[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
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I am happy for people to upload files when we can convert it to another
format. Given that the issue is around the ability to re-use media files in
the H.264 format, providing these files to our users is exactly the issue
that is being discussed. Consequently it is controversial.
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 17 January 2014 14:18, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> * Tim Starling wrote:
> >On 17/01/14 01:14, Todd Allen 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).
> >
> >I don't really understand this argument. It's not like there are video
> >cameras that record directly to Theora. So presumably, most videos
> >uploaded to Commons start life as H.264 or some other proprietary
> >format, and are transcoded to Theora before they are uploaded to Commons.
> >
> >The proposal is to make it possible to upload the source file and have
> >the server do the transcode, whereas currently, the source file is
> >private and thus not distributed under a free license. Currently, if
> >you want to reuse an H.264 source file, you have to somehow contact
> >the author, beg for a copy of the file, and hope that they haven't
> >deleted it. With this proposal, if you want to reuse an H.264 file
> >without a patent license, you can just download the Theora transcode
> >from the server.
> >
> >I am having trouble thinking of a scenario where the current situation
> >would be better for reuse than the proposed situation. If you can
> >think of one, please tell me.
>
> It seems to me that we all agree it would be nice if people could upload
> H.264 video to Wikimedia Foundation servers and if people could download
> H.264 video from Wikimedia servers and possibly even reuse such video.
> There are efforts underway to try and make some H.264 profile available
> on a royality-free basis that the Foundation probably should study and
> possibly support. This RFC however is not going to give people a license
> to upload or reuse H.264 video by the looks of it. The "download Theora"
> approach is already supported, so there is no difference there either.
>
> If there is some legal theory by which "most people" either already have
> or do not need to be given a license to upload or reuse H.264 video (in-
> cluding considerations with respect to how such video came to be) then
> by all means make that part of the RfC and then we could say whether the
> proposal would actually improve anything.
> --
> 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?

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
On Jan 16, 2014 11:05 PM, "Tim Starling" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 17/01/14 01:14, Todd Allen 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).
>
> I don't really understand this argument. It's not like there are video
> cameras that record directly to Theora. So presumably, most videos
> uploaded to Commons start life as H.264 or some other proprietary
> format, and are transcoded to Theora before they are uploaded to Commons.
>
> The proposal is to make it possible to upload the source file and have
> the server do the transcode, whereas currently, the source file is
> private and thus not distributed under a free license. Currently, if
> you want to reuse an H.264 source file, you have to somehow contact
> the author, beg for a copy of the file, and hope that they haven't
> deleted it. With this proposal, if you want to reuse an H.264 file
> without a patent license, you can just download the Theora transcode
> from the server.
>
> I am having trouble thinking of a scenario where the current situation
> would be better for reuse than the proposed situation. If you can
> think of one, please tell me.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

If the server does the transcode and ultimately makes available only a
video file in a free format, and WMF doesn't have to pay the patent holders
to make that happen, then I would have no objection.

If, however, the nonfree format is made available for download, or WMF
funds would be supporting a software patent, those are clear negatives.
_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Bjoern Hoehrmann
FYI it's against the bylaws of at least 4 chapters (Argentina, Chile,
Uruguay and Venezuela) to promote content in non-free formats.

--
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?

David Gerard-2
On 17 January 2014 14:19, Fajro <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FYI it's against the bylaws of at least 4 chapters (Argentina, Chile,
> Uruguay and Venezuela) to promote content in non-free formats.



Do you have the precise wording handy? e.g. What constitutes promotion?


- 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?

Fajro
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:24 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17 January 2014 14:19, Fajro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Do you have the precise wording handy? e.g. What constitutes promotion?


From Wikimedia Argentina bylaws:

> *The Association's goals are:*
> To actively contribute to the diffusion, improvement and progress of the
> knowledge and culture through the development and distribution of
> encyclopedias, collections of quotes, educational books and other document
> compilations; the diffusion of information and diverse data bases,
> especially in the languages spoken in the Argentine territory, which:
>
>    1. are available through technologies as Internet or similar, provided
>    that: (a) the source of the data is available (for works resulting from the
>    compilation or processing of other works), (b) are given in a freely
>    available format (defined as those that can be implemented by anyone, are
>    based in publicly available and documented specifications, and whose
>    implementation or use does not require the payment of any royalties), and
>    the availability of the work is not restricted by technical measures.
>
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina/Bylaws
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chile/Bylaws
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Uruguay/Bylaws/en
http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/Estatutos_sociales_de_Wikimedia_Venezuela (in
spanish)
--
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?

Ted Chien
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
From my knowledge when I was working as an engineer in the multimedia
software company back in 2006, if there's no transcoding to MP* formats, no
patent fee is required. So if you upload MP4 files then download them
without any transcoding it should be fine (correct me if I'm wrong). We'd
only been charged by MPEG LA for encoding the MPEG-4 video at that time.

Personally I would support to include MP4 in Wikimedia projects if no
patent fee is required, since it's already widely used in user's daily
life.

Regards,
Ted Chien
-- Sent from my HTC New One
2014/1/17 下午10:16 於 "Todd Allen" <[hidden email]> 寫道:

> On Jan 16, 2014 11:05 PM, "Tim Starling" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 17/01/14 01:14, Todd Allen 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).
> >
> > I don't really understand this argument. It's not like there are video
> > cameras that record directly to Theora. So presumably, most videos
> > uploaded to Commons start life as H.264 or some other proprietary
> > format, and are transcoded to Theora before they are uploaded to Commons.
> >
> > The proposal is to make it possible to upload the source file and have
> > the server do the transcode, whereas currently, the source file is
> > private and thus not distributed under a free license. Currently, if
> > you want to reuse an H.264 source file, you have to somehow contact
> > the author, beg for a copy of the file, and hope that they haven't
> > deleted it. With this proposal, if you want to reuse an H.264 file
> > without a patent license, you can just download the Theora transcode
> > from the server.
> >
> > I am having trouble thinking of a scenario where the current situation
> > would be better for reuse than the proposed situation. If you can
> > think of one, please tell me.
> >
> > -- Tim Starling
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> If the server does the transcode and ultimately makes available only a
> video file in a free format, and WMF doesn't have to pay the patent holders
> to make that happen, then I would have no objection.
>
> If, however, the nonfree format is made available for download, or WMF
> funds would be supporting a software patent, those are clear negatives.
> _______________________________________________
> 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?

David Gerard-2
On 17 January 2014 15:03, Ted Chien <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From my knowledge when I was working as an engineer in the multimedia
> software company back in 2006, if there's no transcoding to MP* formats, no
> patent fee is required. So if you upload MP4 files then download them
> without any transcoding it should be fine (correct me if I'm wrong). We'd
> only been charged by MPEG LA for encoding the MPEG-4 video at that time.



So we'd be fine transcoding *from* MPEG4?


- 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?

Strainu
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
2014/1/16 Andrew Lih <[hidden email]>:
> 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:
> [snip]

I worry more about the "no, because that would mean more video content
uploaded to commons" votes (see Rilke, Turelio). I find it disturbing
that we got to a point were we basically *refuse* new contributions.

Strainu

_______________________________________________
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?

Chad Horohoe
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2014/1/16 Andrew Lih <[hidden email]>:
> > 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:
> > [snip]
>
> I worry more about the "no, because that would mean more video content
> uploaded to commons" votes (see Rilke, Turelio). I find it disturbing
> that we got to a point were we basically *refuse* new contributions.
>

Me too. Anytime I see a "but it will enable bad contributions" argument for
reasons not to do things I get a little sad. Every well-meaning contribution
should be valued, IMHO.

-Chad
_______________________________________________
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
BTW, Luis from WMF has put a very lengthy and detailed analysis of the
legal issues that does help quite a bit, at the end of the RFC:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Commercial_use_and_h264

TLDR:

"…there may be good moral, ethical, and strategic reasons to oppose or
support this plan. However, in my opinion, non-commercial restrictions on
the use of particular h264-based devices, or their interactions with
Creative Commons, are not good reasons to oppose it" -LVilla
(WMF)<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LVilla_(WMF)>
(talk <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LVilla_(WMF)>) 05:06,
17 January 2014 (UTC)






On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Chad Horohoe <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 2014/1/16 Andrew Lih <[hidden email]>:
> > > 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:
> > > [snip]
> >
> > I worry more about the "no, because that would mean more video content
> > uploaded to commons" votes (see Rilke, Turelio). I find it disturbing
> > that we got to a point were we basically *refuse* new contributions.
> >
>
> Me too. Anytime I see a "but it will enable bad contributions" argument for
> reasons not to do things I get a little sad. Every well-meaning
> contribution
> should be valued, IMHO.
>
> -Chad
> _______________________________________________
> 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?

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
Given that allowing mp4 would be an act of commercial expedience at the
expense of core Wikipedia principles, let me make the modest suggestion of
introducing mp4 in concert with a name change to Encarta.
On Jan 16, 2014 5:15 AM, "Andrew Lih" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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?

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
He wasn't assuming bad faith; he was accurately describing the situation
without ascribing intent.
On Jan 16, 2014 7:36 AM, "Andrew Lih" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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?

Nathan Awrich
There's an article about the debate up from yesterday on Ars:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/wikimedia-considers-supporting-h-264-to-boost-accessibility-content/
_______________________________________________
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
A pile of press is linked at the top of the talk page.


- d.

On 17 January 2014 16:43, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There's an article about the debate up from yesterday on Ars:
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/wikimedia-considers-supporting-h-264-to-boost-accessibility-content/
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Andrew Lih
* Andrew Lih wrote:
>BTW, Luis from WMF has put a very lengthy and detailed analysis of the
>legal issues that does help quite a bit, at the end of the RFC:
>
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Commercial_use_and_h264

I note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not really have to obtain a
license to use H.264 encoders and decoders, users could do the format
conversions elsewhere and the Wikimedia Foundation could then "merely
distribute" the files. As the RfC notes, "Merely distributing MP4 files
never requires a patent license." That would spare us problems like the
"secret contract" issue.

Why does the proposal, instead, suggest the Foundation should engage in
the practise of, not just mere distribution, but Internet Broadcasting?
That apparently requires a patent license. For that matter, would users
who download video automatically obtain Internet Re-Broadcasting rights?

I do note that according to MPEG LA there are only about 1300 entities
with relevant license agreements, if putting a H.264 video on my web
site whether people can download it is Internet Broadcasting and I do
not obtain an Internet Broadcasting license by pressing the "record"
button on my camera, or some other automatic process, then that figure
is several orders of magnitude too small, or patent holders tolerate a
lot of infringement (for the moment).

Would it really make sense to label video files as freely shareable if
forms of sharing like "Internet Broadcasting" need additional licenses?
--
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?

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing on
our own base of uploaded videos is the approach best calibrated to serving
Wikimedia's mission?
_______________________________________________
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?

Nathan Awrich
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
> Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
> enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
> 6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing on
> our own base of uploaded videos is the approach best calibrated to serving
> Wikimedia's mission?
>

Actually it did come up, allow me to reproduce the comment in a vote posted
by Brad Patrick (former WMF general counsel):

I agree that the dominant file format means we need to be able to
comprehend what is ingested. But it is not okay to ingest and spew using
that file format if it means we are putting on someone else's intellectual
property yoke. Commons' great benefit to the world is no-questions-asked
reusability, and I don't want to see it compromised in this fashion,
license freebie or otherwise. I'm with User:David
Gerard<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard>
 on this. On the whole it is of far less importance to me as there is no
guiding principal or idea that WMF is intended to be an *exclusive*
repository of anything. Others do nothing but video, and that's great. I
want there to be video, *but it is not part of a grant vision to
out-YouTube YouTube, or Vimeo, or any other huge site with billions of
hours of video*. User:Fuzheado<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fuzheado>
 is right - we lack the present toolset to be able to address such volumes
of video, and I'm not sure that's a bad
thing.--BradPatrick<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick>
 (talk <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BradPatrick>) 14:45,
16 January 2014 (UTC)

Emphasis is mine. I'm sure smart people have debated this before, can
anyone point me to it?
_______________________________________________
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
On 17 January 2014 17:12, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> property yoke. Commons' great benefit to the world is no-questions-asked
> reusability, and I don't want to see it compromised in this fashion,
> license freebie or otherwise. I'm with User:David
> Gerard<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard>
>  on this. On the whole it is of far less importance to me as there is no


Note that my favoured option is actually ingestion of MP4 (and of
anything, really), but not serving it. Ideally you should be able to
get a video on your phone of that UFO that just flew by and upload it
in your "Wikimedia Commons uploader" app without having to faff around
with dodgy shareware wrappers around FFmpeg on a computer first, or
attempt to run a slow and battery-hungry conversion on your phone
itself.


- 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?

Emmanuel Engelhart-5
In reply to this post by geni
Le 16/01/2014 20:13, geni a écrit :
> On 16 January 2014 13:02, Emmanuel Engelhart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Dirac, a free codec developed by the BBC, seems to be a good solution.
>> Do people have some experiences with Dirac?
>>
>>
> No. BBC managed to get it working dedicated machines a few years back and I
> think there is an alpha trans-coder out there but people have lost
> interest.

Indeed, it seems the development of Dirac is pretty slow/frozen :(
But, I have tested it with ffmpeg: the lossless compression seems to work.

> Theora is good enough for the no compromise on freedom mob and
> development interest is moving towards webM.

Please refer to the original question, we speak here about lossless
codecs and AFAIK neither VP8 nor Theora are lossless (or have lossless
options).

But it seems that VP9 has one and that last month ffmpeg has started to
merge patches to support lossless VP9 transcoding... This might be the
best approach to deal with raw video material on Commons:
https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2013-November/150547.html

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?

Ted Chien
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Hi David,

We were selling video editing softwares at that time, and that's what I
remebered for the MPEG-4 royalties. But MPEG LA would do the license thing
case by case, maybe my information is not correct now.

I just found that MPEG LA has announced in 2010 that it will not charge
royalties from Internet video that is free to users from the lifetime of
the license, maybe WMF projects can fit the requirement? I think it needs
the legal team to do the investigation.

The MPEG LA press release for free Internet Video:
http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/74/n-10-08-26.pdf

Regards,
Ted Chien
-- Sent from my HTC New One
2014/1/17 下午11:29 於 "David Gerard" <[hidden email]> 寫道:

> On 17 January 2014 15:03, Ted Chien <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > From my knowledge when I was working as an engineer in the multimedia
> > software company back in 2006, if there's no transcoding to MP* formats,
> no
> > patent fee is required. So if you upload MP4 files then download them
> > without any transcoding it should be fine (correct me if I'm wrong). We'd
> > only been charged by MPEG LA for encoding the MPEG-4 video at that time.
>
>
>
> So we'd be fine transcoding *from* MPEG4?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
1234