Hello to all! This is a series of discussions I've had with some people concerning things like, the legalities of LAME, legal questions concerning free media software having support for patented formats, details concerning distribution of media files, etc. If anyone has more info on this subject, please put it here!
NOTE: In the discussions I've posted here, some details have been trimmed (like names, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.) Everything that is essential to this issue is here.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
E-mail conversation with MPEGLA:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, my question is, how can somebody who has not purchased a licence from you use these three formats legally? For example, say I'm a private user who wants to make videos for myself and also for others (how-to guides, for instance), and I wanted to use MPEG-2, MPEG-4 or H.264; could I do this without a licence? I wouldn't be selling these videos or anything like that. Could you get back to me on this soon please?
____________________________________________________
REPLY:
Hello,
Thank you for your message and your interest in MPEG LA. We appreciate hearing from you.
By way of background, MPEG LA offers several Portfolio Licenses which provide coverage under patents that are essential for use of various video compression technology standards, including MPEG-2, MPEG-4 Visual and AVC/H.264. As a general matter, our Licenses provide coverage for the end product. Therefore, the party that offers such end products (for example, under that party's own brand name) concludes our Licenses and is responsible for paying the applicable royalties.
Although our Licenses do not directly provide coverage for an end user and anyone in the product chain has liability for an unlicensed product, a royalty paid for an end product by the end product supplier would render the product licensed in the hands of the end user. But, where a royalty has not been paid, such product remains unlicensed.
Therefore, we suggest that you choose a player from a licensed supplier (or insist that the supplier you use become licensed by paying applicable royalties). In that regard, we maintain lists of Licensees in Good Standing to each of our Licenses on our website. Specifically, the list of MPEG-2 Licensees in Good Standing can be found here: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/Licensees.aspx. The list of MPEG-4 Visual Licensees in Good Standing can be found here: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M4V/Pages/Licensees.aspx. The list of AVC Licensees in Good Standing can be found here: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx.
In addition, where you plan to Sell MPEG-2 Packaged Medium, AVC Video and/or MPEG-4 Video to End Users for remuneration, you may benefit from coverage under the Licenses for the encoded video that you Sell to End Users and you would be responsible for the associated royalties. On the other hand, if you plan to encode MPEG-2, MPEG-4 Visual and/or AVC video for your own use and/or to share such non-commercial video with other consumers (where you are not receiving any remuneration for the distribution of such video), then such use would be consider personal use of the products. Therefore, as long as you are using a licensed product, such use would be covered under the Licenses in place with the provider of the products and no further royalties would be payable for such use.
I hope this is helpful. If you have additional questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me directly.
____________________________________________________
MY REPLY:
Hello, thank you very much for your swift response, however I do have two more questions: 1, Do you happen to know of any free programs that are licensed to encode to the formats aforementioned? 2, Would I have your permission to release the contents of these e-mails? (Of course, with the names and e-mail addresses filtered out.) Could you get back to me on this soon please?
____________________________________________________
HIS REPLY:
Hello again,
I will be happy to address each of your questions below.
“1, Do you happen to know of any free programs that are licensed to encode to the formats aforementioned?”
While MPEG LA offers our Licenses as a convenient way for users of the video compression Standards to obtain licensing, MPEG LA is not in a position to provide any technical advice or legal guidance. Therefore, I'm afraid we cannot recommend a specific player or product. We simply suggest that an End User chooses a licensed product from a licensed supplier. As I mentioned in my previous message, we maintain lists of Licensees in Good Standing on our website (http://www.mpegla.com) for that purpose.
“2, Would I have your permission to release the contents of these e-mails?”
Please feel free to share our responses to your questions with other users of the technology Standards which our Licenses are offered for. We provide the same respective Licenses to all users, so we always appreciate the opportunity to provide accurate information regarding how our Licenses work.
If we can be of further assistance in any way, please let me know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of chat with MPEGLA
E-mail conversation with mp3licensing.com:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, my questions are as follows; (1) is there any way the LAME mp3 encoder can be used legally in the US? (2) Say for example I am making mp3 files, be it for my personal use and for others on a non-commercial basis, would this be okay since I am not selling said mp3 files? {I don't mean pirated content; only legal content} (3) If I can't use the LAME mp3 encoder, can I use the commandline mp3 encoder you provide for the purposes described in question 2?
Could you get back to me on this soon?
Thank you!
____________________________________________________
REPLY:
Hello,
Thank you for contacting mp3 licensing.
As you know, LAME is an opensource implementation of mp3. For personal, non commercial use, we have no issues with its use. To use it commercially, as LAME is very clear to point out, requires our license. Many companies that are licensed by us use LAME in order to avoid the difficulty of writing the mp3 code itself.
There are 2 links on the LAME pages about patents. One is a direct link to our site. The other is a link to http://www.mp3dev.org/ , which explains the patent situation, and refers you to our site again. Keep in mind we are the patent owners, we allow personal non commercial use, but we do not allow anything else.
So basically, we have no issues with you (or any licensee) using LAME, however, for commercial applications, the use of LAME has no bearing on our patent assertion.
I hope this helps to clarify. Please let me know if you have any questions.
____________________________________________________
MY REPLY:
Hello, thank you for replying to my e-mail. However, I do have two more questions; (1), since you said in your e-mail that using LAME was okay for my personal noncommercial use, is it okay to use LAME in Audacity?; (2), does this mean I can only make mp3 files for myself? or is it legal to make mp3 files for others? (for example, how-to guides, mp3 audio embedded in video, etc.)
Thank you for your help with this!
____________________________________________________
HIS REPLY:
Hello,
Let me answer each of your questions below:
(1), since you said in your e-mail that using LAME was okay for my personal noncommercial use, is it okay to use LAME in Audacity?
We try avoid making blanket statements with hypothetical situations, so the answer here is “it depends”. If your use of mp3 is purely personal, we do not license end-users, so whether or not Audacity is part of the equation is not relevant. If use of mp3 is for personal use only, our license is not necessary.
(2), does this mean I can only make mp3 files for myself? or is it legal to make mp3 files for others? (for example, how-to guides, mp3 audio embedded in video, etc.)
To avoid the need for our license, yes, you can only make mp3 files (use mp3) for yourself, as personal, non-commercial use. Any other use, such as distributing such files to others, would not be considered “personal” use, and thus subject to the terms of our licensing program.
I hope this helps to clarify. You may direct anyone to our public commentary found on our website here, which addresses these issues:
http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/index.html
____________________________________________________
End of chat with mp3licensing.com
It sounds like what I've always thought - use of the formats is completely free (as in beer) for non-commercial use. If you're not selling video, then you're fine (as far as the format goes; content is another issue). This is why projects like x264, Xvid and LAME can exist. It seems MPEG doesn't care if you distribute, while the MP3 guys do though.
You asked about free programs licensed to encode, but in general, there are none. Free (as in speech) programs aren't licensed, and licensed programs are generally not free. For personal use, a license isn't necessary. Typically, only when money is involved are licensing and royalties a factor.
BTW, for anyone wondering about AAC, no royalties or licensing are required for distribution - only encoders and decoders are subject to licensing. There is FAAC, but it is distributed in source form only.
http://www.vialicensing.com/Licensing/AAC_FAQ.cfm?faq
Vintage!
You asked about free programs licensed to encode, but in general, there are none. Free (as in speech) programs aren't licensed, and licensed programs are generally not free.
Well, LAME is accepted for personal use. Concerning other programs not being licensed, I'll have to ask around. (To Be continued....)
MPEG-LA does not strictly require licensing for implementations of MPEG-2/MPEG-4 pt 2/AVC, so you have your answer. If they had a problem with x264 and Xvid, those projects would likely not exist, and they certainly would not be so prominent. In fact, I'm sure they love x264 (and Xvid) for helping make AVC (and MPEG-4 part 2) so popular among end-users. Via requires licensing for AAC encoders and decoders, but this is an exception.
Vintage!
My question:
Hello, my question is, what is mp3 Licensings' stance on free media player software that plays mp3 files, but has not purchased a license to include a mp3 decoder in said software?
____________________________________________________
HIS REPLY:
Hello,
We have no issue or problem with developers or companies using 3rd party mp3 solutions (such as LAME, for example), however such use does not imply a license for commercial use of the mp3 patents. In fact, many companies use 3rd party applications to implement mp3 in order to save time and money it would take to develop their own solution.
So, if an mp3 application is distributed (even for free) to others, it is considered non-personal use, and subject to our patent license. Distribution of mp3 content (non-personal use) is also subject to licensing.
I hope this helps to clarify.
____________________________________________________
MY REPLY:
Hello, concerning your e-mail, I have three questions; 1, Just for clarification, mp3 decoders that aren't licensed by you are illegal to include in programs if the developer(s) haven't paid for a license to use mp3, correct? 2, Would one be in legal trouble for using such programs, due to the fact that there are some programs that use these decoders without a license?
Thank you!
P.S. Is there some way mp3 decoders can be included in a program legally without purchasing a license? I been told there is, but I would like to know if there really is such a way.
____________________________________________________
HIS REPLY:
Hello,
As I am not an attorney, I can’t address questions regarding legality, however any decoder that can decode mp3 and is distributed (i.e., not made for that person’s personal use), is subject to licensing.
The only alternative, as mentioned before, is the use of the Windows Media Player mp3 components, wherein the developer does not create a decoder or encoder with mp3 code, but writes it in such a way to direct the user to call the mp3 components in the Windows Media Player. This would not require our license.
Hello again, my questions are, (1) what do I do about unlicensed programs that use the respective technologies? Do I just avoid them? (2), To quote your last e-mail,
"While MPEG LA offers our Licenses as a convenient way for users of the video compression Standards to obtain licensing, MPEG LA is not in a position to provide any technical advice or legal guidance."
Concerning that, how would I get such legal guidance? Would I have to contact MPEG itself? (3), What is MPEG-LA's stance on x264 & Xvid?
Thank you again for your help with this!
____________________________________________________
HIS REPLY:
Hello again,
I will be happy to address your additional questions below.
As mentioned, MPEG LA suggests that you use products only from licensed suppliers. While our Licenses do not directly provide coverage for an End User, a royalty paid for an end product by the end product supplier would render the product licensed in the hands of the End User. But, where a royalty has not been paid, such product remains unlicensed and anyone in the product chain has liability for an unlicensed product. Therefore, to assist users in identifying licensed suppliers, we maintain a list of Licensees in Good Standing to each of our Licenses in the corresponding portion of our website, www.mpegla.com. Therefore, if you have used an unlicensed product, our only suggestion would be to insist that the supplier you use become licensed by paying applicable royalties.
With the above in mind, my previous comments regarding guidance meant that MPEG LA is not in a position to suggest or advocate for a specific product or application which incorporates AVC functionality, other than to suggest that one uses a licensed product.
Regarding Xvid, we understand that both DivX and Xvid formats make use of the MPEG-4 Visual (Part 2) Standard. As a result, products that include DivX or Xvid functionality need coverage under the patents in our MPEG-4 Visual License.
Meanwhile, we understand that x264 is an open-source AVC/H.264 codec. Therefore, products and services that incorporate x264 will make use of the AVC Standard. As a result, such products/services need coverage under our AVC License and will be subject to applicable royalties.
I hope the above clarifications are helpful to you.
What is this all leading to? What is the point you are trying to make?
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” Dr. Seuss
Is there really apoint here? Are you trying to prove something? What exactly are you looking to do with this thread? Seems like you have your answers and that they fit your need so not even sure why it continues?
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” Dr. Seuss
Sorry for not responding to your posts, but I've been a bit busy. As for your questions, My goal is to make a database so that if somebody has a question like mine concerning the topics listed in this thread, they can find the answer to their question. I know this is kind of a curious thread, but I thought it might be useful.
EDIT: Be advised, I changed the body of the thread because it wasn't quite related to the posts in the thread.
When that year comes, I'll be sure to go through all of the media I've dowloaded from unlicensed sources and write them a check.