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