[Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
78 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Fabrice Florin-2
Greetings!

The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team (1) seeks your guidance on a proposal to support the MP4 video format. As you know, this digital video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC. (2)

Supporting the MP4 format would make it much easier for our users to view and contribute video on Wikimedia projects -- and video files could be offered in dual formats on our sites, so we could continue to support current open formats (WebM and Ogg Theora).

However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required.

We would appreciate your guidance on whether or not we should support MP4 on our sites. The Request for Comments presents views both in favor and against MP4 support, based on opinions we’ve heard in our discussions with community and team members.

What do you think? We would be grateful for your comments here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video

All users are welcome to participate, whether you are active on Commons, Wikipedia, other Wikimedia project -- or any site that uses content from our free media repository.

We also invite you to join our Office Hours Chat on IRC this Thursday, January 16, at 19:00 UTC, if you would like to discuss this project with our team and other community members:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours

We look forward to a constructive discussion with you, so we can make a more informed decision together about this important question.

All the best,



Fabrice Florin
Product Manager, Multimedia
Wikimedia Foundation


(1) Multimedia Team Hub:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia


(2) About MP4:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Fajro
No.


--
Fajro
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Brandon Harris-4

On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Fajro <[hidden email]> wrote:

> No.

        I think you should probably include a reason why you feel this way.  A one-word answer doesn’t leave room for conversation.

---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Liam Wyatt
Or better yet... elaborate on your reasons on the RfC page. https://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video
I think it is commendable that the WMF legal team is proposing this
discussion in such an open and honest way. It is a discussion that has been
bubbling away for a long time and it is perfectly sensible that we should
address it formally every now and then. Even if we come up with the same
answer it is important to revisit major policy decisions periodically in
case the situation has changed.

I think we can all acknowledge that this particular issue is a good example
of where two of our deeply held principles are somewhat conflicting. On the
one hand we hold firm to the idea that our purpose is to share information
as widely as possible, and on the other we also are very committed to the
principles of open source. These are both real, valid, principles and it is
important that we look at the ways that we can balance the competing
choices that these principles force upon us without pre-judging the
outcome.

- Liam / Wittylama



On 16 January 2014 14:28, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Fajro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > No.
>
>         I think you should probably include a reason why you feel this
> way.  A one-word answer doesn’t leave room for conversation.
>
> ---
> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Philippe Beaudette-2
Clarification:  while LCA would love to accept the compliment (and indeed, both the "l" and the "ca" sides are providing support for this process), it is Fabrice's initiative, not one of ours.

pb

Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy



> On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:05 PM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Or better yet... elaborate on your reasons on the RfC page. https://commons.
> wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video
> I think it is commendable that the WMF legal team is proposing this
> discussion in such an open and honest way. It is a discussion that has been
> bubbling away for a long time and it is perfectly sensible that we should
> address it formally every now and then. Even if we come up with the same
> answer it is important to revisit major policy decisions periodically in
> case the situation has changed.
>
> I think we can all acknowledge that this particular issue is a good example
> of where two of our deeply held principles are somewhat conflicting. On the
> one hand we hold firm to the idea that our purpose is to share information
> as widely as possible, and on the other we also are very committed to the
> principles of open source. These are both real, valid, principles and it is
> important that we look at the ways that we can balance the competing
> choices that these principles force upon us without pre-judging the
> outcome.
>
> - Liam / Wittylama
>
>
>
>> On 16 January 2014 14:28, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Fajro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>>        I think you should probably include a reason why you feel this
>> way.  A one-word answer doesn’t leave room for conversation.
>>
>> ---
>> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Bjoern Hoehrmann
In reply to this post by Fabrice Florin-2
* Fabrice Florin wrote:
>The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team (1) seeks your guidance on a
>proposal to support the MP4 video format. As you know, this digital
>video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch
>videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is
>also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC. (2)

Actually, "MP4" is a container format and H.264 a video codec, and it is
quite normal to use variants of H.264 with other container formats like
AVI. Likewise, "MP4" does not imply using AAC as audio codec, MP3 could
be used instead, for instance. An analysis why AAC is being proposed may
be useful here.

>However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary
>format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting
>open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have
>acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=114053933 notes "Though
the full license agreements cannot be disclosed in public". That is not
very helpful in analysing claims later on like "Merely distributing MP4
files never requires a patent license."

What is the exact language to be used to inform anyone handling H.264
video downloaded from Wikimedia Foundation servers of their rights and
restrictions, specifically with regards to the relevant patent porfolio?
Making it abundantly clear what users can and cannot do with such files
should be considered a pre-condition for considering such a proposal.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Manuel Schneider-3
In reply to this post by Fabrice Florin-2
Hi Fabrice,

interesting question!

I'd like to remind of a discussion we had at last year's Wikimania in
Hong Kong concerning tools for the video community.

Yet we do not really have a video community but scattered small groups
or individuals doing some work. I try to coordinate this in the
german-speaking world and we do this via Wikipedia, then there are
people in the Czech Republic doing videos on national parks, Andrew did
some great stuff in the US, there is a british initiative as well. We
all face similar challenges. One things - which is off-topic here - is
that I have in mind to connect these groups to an internationl video
community, maybe by having a WikiVideo (or whatever the name might be)
project.

But back to the RfC: One of the challenges is that we need a solution for

* storing the raw video material allowing people to re-use, re-edit
etc., also most volunteers don't have the storage capacity to store all
their raw material

* collaborative editing - hard to do technically and it mostly implies
that raw material is being shared - hard for people that can meet each
other as these files are big, fast storage is needed etc. and it is even
harder for people working online

* upload of high-quality, finished video projects is a pain. They mostly
have more than 1 GB, you need to have another server to upload and share
it, make a bug report, find a server admin who downloads and imports it etc.

My idea which we talked about briefly at Wikimania was a server where
people could upload there raw material, it gets transcoded into smaller
"proxy clips" everyone can easily download, edit and then upload the EDL
(edit decision list = video editing project file, which just holds the
operations). The server would then use the EDL on the raw material
stored there and render the final video. The upload process can then be
automated between this server and Commons.

The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
material.

So my take on this topic is a compromise:

* allow MP4 / H.264 as a source codec

* deliver everything in WebM / Ogg Theora (or other free codecs)

Especially with WebM I see no reason why people really need H.264. Ogg
Theora is somewhat exotic but WebM isn't.
And once we have solved the legal problem around this RfC nothing is
stoping us to implement the video editing server, right?


/Manuel
--
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by Fabrice Florin-2
Why would we promote patent- and secrecy-encumbered formats when Google has
spent so much on opening WebM?

Also, why does the Multimedia Team care about video when most Wiktionary
headwords don't have uploaded audio exemplars yet?

Where are our priorities?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Emmanuel Engelhart-5
In reply to this post by Manuel Schneider-3
Le 16/01/2014 12:54, Manuel Schneider a écrit :
> The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
> trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
> material.

We have now a pretty good support of TIFF for pictures and FLAC for
audio streams; but there is still no solution to store lossless (raw)
video material. This problem is a real one like have underlined Manuel.

The following Wikipedia article proposes a list of lossless video codecs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs#Lossless_compression_2

Dirac, a free codec developed by the BBC, seems to be a good solution.
Do people have some experiences with Dirac?

Regards
Emmanuel
--
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Manuel Schneider-3
Great post Manuel, and I wholeheartedly agree, including the final
recommendation. I, instead, voted for full MP4 support on the RfC to draw
the center of gravity towards accepting MP4, but I would be happy even with
a partial solution.

Some points:

1. The video project in English Wikipedia is:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video]] We certainly welcome more than
just English Wikipedians there! We've had several university classes use
this, and I think a pretty good set of example videos and guidelines
including many videos shot by journalism and media studies students:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video

2. I talked recently with the Mozilla Popcorn folks, and they seem to have
the best OSS, online video editing system today with Popcorn Maker. You can
actually paste in URLs of Commons video and start splicing them together.
Just make sure to use an Ogg/WebM friendly browser. I encourage you to try
it out.

https://popcorn.webmaker.org/

They said they would be thrilled if Popcorn became part of the editing
solution for Wikimedia. One problem is that they right now only manage an
EDL of edits, so embedding an edited video together requires an online
Javascript environment -- there is no provision for re-compressing and
outputting the video to a standalone Ogg or WebM file. But this is OSS so
adding this functionality should be possible with the right resources.

3. Perhaps we should do several sessions at Wikimedia in succession,
including a workshop on how to shoot and make video? I teach video shooting
and editing to students each year, so this would be quite an easy thing for
me to pitch in on.

-Andrew





On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Manuel Schneider <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Fabrice,
>
> interesting question!
>
> I'd like to remind of a discussion we had at last year's Wikimania in
> Hong Kong concerning tools for the video community.
>
> Yet we do not really have a video community but scattered small groups
> or individuals doing some work. I try to coordinate this in the
> german-speaking world and we do this via Wikipedia, then there are
> people in the Czech Republic doing videos on national parks, Andrew did
> some great stuff in the US, there is a british initiative as well. We
> all face similar challenges. One things - which is off-topic here - is
> that I have in mind to connect these groups to an internationl video
> community, maybe by having a WikiVideo (or whatever the name might be)
> project.
>
> But back to the RfC: One of the challenges is that we need a solution for
>
> * storing the raw video material allowing people to re-use, re-edit
> etc., also most volunteers don't have the storage capacity to store all
> their raw material
>
> * collaborative editing - hard to do technically and it mostly implies
> that raw material is being shared - hard for people that can meet each
> other as these files are big, fast storage is needed etc. and it is even
> harder for people working online
>
> * upload of high-quality, finished video projects is a pain. They mostly
> have more than 1 GB, you need to have another server to upload and share
> it, make a bug report, find a server admin who downloads and imports it
> etc.
>
> My idea which we talked about briefly at Wikimania was a server where
> people could upload there raw material, it gets transcoded into smaller
> "proxy clips" everyone can easily download, edit and then upload the EDL
> (edit decision list = video editing project file, which just holds the
> operations). The server would then use the EDL on the raw material
> stored there and render the final video. The upload process can then be
> automated between this server and Commons.
>
> The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
> trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
> material.
>
> So my take on this topic is a compromise:
>
> * allow MP4 / H.264 as a source codec
>
> * deliver everything in WebM / Ogg Theora (or other free codecs)
>
> Especially with WebM I see no reason why people really need H.264. Ogg
> Theora is somewhat exotic but WebM isn't.
> And once we have solved the legal problem around this RfC nothing is
> stoping us to implement the video editing server, right?
>
>
> /Manuel
> --
> Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
James,

This is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "Wiktionary headwords" in
my life :)

I'm partial, but there's a very strong case that video in Wikipedia has a
large impact and interest level that justifies this much time on it.

-Andrew



On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:16 AM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why would we promote patent- and secrecy-encumbered formats when Google has
> spent so much on opening WebM?
>
> Also, why does the Multimedia Team care about video when most Wiktionary
> headwords don't have uploaded audio exemplars yet?
>
> Where are our priorities?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Bjoern Hoehrmann
As much as I am pushing for MP4 adoption in Wikimedia to help our lagging
video efforts, MPEG-4 patent holders/licensors are not helping their case:

1. The consumer licensing agreement from AT&T is scary and weird, and
Geni's first NO vote has set the tone for many to follow.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#No_MP4_support

2. The secrecy around the "the full license agreements cannot be disclosed
in public" sounds bad and we'd have to trust WMF's legal team to find it
acceptable. Wikimedians hate non transparency. Some folks are voting NO
because of this.

3. The CNET interview with MPEG-LA's legal folks seems to indicate a
bizarre stance: Yes, they intentionally have scary, inconsistent and
confusing licensing terms. This is to make sure people with deep pockets
wind up paying the patent pool lots of money. For smaller users? Those
onerous terms sound like they apply to you but you can disregard them. This
is NOT a good state of affairs for a conscientious, detail-oriented free
culture contributors.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html

4. One of the better resources to explains things is in this post from
LibreVideo.org, but even then there are many unanswered questions:
http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/

-Andrew



On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> * Fabrice Florin wrote:
> >The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team (1) seeks your guidance on a
> >proposal to support the MP4 video format. As you know, this digital
> >video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch
> >videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is
> >also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC. (2)
>
> Actually, "MP4" is a container format and H.264 a video codec, and it is
> quite normal to use variants of H.264 with other container formats like
> AVI. Likewise, "MP4" does not imply using AAC as audio codec, MP3 could
> be used instead, for instance. An analysis why AAC is being proposed may
> be useful here.
>
> >However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary
> >format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting
> >open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have
> >acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=114053933 notes "Though
> the full license agreements cannot be disclosed in public". That is not
> very helpful in analysing claims later on like "Merely distributing MP4
> files never requires a patent license."
>
> What is the exact language to be used to inform anyone handling H.264
> video downloaded from Wikimedia Foundation servers of their rights and
> restrictions, specifically with regards to the relevant patent porfolio?
> Making it abundantly clear what users can and cannot do with such files
> should be considered a pre-condition for considering such a proposal.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Emmanuel Engelhart-5
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Le 16/01/2014 12:54, Manuel Schneider a écrit :
> > The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
> > trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
> > material.
>
> We have now a pretty good support of TIFF for pictures and FLAC for
> audio streams; but there is still no solution to store lossless (raw)
> video material. This problem is a real one like have underlined Manuel.
>
> The following Wikipedia article proposes a list of lossless video codecs:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs#Lossless_compression_2
>
> Dirac, a free codec developed by the BBC, seems to be a good solution.
> Do people have some experiences with Dirac?
>
>
I actually looked into this last year, but it seems there has been little
to no development of this since two years ago.

-Andrew
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
On 16 January 2014 13:37, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 3. The CNET interview with MPEG-LA's legal folks seems to indicate a
> bizarre stance: Yes, they intentionally have scary, inconsistent and
> confusing licensing terms. This is to make sure people with deep pockets
> wind up paying the patent pool lots of money. For smaller users? Those
> onerous terms sound like they apply to you but you can disregard them. This
> is NOT a good state of affairs for a conscientious, detail-oriented free
> culture contributors.
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html


Given Commons' attitude on even incredibly unlikely copyright risks
... it's just ridiculous to assume such a provision on a format would
be allowed to pass.

I see at least one person has deemed it a snowball-pass after just a
few hours. I find this ... unlikely.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Liam Wyatt
There aren't two principles in conflict here.

Rather, there is a proposed very major shift in mission and method. Right
now, when we say Wikimedia content is "free", we mean free to fork, reuse,
use however the viewer sees fit.

We support that objective with freely licensed content stored in free and
unencumbered formats. We support educational content on our sites so long
as it is free. Those principles are dual requirements. They are additive,
not conflicting. To be acceptable for a Wikimedia project, content must be
both within that project's educational scope and be free. If it is one but
not the other, we cannot accept it.

This proposal asks to move to a "free as in beer" model, where content will
be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As such
it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
about format support.

Liam said:

Or better yet... elaborate on your reasons on the RfC page. https://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video
I think it is commendable that the WMF legal team is proposing this
discussion in such an open and honest way. It is a discussion that has been
bubbling away for a long time and it is perfectly sensible that we should
address it formally every now and then. Even if we come up with the same
answer it is important to revisit major policy decisions periodically in
case the situation has changed.

I think we can all acknowledge that this particular issue is a good example
of where two of our deeply held principles are somewhat conflicting. On the
one hand we hold firm to the idea that our purpose is to share information
as widely as possible, and on the other we also are very committed to the
principles of open source. These are both real, valid, principles and it is
important that we look at the ways that we can balance the competing
choices that these principles force upon us without pre-judging the
outcome.

- Liam / Wittylama

On 16 January 2014 14:28, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Fajro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > No.
>
>         I think you should probably include a reason why you feel this
> way.  A one-word answer doesn’t leave room for conversation.
>
> ---
> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Fæ
On 16 January 2014 14:14, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
> change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
> about format support.

+1

You may want to add to the comment in the RFC:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Comment_3_-_ethical_changes_require_significant_consensus

Fae
--
[hidden email] http://j.mp/faewm

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
On 16 January 2014 14:14, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This proposal asks to move to a "free as in beer" model, where content will
> be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
> it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
> but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As such
> it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
> change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
> about format support.


And with a secret licence agreement. What on earth.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Fæ
I will be commenting there, but editing is a bit of a pain from my phone.
On Jan 16, 2014 7:19 AM, "Fæ" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 16 January 2014 14:14, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
> > it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
> > change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a
> question
> > about format support.
>
> +1
>
> You may want to add to the comment in the RFC:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Comment_3_-_ethical_changes_require_significant_consensus
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] http://j.mp/faewm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Lionel Allorge (lionel.allorge@lunerouge.org)
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
Hi,

Todd Allen said:
...
> This proposal asks to move to a "free as in beer" model, where content will
> be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
> it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
> but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As such
> it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
> change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
> about format support.

I agree with Todd that the support of MP4 would be loosing the freedom that is
at the heart of the Wikimedia projects.

There is also a problem with the idea that it will allow people to directly
upload the videos made by their camcorder. Most of the time it is a bad idea
to upload a video without any form of editing. Most of the time you need to
remove at least the begining and the end of a video file. It will result in
many very bad videos.

On the contrary, we should encourage people to edit their videos with
tutorials and to render the final edit in a free file format.

Best regards.

--
Lionel Allorge
April : http://www.april.org
Lune Rouge : http://www.lunerouge.org
Wikimedia France : http://wikimedia.fr


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There aren't two principles in conflict here.
>
> This proposal asks to move to a "free as in beer" model, where content will
> be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
> it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
> but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do.  As such
> it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
> change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
> about format support.


As much as I hate how MPEG-LA and MPEG-4 creates a non-free climate for our
video, it's unfair to use "backdoor" to characterize intent of either
community members or WMF employees in this area.

Video has been a big shortcoming in Wikipedia and in the FLOSS community in
general. Overcoming means we need to consider the unique nature of the
problem with some possible new solutions. That's not backdooring -- that's
directly addressing the needs of content creation given the current legal
and IP situation.

Let's debate the merits of the case and not assume bad faith of the folks
putting it forward.

-Andrew
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234