* 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:[email protected] · 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 [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
