The same has applied to MPEG2 encoding in Vegas since day one. If you have every made a nickel off of a DVD produced using the MPEG2 encoder in Vegas or DVDA without the appropriate license then you have done so illegally.

If you read the licences that you get with Vegas it says exactly that.

The mpeg-2 licence for commercial distribution are paid for per copy by the replicator. No one seems to have ever worried about those of us making 100 copies of a wedding or stage show, the fees are too low to make it worthwhile. Replicators buy them in bulk and resell them.

To be honest I don't believe you can get a blanket licence as the fees are levied on distibution. So you can make a master and then you pay the fees per copy.

Bob.

it seems about every 10 to 12 months someone re-discovers the "non-commercial use" in the software packages. I suspect that the licensor's, because of increasing number of postings on youtube and other sharing video sites, are positioning themselves publicly for possible revenue claims against hosting sites that generate income from ads mixed with the videos.



"And Apple is even a co-owner of the H.264 patent portfolio..." Then maybe Apple should stop jerking around QT users on Windows....... the old excuse its MS fault doesn't fly because everyone else manages to get thru put.

"And Apple is even a co-owner of the H.264 patent portfolio..."

Not according to MPEGLA's 35 page list, M$ holds one patent:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M4V/Documents/m4v-att1.pdf

Apple are the point man for registration of mpeg-4 codecs.

Bob.

"it seems about every 10 to 12 months someone re-discovers the "non-commercial use" in the software packages"

Well I've been doing this for a while and I'm a little embarrassed to admit I did not know. I guess that serves me right for blindly agreeing to licensing as I install software. I don't post to Utube or anything of that nature, but when I do run off 500 or so disks and sell to client(s) is this something that may get them into trouble?

"but when I do run off 500 or so disks and sell to client(s) is this something that may get them into trouble?"

Yes, potentially, although you're "small potatos" and it's unlikely that they will come after you, however, technically what you're doing is illegal.

Answers are here for mpeg-2:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/FAQ.aspx

I see no mention of how licencing applies for inhouse duplication.

Bob.

Mmmm...

This is all just a tad scary.
I know the music industry is fed up and reached the breaking point with the "small potatoes" people and is actively going after some in order (I guess) to set examples.

With today's computer/software abilities just about anybody can become a 'pro' and make some money. Throw the fast-growing internet and Utube (etal) into the mix, and one has to start to wonder if and when the video industry will get fed up and take the same route. I doubt the little guys such as myself can swallow these various license fees and survive.

ADDED: Although it would be interesting to see how some one like Sony or Apple would handle all of this if push came to shove. If moves were made to curb this licensing breach then Apple, Sony (and others out there with editing software) would end up shooting themselves in the foot would they not?

"Although it would be interesting to see how some one like Sony or Apple would handle all of this if push came to shove. If moves were made to curb this licensing breach then Apple, Sony (and others out there with editing software) would end up shooting themselves in the foot would they not? "

How so, you don't seem to grasp how licencing works.
We all have a licence to use a variety of codecs, all quite legal. You can encode and author away as much as you like and make as much money as you can charging for your services.

Fees only become payable when the content we have authored is distibuted. It's a quite simple and fair system.

The alternative is we pay huge sums of money for the licences we have and pay nothing for content distribution. That's a very unfair system that discriminates against the little guys and those trying to get started in the business.

Bob.

"How so, you don't seem to grasp how licencing works."

You've COMPLETELY missed my point.
If the license holders get tough then Appple... Sony... and others in this boat will most likely start losing sales on the editing software as the small guys like me decide that other professions may be a bit safer.

When anyone scores a hit on ANYTHING, that's when the vampires come out of the woodwork. No matter what you do to try to be totally legit, you'll still get legal problems over something else. Success begats jealousy.

"And Apple is even a co-owner of the H.264 patent portfolio..."

That's the wrong list, because MPEG-4 is not the same thing as H.264.

You need to look at MPEGLA's 47 page list, where Apple is listed first (LOL) [click on the red "AVC Attachment 1" link to get the list].


For MPEG-4, ISO chose Apple's QuickTime as the file format (ISO being the standards organization, not the greedy vendor organization :O).

Interesting and alarming thread.

So -- Sony markets products with the word "Pro" in the name, uses the word "Professional" multiple times in the advertisement of these products, includes 'pro' versions of Main Concept and Dolby encoders with their software, but all we're legally allowed to use it for is family birthday parties? (without the singing of "Happy Birthday", because it's copyrighted...)

Simply put, does this mean that I cannot use Vegas Pro and DVD Architect Pro to create a DVD that I send to a replicator and sell on my website?

If this is true, I would think that a case could be made against Sony for heavily marketing the professional use of its software without clearly and prominently stating in simple language that professional use is excluded via their licensing agreement. Burying this information in lengthy, arcane EULAs that few users fully read and even fewer fully understand, is unconscionable.

At minimum, they could explain what steps have to be taken before one risks running afoul of illegal use claims.

Today the MPEGLA renewed the "free" license for H.264 use for the Internet for 5 years.


"where Apple is listed first (LOL) [click on the red "AVC Attachment 1" link to get the list]." ...........Amazing.................. Apple's name is first in an alphabetized corp name list, truly amazing....... and with one little patent, Run quick.... you're needed by the boys' choir singing at the Temple of Apple.... don't forgot to take your shoes off! :-)

Oh ..... please....... tell your Apple priest to forward the message "Fix QT for Windows...Please!" ;-)

Yes, I missed your point.

Addressing your point I have to ask how they could go after Apple or Sony. Both would have paid whatever fees and have issued the appropriate licence to their users.

The licence that we get from Sony which appears to be exactly the same as the one Apple issue does have wording that raises questions and ones that I'ee raised here several times. If we breach the licence then we're the ones in trouble not Sony or Apple.

The solution is simple enough, apply to MPEGLA for a licence or at least ask them what one will cost. I suspect from reading as much as I can find on their site the answer will be that you either don't need one or if you do it's free.

Bob.

Good call, my bad.
I'd assumed the mpeg-4 licence covered all the codecs that it could contain but that was a pretty stupid assumption :(

As you rightly say though mpeg-4 is Quicktime, curious that Apple's name isn't on the list.

More to the point though it does mean that if you want to put mpeg-2 or h.264 into a mpeg-4 container you need a licence for the container and a licence for the codec.

Bob.

"Simply put, does this mean that I cannot use Vegas Pro and DVD Architect Pro to create a DVD that I send to a replicator and sell on my website?"

No, if your replicator has the proper license (and most big ones do) then you are completely legal. If you make the DVDs yourself and sell them commercially, then you're technically doing so illegally.

"If this is true, I would think that a case could be made against Sony [...] Burying this information in lengthy, arcane EULAs that few users fully read and even fewer fully understand, is unconscionable."

This is discussed in the Vegas user's manual, not the EULA. You have read the Vegas manual, haven't you? Vegas uses a lot of patent protected technology and it states in the manual that if you use some of it for commercial purposes, you will need an additional license which does not come with Vegas. This applies to MPEG2, AVC and MP3.

"Addressing your point I have to ask how they could go after Apple or Sony. Both would have paid whatever fees and have issued the appropriate licence to their users."

When did I ever say anything about "they" going after Apple, Sony... etc?????
If anything "they're" going to come after us. We're breaking the law, not Sony.

@John_Cline:

Thank you for the clarifications.

Yes, I do read the manuals. Won't claim that I've read every word, though. Could be that I'd forgotten this, not fully understood the ramifications of it, or glossed over it because it didn't seem applicable at the time.

If I had started this thread, I would be branded a troll, and my head asked for on a platter.:)