mp3 content fee!
The many posts below have taught me two things:
- The surprising fact that there are AAC "fanatics". For a codec? Is there an mpeg-1 fan club? an h.263 shrine? ;) This probably has more to do with Apple fandom than AAC itself. I mean, AAC is a nice audio codec and all, but...
- The really important thing is that mp3 has a content distribution fee. The Thompson site says you pay 2% of revenues from a service - or $0.02/song - to use mp3 in a service. The last time I saw a content distribution fee, it was on mpeg-4 part 2, and it pretty much killed that standard. Thankfully, in h.264 mpeg dropped that requirement for free distribution.
Surprising, and important.
42 Comments:
I'm assuming you mean me.
I am not a fantaic. My responses have more to do with your misinformation and your unwillingness to change some misstatements.
Beyond that, I have no clue why you are resistant to the clear successor to a TWENTY YEAR OLD format.
Also, you continue the misinformation and FUD.
Several formats have distribution fees.
Mpeg-4 is not a dead standard. (In fact, your own company's VC-1 and H.264(AVC) are both a part of mpeg-4).
H.264 does have distribution fees as far as I know.
stillanonymous just lend some support.
"The patent difficulties center on Microsoft's Windows Media 9 (WM9) and subset VC-9, which is under review by Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers (SMPTE). For its part, the MPEG-4, Part 10 Advanced Video Codec (generally called H.264) has met resistance to its high licensing fees." http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA406403.html?verticalid=311&industry=Technology&industryid=1030
Once again David I ask "Why the mis-information?" Quite frankly anytime anyone disagrees with you; your standard response is must be a "fan-boy". Actually I would consider myself and others "factual-boys".
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
And as I review, I discover, low and behold, VC-1 (otherwise known as WMV9, as in Windows Media Video 9) has the exact same participation fees as AVC/H.264 (it is after all an mpeg standard)
http://www.mpegla.com/vc1/vc1_TermsSummary.pdf
see pages 3-4.
I'm sorry; I most apologize for an error.
VC-1 does have different terms than AVC/H.264.
The terms run through 2012, not 2010.
Not as big an error as claiming that distribution fees are rare and mpeg-4 is dead, but still... I want clarity. Not "fanaticim."
The surprising fact that there are AAC "fanatics".
Let's call them "Truth Fanatics", David. Your original post, claiming that AAC was only compatible with Apple products, was what caused this firestorm. People wanted to set the record straight.
Either you aren't doing due diligence in your research for your postings, or you are deliberately spreading misinformation. You are a Microsoft spokesperson... you either need to improve the quality of your reporting, or you should admit that it's your job to put a Microsoft spin on things.
Not resistant to a successor to a twenty year old format. Just think there are pros and cons to AAC, not just pros.
mpeg-4 part 2 is the one with distribution fees. It was the new savior. Apple touted it, but never used it for their trailer site (stuck with Sorensen). AFAIK everyone has now leapfrogged to AVC/h.264/mpeg4 part 10.
"Apple touted it, but never used it for their trailer site (stuck with Sorensen)."
That's your response to my posts?
Apple did, in fact, use it. Sorensen is a provider of an implentation of the mpeg codecs. (That's the benefit of the standard process: others can create their own implementations.)
Apple moved to support mpeg-4 ahead of most of the industry, and they made a plea to mpegla to revise license, which they did do. And the industry has accepted. The terms for Part 2, H.264, and YOUR OWN DAMN FORMAT are essentially the SAME.
In full disclosure, I had to delete a couple of detailed posts covering patent and legal issues. Sorry.
re: fanboy comment. Maybe a cheap shot, but I suspect if I'd pointed out problems with WAV or MPEG-2 (or other non apple-supported technology), there'd be less objections.
That said, hats off to Apple for creating such a rabid fanbase.
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_license_release_may/
Really, man, is there ANYONE that knows about these issues in your group, your building? If so, find them, sit down with them for an hour, wait a day or two, and then revise your posts.
"In full disclosure, I had to delete a couple of detailed posts covering patent and legal issues. Sorry."
Ha, ha, ha!! A little to close for comfort, huh? You didn't include that in your disclosure policy the other day.
Made two mods to the post in light of comments.
changed mpeg-4 to mpeg-4 part 2, which was the one with the webcasting-killing content distribution fee on free streams.
changed the point to "free distribution"
David, I don't think anyone is really reading what your posts say now. Expect spin to the negative immediately... :)
I find the complaining about your so-called misinformation funny, when the last few threads had more misinformation posted by "viewers" than anything you've done. :)
Everyone... calm down and read slowly. If not, you end up looking like, well, fanatics.
Why are publicly available licensing terms deleted, David? Can I provide links to them?
I knew I should have cut-and-pasted those posts into a notepad; did you at least save them for your own edification? If so, I would appreciate getting them back.
Anyway, here's a bit of a timeline for you:
June 4, 2002 -QT6 Preview with mpeg4 support
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jun/04quicktime.html
Dec, 2002 - mpegla revises terms/Apple endorses QT6, mpeg4
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_license_release_may/
Jan, 2006 - H.264 support in Tiger revealed
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/31/h264/index.php
Apple supported mpeg4 part 2 for FOUR YEARS. Apple provided limited movie preview content with the first QT6 preview and featured it for FOUR YEARS before they mainstreamed H.264.
Is this going to be deleted for being factual?
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/31/h264/index.php
One of the most talked-about video codecs in the last year, H.264, will make its debut in QuickTime 7 this year when Apple ships Mac OS X Tiger.
"Thankfully, in h.264 mpeg dropped that requirement for free distribution."
This is still INCORRECT.
Can you post a NEW disclosure policy so I can predict what I may or may not say about VC-1?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
@still
yeah, here's the nonobjectionable portion of your post:
-------------------------------------
These are AVC's participation (they don't call them distribution) fees (as far as I can determined):
(all rates through 2010 only)
Free Broadcast - No Fee
Free TV - (a) 1-time $2,500 encoder fee or (b) annual fee starting at $2,500 for > 100,000 HH to max of $10,000 for > 1,000,000 HH
Subscriptions (not restricted by titles) -
0 to 100,000 - No Fee
100,000 to 250,000 - $25,000
250,001 to 500,000 - $50,000
500,001 to 1,000,000 - $75,000
>1,000,000 - $100,000
Subscriptions (by Titles) -
12 minutes or less - No Fee
>12 minutes - the lesser of (a) 2% or (b) $.02 per title
Enterprise Caps at $3.5 Million (2006-07), 4.25 Million (2008-09), $5 Million (2010)
@still:
policy. Don't be abusive, and don't discuss specific legal issues around patent disputes.
licensing terms are fine.
fyi, I would agree Apple is partially (putting it mildly) responsible for aac and h.264 success on the web and in personal collections. They're of course FATED to be spectacularly successful on physical formats not because of apple, but because of their adoption in both high def DVD standards.
Thanks, I appreciate that "small concession," Do you have a public email address or other means of contact that I can reach you at about the "objectionable" post? (I only want to save it for my own personal enjoyment. How often does a blog post get censored for potential legal ramifications?) I'd appreciate it. Also, I would seriously appreciate a better disclosure policy of what may or may not be removed for what reason. Thanks, David.
Remember, you brought it up the other day. (And I've already made a copy of those posts.) Seems like FUD and hypocrisy that you can bring up legal issues with mp3 and OGG, but I can mention them in relation to Mic... Oops.
How am I supposed to know if there is pending legal action (is there?) Do I have a scoop? Uh, sorry, I'm just have fun with you now.
P.S. Edit that H.264 is not free. All the major mpeg formats (including you know who) has distribution fees. This issue doesn't just disappear, you know.
the legal issues coming up is 100% my fault, I asked for it, but it was going in a dangerous direction.
I reserve the right to change the rules at any time to preserve my employment ;)
You were hinting at just that scenario all along.
I tried sending you an email... If you got it, maybe we can take this offline. Maybe?
Anyway, I appreciate it.
But you still need to fix the error of claiming H.264 distribution is free.
people like stillanonymous are the reason why having a blog can be equal parts fun obnoxious
Wait a minute, David --
If you posted something about WAV or MPEG2, I for one would say something if clarification or correction were needed! I don't know about other readers here, but these formats are important to me, as well. So, I agree that people tend to be more aggressively evangelical on AAC because it's an Apple format -- though in this case, maybe "defensive" is the word as you got some important details wrong.
Speaking of factual accuracy, WAV and MPEG2 *are* Apple-supported formats, and have been for some time.
So, I've lost you there.
I'm also disappointed that OGG/FLAC got left out of this discussion, particularly since economizing license fees is an issue. I know this situation may be complex, but they are worth discussing (and I'm disappointed they're not supported on Apple's portable devices).
@Grommet, Stefan, and David
I don't know how this falls under a category of "fanboy" or AAC worship? The fact of the matter is David posted false information; when asked for clarification he responded with spin.
Anybody with a search engine can figure out that he is giving mis-information. Most of those that have disagreed with him have provided non-bias links proving otherwise. Now I'm not as technically versed as stillanonymous but it's become very apparent to me who the true "fan-boys" are.
Thanks, chris.
I don't know what David's work day entails, and there's the possibility that he's pow-wowing with lawyers and/or execs right now, but I'm disappointed he hasn't been able to correct an error I illustrated to him a half hour after posting.
I'll give him a day to respond and correct the STILL incorrect information that H.264/AVC has no distribution fees. If he hasn't posted here or responded to my emails, I've been preparing a piece based on the "objectionable" post detailing an undocumented (and to me, nonexistent) "patent dispute" which should prove quite interesting. (I want the piece to be very factual and will be soliciting input and corrections from anyone, particularly David and any Zune/Microsoft people that care to respond as well as a few other key individuals in the media format industry.) It seems like I've stumbled upon something quite interesting that Microsoft doesn't want anyone to know about VC-1. (Even though in my eyes it is all public, easily researched, information.)
This is quite an interesting conversation hidden away on Caulton's blog.
My correction is already there. They have no fees on FREE distribution. That's correct, right? That was the nub of the mpeg-4 part 2 fees, which iirc charged a set amount rather than a % of revenue.
No, the concern was NOT over free distribution. The rates were higher and had no caps. Part 2 was not killed, H.264 progressed more rapidly than expected, and because of the Quicktime patents in mpeg-4, it was quickly folded into mpeg-4 making it a superior alternative.
All major media formats have had distribution fees and still do except AAC (mpeg-2, mp3, mpeg-4 Part 2, H.264/AVC, and VC-1 YOUR OWN DAMN CODEC that you are illegally distributing with different usage rights to the true patents holders!!) I don't include the other wm formats as they are not major.
This is replete with errors and FUD! The VC-1 story gets told if you don't correct it. I'll repost an edited version when you decide to delete it.
wow, stillanonymous.. its spring, you know? go out.. get some sun. its healthy.
It's freezing rain/snowing where I am. Comment on my comments, don't try to make judgments and assertions about me.
@everyone but stillanonymous
I'm really tiring of these small little jabs (fanboy, get some sun, etc...)
The fact of the matter still remains that David; a representative/spokesperson of MS/Zune posted a slanted and misleading blog about "mp3 content fee". Not only did he misrepresent the fee structures but he also misrepresented the availabilty of such codec. Now either he himself is not fully informed or he intentionally left out important information that would give a more accurate idea to his "public" blog readers.
When you present yourself as an expert in the field and post your thoughts on the subject in your "public" blog there is going to be feedback. Unfortunately or fortunately in this instance there is a few blog readers that understand the nature of this part of a huge industry and we have chosen to ask for clarification and/or rebuttal. Neither have happened as of yet.
To my count he still needs to respond to 3 issues.
The misrepresentation of WMA prices.
The misrepresentation of AAC availabilty.
The misrepesentation of VC-1.
Now I'm not certain but it appears that most would like blog posts to go unchallenged even in the event of blatant error.
chris, I perceive it slightly differently. I can accept David's unwillingness to discuss VC-1 and I can find little, if any, error in his presentation of wma pricing.
I do feel he has made a number of specious claims about mp3, AAC, mpeg-4 part 2, H.264, and distribution fees.
Some of these he has corrected, but then he continues to play little misdirection, insinuation games. They're pretty transparent. I feel he has left a number of areas of concern open for question and correction though... I hope he takes a different tack and corrects them. I appreciate his efforts thus far; he seems largely a victim of misinformation... noting truly knowing very much about these media formats he is speaking about. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. (I concede that I myself have made a few omissions and am happy to correct any mistakes illustrated to me.)
Interesting conversation.
Thanks to all those who attempt to curb David's spin. It's interesting how he includes these subtle bits of mis-information. I hope most readers take the blog with a grain of salt, seeing as how he's a Microsoft employee with a stake in the company's future.
Thanks again to those who provide a different perspective and corrections to the blog. I've had to do the same.
http://mindsplice.com/caultonreply.html
http://mindsplice.com/caultonreply2.html
And, in some parts of the world, it's not spring... Let's not act like the U.S. is the only place on Earth.
@stillanonymous,
you say three areas of error:
The misrepresentation of WMA prices.
The misrepresentation of AAC availabilty.
The misrepesentation of VC-1.
I probably percieve them as nitpicky, but even if so I'm happy to correct if you're more specific (I'm lost in the extensive threads). What specifically do you disagree with on these three topics?
(unless it's about IP conspiracy theories - I can't comment on those)
David I believe the claims you list as needing to be answered are mine and not specifically stills.
WMA PRICING: When you list all codec fees (other than WMA) you list the highest end fees (after all services are rendered) however with WMA you list the base cost excluding all structured fees. This leads the reader to the assumption that WMA is more cost effective and equal quality to other medias; of which it is neither.
H.264: There is no quibble about this with me any longer. My initial concern was you stating that there is no distribution fees for H.264. Which has been duly noted that there is and it is costly. It still amazes me that you would not know that prior to posting but I will let go of that.
VC-1: There is no need for us to discuss this due to the possibility of it compromising your confidentiality agreement with MS.
Sorry...
AAC is used widely. Not only by Apple. Once again I'm willing to let this go but I'm still amazed that you would post such claims without full understanding.
This is what has caused the little firestorm on your blog.
I'll go through the errors as I recall them, it's difficult to catch them all.
1. Apple is the only purveyor of AAC and AAC-enabled devices. (The Zune, new Sony devices, the Rhapsody Sansa, and several other players. Most phones. Most home networking. Most HD components. The PS3, PSP, and the Microsoft console.)
2. AAC is expensive. (AAC is CHEAPER than mp3 for all but the lowest volume producers, and substantially so at "successful" volumes.)
3. That Apple's tags for AAC are some strange voodoo that are hoard to undertstand, hard to replicate, and are incompatible with most uses. (Most current software and devices that support AAC use Apple tags with little difficulty.)
4. The fact that you raised legal issues that you apparently had hoped would be attached to mp3, AAC, and open format, but which you delete when factually linked to your own company's formats. (Nothing illegal about the publicly available truth; they weren't your comments.) "My understanding (IANAL) is that using any compression technology that isn't cleanly licensed carries more risk than one that is. "
5. mp3 not having distribution fees. Corrected-- it does.
6. The inference that I'm "fanatical" because of my desire to correct your errors and educate you.
7. The notion that no formats have had distribution fees for a while. (The majority have, do and will continue to. The ones which don't are proprietary formats not licensed for distribution or which need free distribution. mpeg-2, mp3, mpeg-4 part 2, mpeg-4 AVC, mpeg-4 VC-1 all have fees.)
8. This mischaracterization that mpeg-4 part was killed and that is was killed because of distribution fees, free or not. (This was an issue in 2002 that was resolved. Free distribution was never a issue; the issue was that rates started no matter how short the content was, and that there were no caps. The issues were resolved and mpeg-4 part 2 was adopted and used by Apple from 2002-2004 when H.264 entered the market. Somehow you blacked out for 4 years.)
8. The specifically absurd notion that H.264 had no distribution fees. (It does and always will.)
9. the absurd notion that they dropped these fees for "free" distribution (Once mpegla resolved the licensing issues for mpeg-4 part 2, most of the subsequent formats have simply carried over the EXACT same distribution fees as mpeg-4 part 2--which was allegedly killed for these licensing restrictions rather than the technological advance that occurred between 2002 and now.)
10. Maintaining a sentence that acts as if H.264 does not have or dropped distribution fees (no matter if it is qualified to "free") is incorrect and misleading.
11. The notion that only part 2 had fees and that these fees were particularly disagreeable. (I might be repeating a little bit, but this reflects your repetitions after having already been corrected.)
11. The notion that Apple never used part 2 (What happened to 2002-2006? to QuickTime 6?)
12. The notion that the mpeg formats are fated for adoption in hard content (and by inference and your misunderstanding of distribution fees, that this is not the case for streams or downloads). H.264 is widely adopted across streaming radio and already dominates the streaming and download to phone market.
13. "That was the nub of the mpeg-4 part 2 fees, which iirc charged a set amount rather than a % of revenue." -- wrong, always a %, they added a cap.
14. "you say three areas of error:
The misrepresentation of WMA prices.
The misrepresentation of AAC availabilty.
The misrepesentation of VC-1."
I did not say that.
I said:
"chris, I perceive it slightly differently. I can accept David's unwillingness to discuss VC-1 and I can find little, if any, error in his presentation of wma pricing.
I do feel he has made a number of specious claims about mp3, AAC, mpeg-4 part 2, H.264, and distribution fees."
A fair number of these issues were corrected. Many, not by you, but by me or others. Corrections are nice, but the share number and the repetition of the same corrected errors is unacceptable. After the first half dozen, you should have realized this is a topic for someone else or for a little research on your part.
More than the any of these errors, I am concerned about your complete lack of knowledge. Also scary is that it seems clear that you know that you aren't well-informed on these issues, but think you can try to recall something from 2002 willy-nilly without trying to perform research.
Beyond these issues of general ignorance, I think there is a clear, but subtle, intent to push an agenda that's beneficial to the Zune and Microsoft while at the same time claiming you have no interest in format issues, that Microsoft benefits no matter, that you are agnostic. Even more clear is your intent to paint mpeg and its processes poorly despite being ancient history, and 100% applicable to your own company. More than 100% applicable, as you and I know-- profoundly problematic...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home