Patent Notice

Doug Graham · March 30th, 2007, 08:10 AM

The royalties may be reasonable...but is anybody paying them? I sure haven't heard of any producers who are.

And if the patent holder isn't enforcing their rights, they will lose those rights. That's why patent and copyright holders often pursue violators so vigorously...it isn't that they think they are going to recover millions of dollars from some little guy. They just don't want the next Big Guy's lawyer to point out to the judge that they let thousands of little guys get away with it for years.

Don Palomaki · March 30th, 2007, 08:47 AM

I suspect it runs about like copyright enforcement. They don't go after things that fly below the radar such as most one-man-band wedding operations. And MPEG encoding is probably a technology with a relatively short useful life (measured more likely in years, not decades or centuries) before it is superceeed so there is no long term business reason to be overly anal about it, unlike Mickey Mouse who will be popular and generate revenue forever.

But things with high symbolic value (students swapping songs vs RIAA) or that have a high dollar impact (Napster, or major distribution activity) where there is real money (and no political support for "the little guy") do make good targets. Also, producers, who want their intellectual property protected and respected, have a corresponding build-in incentive to comply.

Barry Gribble · March 30th, 2007, 08:50 AM

I believe that when you mass produce a DVD, those fees are included in the replication cost. It would suggest that if you are burning them yourself you should pay, but I don't think they are interested in filling out all the paperwork to get $0.30.

Dale Nicholson · March 30th, 2007, 04:03 PM

Well, can we get a definitive answer? Must we pay a fee if we sell
dvds or not? I have never heard of this, but maybe some of you other independent fillmmakers know the law here. Been studying this field for years and reading professional publications and have never heard of this. Maybe I've missed something.

Greg Boston · March 30th, 2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

I think this is pretty standard text from MPEG LA. For example, take a look at the Final Cut Pro license:

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/finalcutpro51.pdf

and the DVD Studio Pro license agreement:

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/dvdstudiopro41.pdf

I have the exact same verbiage in my F350 user's manual regarding the use of the MPEG4 proxy material for commercial use.

-gb-

March 30th, 2007, 08:10 AM	#16
Doug Graham Video Bear Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Stafford, VA, USA Posts: 45	The royalties may be reasonable...but is anybody paying them? I sure haven't heard of any producers who are. And if the patent holder isn't enforcing their rights, they will lose those rights. That's why patent and copyright holders often pursue violators so vigorously...it isn't that they think they are going to recover millions of dollars from some little guy. They just don't want the next Big Guy's lawyer to point out to the judge that they let thousands of little guys get away with it for years. __________________ Regards, Doug Graham

March 30th, 2007, 08:47 AM	#17
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,487	I suspect it runs about like copyright enforcement. They don't go after things that fly below the radar such as most one-man-band wedding operations. And MPEG encoding is probably a technology with a relatively short useful life (measured more likely in years, not decades or centuries) before it is superceeed so there is no long term business reason to be overly anal about it, unlike Mickey Mouse who will be popular and generate revenue forever. But things with high symbolic value (students swapping songs vs RIAA) or that have a high dollar impact (Napster, or major distribution activity) where there is real money (and no political support for "the little guy") do make good targets. Also, producers, who want their intellectual property protected and respected, have a corresponding build-in incentive to comply. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

March 30th, 2007, 08:50 AM	#18
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	I believe that when you mass produce a DVD, those fees are included in the replication cost. It would suggest that if you are burning them yourself you should pay, but I don't think they are interested in filling out all the paperwork to get $0.30. __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

March 30th, 2007, 04:03 PM	#19
Dale Nicholson Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 133	Well, can we get a definitive answer? Must we pay a fee if we sell dvds or not? I have never heard of this, but maybe some of you other independent fillmmakers know the law here. Been studying this field for years and reading professional publications and have never heard of this. Maybe I've missed something.