Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Tue, 26 March 2013 04:52 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065BA21F892D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-5.255, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gJyO0vafdL0I for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692EB21F88D8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r2Q4ptxI016240 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:51:55 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 1f16_cc26_e216e658_95d0_11e2_95a3_001d096c5782; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:51:54 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:40418) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S1647057> for <rtcweb@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:51:56 +0900
Message-ID: <5151295F.30104@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:51:43 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
References: <CA+23+fE3WRs5SxAUcsjWbxcjzQKxCtW7sdfHtAsbd7MbPyHAtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEWS6TJPKXdf7i140wKMZFHBcSVBtCxwzViWYYFgL01D=LdmEg@mail.gmail.com> <F0FCD7D0-969E-46D9-9681-3A64D36F59DF@apple.com> <51420679.2060909@librevideo.org> <34944444-4FEB-4AD0-A90D-1EE8C56C0253@acmepacket.com> <51421106.7040803@librevideo.org>
In-Reply-To: <51421106.7040803@librevideo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 04:52:08 -0000

On 2013/03/15 3:03, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:

> If you read the documentation that comes with your, for example, AVCHD
> camcorder, you'll see that the licensee (the hardware manufacturer) can
> give to their users is a private, non-commericial license to the usage
> of the encoded media produced by it.  Windows users, as well, are
> granted a license via Microsoft to the usage of the decoder shipped with
> the OS for the same limited usages.  Commercial usages beyond this would
> seem to require an additional license (e.g., a paid performance where an
> H.264 video is played on a Windows machine, perhaps?).
>
> I don't know what to say about the other issues you've raised.  IANAL
> and such. :)  Such questions may be directed to MPEG-LA.

I'm not a lawyer either, never was, and never plan to be. The above is 
probably an appropriate explanation of the license as intended by the 
licencers.

But I'm wondering whether such a licence would actually hold tight when 
considering patent exhaustion (first sale). Under patent exhaustion, it 
seems impossible to e.g. sell patented bottle openers but restrict their 
use to home use, in exclusion to commercial use (e.g. in a restaurant or 
bar). What is it that would allow such distinctions for cameras but not 
for bottle openers and the like? Or is it just that nobody yet has 
brought a case before a court?

Just wondering aloud.

Regards,   Martin.