible. All MPEGLA would have to do is download updates from the US server and it would be all over.

[Sharktooth]

this is getting ridicolous... here's a list of softwares used by megui that cant be distributed in US, Japan and part of EU: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1430484&postcount=1400

[Sharktooth]

it is also not clear to me if license of use of a particular tech is per software or per user. can someone enlight me?
lets say i have a licensed mp3 encoder, should i also pay the license for a second different mp3 encoder? i mean, not the software license but the mp3 technology license.

[Disabled]

I can't speak for MP3, but with h264 the license is per software unit and not per user. If I buy two decoders, I have to pay two h264 licenses.
I still assume, its the same with every other license you have to buy, because how should the software distributor know if you already have a different software with a license for the format?

[Guest]

I can't speak for MP3, but with h264 the license is per software unit and not per user. If I buy two decoders, I have to pay two h264 licenses. That is wrong. There is no license for the end user. The supplier is licensed and pays the royalty. MPEGLA *does not* execute a license with end users.

[Disabled]

That is wrong. There is no license for the end user. The supplier is licensed and pays the royalty. MPEGLA *does not* execute a license with end users.
but with h264 the license is per software unit and not per user.
Ok, perhaps it was a bit unclear, but if you buy two products, both suppliers have to pay the license fee (or fall under the 100k limit). So indirectly you still pay two licenses.

[Guest]

I clarified in my first post in this thread:

*** EDIT: As seen below, the FFMPEG project is *not* in violation, to the extent that they do not supply binaries, because source code is not a "product". I am sorry for my incorrect statement about this (which originated from a not fully clear phone conversation with MPEGLA), and for any confusion/bad feelings it may have engendered. ***

After further consideration, since my original post, though arising from a miscommunication with MPEGLA and not any malicious intent, was the trigger for the ensuing discussion that got out of hand, I've asked Doom9 to rescind all the ensuing strikes, regardless of actual rule violations that occurred.

[Doom9]

We do have an internal process in place that should prevent issues like this from escalating. Unfortunately, the process broke down and ultimately, I'm responsable for that breakdown. On top of that, I'm afraid to admit that the strikes appeal email address has not been actively monitored for some time so even appeals that were made using the proper channels went ignored.

Therefore, I have rescinded all strikes that ensued from this issue (and ensuing suspensions), with the exception from one personal attack on a member of the moderation team - that I cannot tolerate no matter the circumstances.

I'd like to point out though that you shouldn't count on this happening in the future - the 'he started it' excuse does not fly with me, so if you have some grievances with a moderator, you really need to follow the established process (turn to another mod or contact myself or Swede).

[Doom9]

It is really sad to see how some people abuse good will. If you don't agree how this forum is being run, by all means, go someplace else. But you cannot dictate how this place should be run, and on top of that, you should have the decency to depart quietly and not leave a trail of destruction and unwanted advertisement for your own place.

[Dark Shikari]

We do have an internal process in place that should prevent issues like this from escalating.
"Escalating" isn't the problem. This shouldn't have happened to begin with.

The problem is that moderators are allowed to use their powers to intervene in issues related to their own personal activities. This means that a moderator can use their moderator powers to promote their commercial products, as was done here. As long as this isn't stopped, this problem will occur again and again: moderators should simply not be able to use their moderator powers in their own personal disputes.

As there doesn't seem to be any hope of this problem being resolved, I am not returning to Doom9. If you want me back, you will have to fix your forum. My suggestion is to start by swapping around the forum moderators so that they no longer moderate forums in which they have a vested commercial interest. But feel free to try some other method if you think it'll be easier or work better.

If at any point you believe you have resolved this issue or have a proposal for solving it, and would like me to return, you can email me, poke me on IRC, PM me at doom10, or whatever.

P.S. I don't want to run doom10. I'd rather doom9 be fixed. Also, stop deleting my posts.

[jj666]

The point is Neuron2 is a moderator and you're not and the rules are clear on what should and should not be handled on the public forum and where to use PM's. Instead of everybody starting slanging matches which soon get out of hand and are impossible to moderate, it would be easier to do like Doom9 suggested and send PM's to the appropriate people next time. I'm reading here a lot but not posting much - I don't have anything against Neuron2's moderation, he does a hell of a job just filtering out the rule #6 posts and he's always been very helpful with support issues on his products. As he's man enough to admit his mistake (see the edit in post 1), it should be easy enough to bury the hatchet.

Cheers,

-jj-

[Dark Shikari]

The point is Neuron2 is a moderator and you're not and the rules are clear on what should and should not be handled on the public forum and where to use PM's.Yes, and the moderator rules specifically say that what he did was against the rules -- and that what I did wasn't.

He posted in a his own thread thread, promoting his own proprietary software, that "anyone who discusses X will be struck". That banning of the topic X had no basis in the rules. Therefore, he was doing so only to protect his own interests. From the rules:

Conflict of interest

8) Moderators must not have a vested interest when using their moderator powers.

[MatLz]

Is possible to stay on topic ?
MPEGLA issues ?
Thx.

[Guest]

He posted in a his own thread thread, promoting his own proprietary software, that "anyone who discusses X will be struck". That banning of the topic X had no basis in the rules. That is incorrect. I instructed that the discussion be moved to a new thread, and this very thread is the result! I did not ban any discussion. Members are free to review the original thread to see that you misrepresent reality.

Furthermore, you are inventing direct quotes that were never made by me. I never posted "anyone who discusses X will be struck". This is a plain and simple fabrication.

[laserfan]

I don't want to run doom10. I'd rather doom9 be fixed.
I am no longer at Doom9. You will find me at x264's new home, doom10.org.
I wonder sir, here you are, with conflicting statements, in the very same posting(s). :confused:

If you want to "fix Doom9" why don't you carry on a PM with Doom9, rather than continue this very ugly public feuding?