Well, if posting binaries (without paying royalties) is illegal and you post a link to a site with binaries, then it's a link to a site with illegal content :( and I don't think this would be acceptable...

Yes I have to agree to that :!:
This would then make my program illegal, because it would depend on DLL's that are freely available, but the "whole" is then illegal, if I don't pay royalties to MPEGLA. :?
I don't think we'll see the KVCD encoder working with MPEG-2 avcodec libraries. It will just be MPEG-1, until I contact MPEGLA directly for further clarifications.

-kwag

But you know if site with binaries didn't pay licenses?
Kwag's encoder also can leave this door open.
What users do with that is not a developper problem.

just my 2 cent
 

Even if I know that what I say is not mutch apreciated, i (as always) think that a FairUse-like approach (direct DVD encoding) would be great.

Source code available here

Re: just my 2 cent
 

What do you mean patchworks?
What is it you say that we don't appreciate in what you say?
What do you mean? That we don't appreciate a good fellow like you bumping in on a thread and posting completely out of the context?
Or do you mean that KVCD Encoder GUI should be similar to Fairuse?
Cheers

Hello to everyone ! I was navigating in ffmpeg home page and there we have a faq about licenses issues:

Cheers,

If you live in a country where software patents are not recognised, you can distribute the binaries legally AFAIK. Unfortunately patent laws exist in the US. I live in Australia, and we don't have software patents, yet. The Fair Trade agreement with the US is going to change this, which is going to screw small business in here. Until then, AFAIK, I can distribute binaries and legally as far as Australian law enforcement is concerned. But correct me if I am wrong.

So Kwag, if you would distribute it outside the US, would it then be legal (or if you ask someone in a country where no Software IP laws exists to do it)??

Thanks Peter.
But I think I would be screwed, because I'm in the US (Puerto Rico), so even if I distribute the binaries on some remote site, the source of origin is still US, and there are legal bindings to that too.

An off (but close) topic: Last night I read an interesting article about the site "SUPRNOVA.ORG" about to be shutdown by authorities: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=602
I guess most of you know what it is. Remembering the site "ShareReactor", which was shut down, and they only posted links to copyrighted stuff, suprnova.org will be shut down for shure, because on top of having links to warez stuff, they even "host" the .torrent files.
So the ramifications are very strong for a site shutdown.
This is just an example of the things that are going on on the net. So even if I distribute the files on a "off shore" site, I'm sure they'll try to find a way to make the connection. I'm still evaluating other legal possibilities.

Thanks,
-kwag

True, this gets sometime sick.
I've readed on my local portal (that takes a goal, to point some people using illegal software, that there exsists freeware or cheeper possibilities) that in US some organisation proceded small test. They sended emails to providers hosting some sites, with abuse information about illegal contents of some sites. Mails were from popular mail serveices like yahoo or lycos, and 8 of 10 providers shut down pointed sites without even bothering if content of site is illegal :? Sick :!:
So this is risky.

:D
What if illegal material is hosted on Chinese or North Korean (or Russian) servers. US companies don't even bother with copyrighted material on Chinese servers, the Chinese government doesn't care (and probably love the fact that it pisses off US companies). And the US doesn't want to cause any conflicts :wink:.

:lol:

Well, that's true, but mostly because the US doesn't know the source of origin. They are hosted anonymously by anonymous posters.
But in the case of the KVCD encoder, I'm sure if I host it on the moon, they'll come after me :lol:

-kwag

Hi Kwag an others,
all this legal staff complicate things a lot :( . Let me see if I understood well: as libavcodec is able to encode mpeg streams, any encoder based in libavcodec should pay royalties?, did I understand it well?. If not, K-encoder could be released with MPEG-2 abilities just linked to libavcodec, and as Kwag said, a Pro version with charged codecs. Am I saying silly things?.
Anyway, I'm willing to test it even with MPEG-1 support "only". I'm sure it'll look great :wink: . And then you'll find the way to make it able to encode KDVD. Sure.
....
...
..
.
waiting with excitement

Anything that is faster than Tmpgenc gets my vote.

To dumb down US law as far as that goes, the data on the computer is under the jurisdiction of the country in which the computer is physically located.

If you had it hosted in a country where they dont care about copyright laws, or never signed the bourne convention (south korea comes to mind), you would be in the green, but the people who downloaded it would not be.

1) What about distributing the sources (of the codec only) along with a makefile and detailed instructions on how to build it with some specific free compiler (like gcc, bcc)? Would that be OK?

2) If you write the mpeg-2 encoder in java (interpreted) would that be considered "source code" or "binary"?

Java is not interpreted but pre-compiled in a pseudo language that will be understood locally on any client by the VM.

JavaScript is interpreted. And if you manage to do a mpeg2 encoder with this, tell me :-)

Interesting. Its more likely to be possible to write it in a VB Script. Assuming it were possible, who would be patient enough to encode at ~1fps or less? Maybe in the future when we all have 50GHz machines.

:rotf: Exactly :!: I wouldn't :lol: At that time, a JAVA encoder would do real time encoding, and a C/C++ (or other optimized compiled language) will be doing 50X realtime :D

-kwag

FairUse....
 

I mean that no one (both here and @ FairUse forum) seems interested to build a DVD-to-K(s)VCD backup tool (like FairUse, that is a DVD-to-MPEG4).
Can't understand why... I think that an open source backup tool that can (also ?) encode *directly* from a DVD could be interesting for DVD-players manufacturers to bundle with... and probably they can support its develop.

Probably I have misunderstood the open source philosophy, but I always try to express my opinion about a project, expecially if is constructive.

Anyway, happy coding !

Sorry patchworks,
I still don't think I clearly understand what you are trying to say.
There's no problem in showing your emotions towards any project around ;-).
But the truth is, this is not an "open source" forum.
Meaning, most of us like to use open source tools but most of us think that plain freeware does the trick and that there's no need for the source if the coder is interested in keeping it for himself.
Of course as long as he maintains it's code.
Cheers

any Beta Available yet? :D

I've put everything on hold until I get a reply from MPEG-LA, clearing up licensing issues.
The future of this is project is not very clear.
Our request for information to Lygos, to use their Codec in our product, the answer was a licensing fee of $50,000 to start to use it, plus $2.00 per copy :!:
No wonder there are so few (small) developers interested in commercial MPEG developments :roll:

-kwag

I don't understand something.
If you leave your program open to use, for example ffmpeg or mencoder or any else, with a link to those, but without bundle these encoders in your program release.
Your program will be still mpeg2 capable, without need to pay any license.
For example, you can use ffmpeg with VirtualDubMod, but ffmpeg is not realesed with it.
Do you understand my question?

Edited: Another question: I don't know if you can deliver an encoder that is free distributed for his owner (for example Mainconcept).
But if you can, your program could be mpeg2 capable in this way, isn't it?
In other words, it is the same as previous question, your encoder could link to Mainconcepts libraries.
Also anyone that own mpeg2 codecs, (this that come with some DVD player software, elekard or ligos), could encode with your program if it link with those libraries.

Sorry if all these is poor sh**t without sense.
I don't know how all these works in reality.

I personally backup Pro's questions :lol:
I'm not a Pro when it comes to Licensing issues but it would seem fair that you would build an open (not source :lol:) wrapper that could use any codec DLLs out there.
1 - Would YOU need to pay MEPG-LA or the codec company any fees?
2 - What about us, users of your wrapper?
3 - Would we need to pay anybody (besides yourself, should you find it appropriate ;-)) any fees for using just the wrapper?
Let's face it: we're not babies anymore, otherwise we wouldn't be here at an Advanced forum.
There is nothing that could prevent us from building the code for ffmpeg sources and using it with KVCDEnc, for instance.
We wouldn't even need to host the binaries.
We could just have a very detailed post on how to build sources and we wouldn't even have to relate it with ffmpeg or anything.
That is if 1,2 and 3 are negative, of course.
Hell, after all they even distribute them in MEncoder at the project's official site...
I would hate to see this project die :!:
And that's what it seems to be happening :(
Just my 0.02€
Cheers

@rds: You already have gave so many 2 cents, that I think you are paying license for yourself.

:lol:

:lol: :lol: He paid 2/100's of a euro this time :P

:rotf: No problem, I still have some change to keep on contributing :lol:

MPEG-LA: some infos.
 

I mailed directly MPEG LA some times ago about some MPEG-4 issues, anyway MPEG-2 licensing politic should be mutch similar.


My email:


THE REPLY:

Hello, Marco.

Thank you for your email. I am glad to answer your questions as best I can:

1. Any product with MPEG-4 Visual functionality uses patents that are essential to the MPEG-4 Visual Standard and is required to be licensed under them by the payment of applicable royalties. Therefore, if XviD incorporates MPEG-4, then it needs to be licensed under these patents and the applicable royalties need to be paid.

2. In September we will be offering a license that includes patents which are essential to use of the MPEG-4 Visual Standard. Under that license, the royalty for a right to make and sell decoders ($0.25 per unit subject to an annual cap of $1,000,000 per legal entity and encoders ($0.25 per unit subject to an annual cap of $1,000,000 per legal entity) will be paid by the manufacturers of the functioning/end decoder or encoder product. In addition, where a video provider receives remuneration for offering or providing the video via the internet, a royalty for the use of the decoders and encoders also will be payable by the Video Provider. But, a Video Provider does not mean an entity that transmits MPEG-4 Video which contains only advertising or promotion for its own products/company and where no revenue other than from the sale of its own products is received. Therefore, if that is what you have in mind, then the additional use-based royalties would not apply in the case where the result is posted on your website for free. If you receive revenue from advertising, however, the result would be different.

3. I am not familiar with this issue and therefore, cannot comment on it.

You are welcome. I will be glad to answer any additional questions you may have. Our license will issue in September and will provide the best information, but the attached press release summarizing the license terms issued on July 15 and will provide a helpful summary of what you can expect.

Best regards,
Larry Horn
Vice President, Licensing

Any news, kwag?

Nope.

-kwag