Mpeg 2 License Crack
A comment from reddit where I asked the same question:No, even if patent expired those companies won't want to surrender their income. Ah yes, the sweet taste of abusing state institutions to hold back scientific progress.
First it was efficient video and audio compression, now it will be life saving treatment. Ain't the world such a better place for MPEG-LA existing. (that being said, if MPEG-LA wasn't around, someone else would have formed just as evil a patent tyrant company to act as the arm of big media).
MPEG-LA is just a symptom of broken IP law just as much as patent trolls and the Eastern District of Texas getting parks built by global corps are. Abolish it entirely.I'm not really kidding.
I think that evidence that patents are beneficial in any field is lacking.Alternatively, a few major reforms would help. For example:1. Decrease patent terms to just a few years in most fields.2. Make it clear that math, in any form, is not patentable. Codec patents, for example, should never have been valid.3. Eliminate submarine patents. Specifically, require patent holders to notify infringers of their infringement in a timely manner.
If you know or should know that my specification, technology, or product is covered by your patent, you must tell me what patent covers it and why. If you give me a list of 700 patents that 'might' cover it, you get some appropriate penalty. If you fail to notify me, your patent no longer applies.
If my infringing technology is public and you fail to publicly disclose your patent, you cannot enforce your patent against anyone who infringes it using my technology or a derivative thereof. By 'should know', I mean that, if an attentive participant in whatever market I'm in would have known of whatever details of my technology infringe on your patent, then you 'should know'. Even if my technology is still under development by a standards body.#3 is a big deal. It means that owning and maintaining a patent is a bit expensive. It means that, if you patent some incomprehensible detail that might apply to future technologies, then you must tell people that their future technologies would infringe. This, by itself, would likely blow away most codec patents. And AOM would be spared the expense of their patent search.
Simply publish AV1, wait the prescribed time, and AV1 is in the clear.4. Covenants not to sue and blanket licenses do not waive requirements under #3. If an AOM member wants to give a blanket license of their whole portfolio under defensive terms to users of AV1, they still need to disclose how AV1 infringes their patents or they can't use those patents defensively in the future against AV1. HEVC is pretty amazing though, and it's clearly better than VP9, so it looks like the proprietary stuff beats open source in this fieldThis is just a restatement of the fact that codec patents exist.When the state of the art advances because of improvements A to Z and A to W are in the public domain, the proprietary codecs are still 'better' because they use A to W plus X, Y and Z which the open source codecs can't use because of the patents.The real question is whether the patented things would have been invented without the patents.
But the answer is probably yes, because the industry is full of huge companies like Google and Netflix that directly benefit from improving compression regardless of whether they can sell it to anyone else. That second link is remarkably hard to read. I hate this hipster web design trend of using faint text that barely contrasts with the background. That's so the opposite of what a reading experience should be.Anyway, on VP9. Its disadvantage is that it's very computationally taxing compared to H.264 (and presumably VP8). MS Edge won't use VP9 on laptops that don't have hardware decoding for it, because decoding VP9 with software kills battery life. Are other browsers following similar policies on laptops?
(this is only applies when the laptop is running on battery, and Edge will let you force VP9 even on battery in its flags).H.264 is quite elegant and efficient from a computational perspective. Note that even when laptops have and use hardware decoding for VP9, they still use more battery than hardware decoding H.264 (which will be in any computer that has hardware for VP9). Though there must be a threshold where a difference in bitrate would equalize them.I guess the days of H.264 computational efficiency are over if we want better compression. I'll read your links to see what to expect from AV1. It is in the interests of media companies to produce better codecs to drive the efficiency and effectiveness of their primary revenue stream. I mean, look at Netflix - they have a huge driven reason to invest in codec development.The fact that all these businesses have vested interest and need for the best possible codecs, they have plenty of reason to invest in making new ones for self-serving purposes.
No patent revenue potential required.Look at AOM - an organization formed entirely to circumvent the patent system to produce a royalty free good codec everyone can actually use. When companies look at the patent encumbered codec of the day and reject it because of the patents you have a demonstrable show of how detrimental patents are to innovation. OK lets say we abolish patents tomorrow, and companies do what they did before - start using trade sicrets and copyrigt law. Netflix/Google/Apple/Amazon team up to create a great new codec that can only be used as a binary blob, because its compiled obfuscated etc. something like what the game industry uses right now to protect games.People start poking around to figure out how it works, because hackers are curious folks like that, some code gets leaked at some point, and someone starts doing codecs as open source, for fun and fame. Said companies use that os and improve on it, crating the next generation.Now iterate this a few dosen times and what I think companies would figure out its easier to just team up and outsource this kind of stuff. Or maybe we’ll see what happened in the game engine world - with only copyright protecting the code - devs would not be able to use “the exact same code” but could incorporate new techniques at will, limited only by their brilliance.And then there will be paid and OS ones, but the paid ones will have reasonable terms because of strong competition from other paid or OS codecs.
In any case I think it would be an improvement to the current situation. Netflix/Google/Apple/Amazon team up to create a great new codec that can only be used as a binary blobBut the practical reality is that these companies are doing the exact opposite with AV1:The Alliance for Open Media was formed because royalty-free audio and video formats save everyone time and money, particularly in the context of the complicated licensing terms for HEVC.Netflix, Google, Apple, and Amazon all do business on the web and the W3C's royalty-free patent policy benefits everyone. It's worth mentioning that when MPEG-LA was born, the way multimedia was moved around was quite different to how it is today. Back then it was generally transferred via physical mediums so the cost of both the codec royalties as well as the storage medium could easily be passed onto the customers ('customers' in this context doesn't necessarily mean end users). Whereas these days it's more commonly provided as a service with a fee and where the supplier has to pay for the bandwidth used. This means they have an added incentive now to improve codecs in a way that wasn't there 20 years ago because by improving codecs they can now reduce their costs while charging the same amount to their customers.
Much of the research is done in non-commercial settings. Then companies pick the most promising stuff, patent it and run clinical trials. The real cost is the clinical trials, not the basic research. Read the wording, they often talk about the 'cost of bringing a drug to market' which isn't so much the discovery phase as the 'prove it' phase.As an example of exploitation see the statin drugs used to lower cholesterol. These were originally isolated from an ancient Chinese herbal 'red yeast rice' and found to be effective. So some company patented the molecule, did clinical trials, and profit!
I chose this one because I have personal experience getting dramatic reduction in my cholesterol from taking red-yeast-rice. It's also a nice example of how the system is broken. We all could have benefited from trials proving that red-yeast-rice reduces cholesterol, but that's not what happened. The company would not have funded the trials if they couldn't patent the molecule.IMHO if clinical trials were cheaper there would be no need for granting monopolies (via patents) to cover the costs. I also don't see why trials are so expensive. There are plenty of doctors treating plenty of patients that are willing to try things. All we really need is a set of rules to protect people from irresponsible trials, and formal study procedures to document results and determine efficacy.
It doesn't seem too complicated right? No IP protection would destroy the pharma industry. Like you said, the cost is not in basic research, it’s in making sure that new compounds do what they are claimed to do and don’t kill people along the way. But why would anyone go through that process if a generic maker could piggy-back off of that work once it’s completed? There would have to be a redesign of the entire institution as we know it.
Maybe that’s a good idea, but just eliminating patents alone would be disasterous without a lot of other changes. Researcher: 'I've found that this rhinovirus is devastating to certain kinds of tumors when injected into them. We need to do more testing, and in humans.'
Company: 'But that's a naturally occurring virus, we can't patent that so we're not interested. Do something else, or find a way to 'make it better' so we we can patent it and make money.'
Now imagine this:Researcher: 'I've found that this rhinovirus is devastating to certain kinds of tumors when injected into them. We need to do more testing, and in humans.' Oncologist at major center: 'We've seen a number of terminal patients with that type of cancer, current treatments don't work especially at stage 4.
We could test that virus on a number of people if they were willing to try it.' Cancer Patient 'Sign me up!'
There has to be a way to make this work, and it should cost far less than the current approach. I'd argue that it would cost the government less to fund the studies than to pay medicaid costs for the patented treatments. Sure, change would need to happen but it would happen fast, and in the mean time nobody would eliminate current treatments - they're already established and profitable.
An observation without any kind of control is not really good evidence. The system was put in place to protect usThat's a little bit overly generous.It was put in place to incentivize invention and creation. But I think clear with examples like this that it's holding us back. There are so many people, and there is so much innovation, and so much ability to understand how something new works that these laws do nothing to help the public.And even if they started with the public good in mind, we are now far from it.As other responders are suggesting: scrap it completely, and see where things end up.And even though we are discussing patents, the benefit to the public is ten times larger for copyright.Copyright maximalists had a stroke of genius when they started calling it 'intellectual property' and 'IP rights'. This allows you to make it a moral issue, rather than a public policy issue (which is what it really is).
Wouldn't a clause being added that required some form of obvious progress that your company plans to directly use the IP they are holding or lose it to the public be sufficient to prevent companies like MPEG LA from just using it to sue others? These things were meant to protect innovation, so require copyright/patent holders to be innovating or lose it so someone else can. I know 'innovation' is vague but as someone else just noted on HN recently, the legal system is good at making rules even on abstract concepts. If I understand correctly, you propose a tax that everybody in the industry pays, that is shared with all relevant 'inventors'. I don't think it's a workable sistem since it removes the free market from the distribution and replace it with a committee driven disbursal of fees, offering little incentive to disclose valuable ideas.I would much rather see a large patent fee with annual inflation indexing for the patent holder. If it costs you 1 million USD each year to hold a patent, then you only acquire one for major, truly revolutionary ideas that will easily recoup that money. It's a sum that can easily be fitted in the budget of any significant research and development program, yet prohibitive for most submarine, defensive, or warchest IP operations.A large anual fee forces you to 'work' the patent, either directly or by licensing it.
If you are not sure if your 'idea' is valuable, then you don't deserve a patent. Is there any evidence that claims of innovation and creativity shutting down without patent and copyright protection are, in fact, correct?It seems like the purpose of these supposed protections is bent so far out of share that the threat of 'getting what you wish for' carries no weight.Some media might shrink, but other media would grow to take it's place.
Neither patent now copyright 'ownership' are natural rights like real property ownership. In both philosophical and practical terms, dialing them down to zero and then seeing how much we really need of them might be the best way to find the optimal level. Realize that for instance the GPL is based in. 'If you start throwing rocks that large' is a terrible argument. It is the same as arguments about keeping treatments for which there is no clinical evidence just because money, reputation, and public morality might at stake in varying degrees. If overreach in patent and copyright law is a drag on the economy, which it very likely is, it's costing not just freedom, but it amounts to the theft of wider prosperity for the benefit of the connected. Just how much worse than that do you think what are here completely vague and unspecified 'unintended consequence' going to get?
If you read the first sentence of the comment you replied to you will see that I gave a very specific example.Copyright and patent law are cornerstones of the economy, removing them outright without due consideration of the consequences is simply irresponsible.A measured approach is advisable and doing this step-by-step would seem to be the wiser course of action. If you feel that radically dropping both copyright and patent law from one day to the next is the way to go then the onus is on you to show that this will not have unintended consequences, not on me.So: be specific. We can deduce from the math that drug companies would not spend nearly as much money on R&D without being able to earn it back.
Without patents, they would need a new business model that involved much less cost upfront. We could choose to live with more risk as far as new drugs are concerned, less testing, etc. That might not be a net negative.No one would make big expensive movies and GoT type shows without copyright.
Copyright has the strongest defense, since the creative work is so obvious, concrete, and unique.I for one wouldn't give away my work in a society without copyright – I'd likely try to found a society with IP protection and then release my work on my terms, which others would hopefully find agreeable. Those are not macro-scale arguments, and both have strong counter-arguments: Pharma can still make money manufacturing, distributing, and selling, and it does for out-of-patent products.
Their patented products are often born in government and university research labs, and are privatized in what amounts to rent-seeking based on a public good.Anyone who has written books about specific kinds of software development knows that business is perhaps 10% as big as it used to be because manuals and experiential knowledge are freely available. Things change. So should patent and copyright protection. See you at the local stage production of GoT.
I don't think reform's actually that hard - with unbiased intentions (whose lobbyist is that?).To be honest, it would be hard to fuck things up any worse than they already are.Technically competent people (in the field of the patent) should be performing the reviews, they should be given the time that they need to do so.I believe there is a shared commercial justification for both patents and copyright: protection against your work being co-opted as soon as it's produced provides a period in which production costs can be recuperated and profits made. other problems taking the place of the ones that we have now.Such as?
I know I've benefited immensely from works out of copyright, and works in Copyleft etc.I've bought no books because of copyright - but some under open licenses (not many to chose from though.).I'm not clear on how hw patents have played out in my life - I'd love to see some numbers indicating a net benefit for the world population from copyright and patents. Especially considering systematic subversion seems as old as enforcement (from bootleg music to cloned hw). So I probably should have put this in my original comment as I've gotten a few replies in the same vein. What I mean by MPEG-2 being obsolete is that whilst DVDs are still created and purchased all over the world, and DVDs do make use of MPEG-2, we have superior video compression formats available that are mostly, patent encumbered, but also technically superior to MPEG-2 in just about every way other than availability, and now, the lack of patent encumbrance (outside the Philippines and Malaysia at least).Or put another way, it isn't yet commercially obsolete, but it is technically obsolete. And people completely gloss over the 'good enough' part, and head straight to arguing bitrates and resolutions.Pop quiz hotshots, why did the CD become a big hit, but the DVD-A died a quiet death?Answer, because there was no convenience to be had with upgrading!The CD was a massive improvement of convenience over the cassette tape or LP record. Now you could instantly find the one song you wanted, and skip between them with the push of a button.Similarly there is no convenience upgrade to go from MP3 to FLAC or some other audio format.And the same pattern plays out with video.DVD video was a smash hit because no more having to rewind that VHS, and they took up a whole lot less space on the shelf (buying a TV series season on VHS was downright crazy for the physical space it would require).BR and similar is simply not enough of a convenience upgrade. We will see how good DVB-T2 will be.
I don't think it will get critical mass and it will end up being used for LTE/next gen.I mean it's mostly a paid service, at least in germany and it will not have any benefits over next gen mobile network. At some point it's easier to merge terrestial over IP, especially if you can have IPv6 only networks, which makes some stuff simpler (multicast + mcast routing).Also LTE next can already do everything DVB-T2 is capable of, so I doubt that without any full free plans that DVB-T2 will gain traction.There is also a standard for mobile television called MBMS which will probably kill of any dvb-t stuff in the long term.Edit: since we talked about a codedc. Most of these services currently use H.264 and I do not think that they will migrate to H.265. Guess as soon as mobile devices ship with hardware AV1, there will be Mobile TV with AV1. Patents were designed so that companies would contribute to public knowledge instead of keeping everything as a trade secret.
The idea was that they would be afforded increased security for a few years, in exchange for the idea becoming public afterwards. The time range was set to be practical for the industry.The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timeframe. Patents on software last longer than it would take for a competitor to re-invent a trade secret: the result being that they actually slow down progression.Ideally, we would adjust the term of every patent grant to match (or scale with) the difficulty that a competitor would have to go through to re-invent it.
An approximation to that is having different patent durations for different fields (shorter for software), and an approximation to that is not having software patents at all. The existence of patents also was meant to create an industry for selling ideas rather than physical goods.How often are people really inventing novel things, patenting them, and then licensing them out to other parties or selling the rights? By far the most applied use case of patents is to fabricate or buy bullshit IP to sue anyone even remotely close to your product or service into bankruptcy.In some ways, yes, patents have created jobs.
Except the job is not to be innovative or discover new things, but to manipulate and optimize your language in a patent filing to cover as much existing IP as possible that you can then harass with your patents.It is only most obvious with software patents because of how insane it is to restrict math like that.The question always has to be do the benefits outweigh the costs. Are the few and far between actively able to use the patent system as a means to come up with legitimately novel inventions worth all the innovation lost to corporations using patents as weapons to shut down competition and prevent innovation. Not the parent poster, but personally I just don't see the value (to the public) with this model.Most A/V codec development these days is done at least somewhat out in the open, and there are collaborators between different organizations.
Mpeg 2 License Crack Online
The nature of the beast is that you can't release codecs to the public without inherently giving away how it works. Even if you lock things down with NDAs and such, people will reverse-engineer it before too long.That alone isn't an indictment of patents here (note that drug development suffers from similar issues, at least wrt disclosure), but:This sort of work will happen regardless of whether or not there are patents covering them (the fact that we have/had things like Vorbis, FLAC, VP8/9, Tarkin, Theora, AV1, etc. Is proof of that), so in the end patenting these sorts of things doesn't actually 'promote the progress of science and useful arts'; it just encourages rent-seeking behavior. Patent-encumbered codecs out there are not meaningfully better performance-wise than the patent-unencumbered ones (certainly not enough to justify the licensing fees); the patent-encumbered ones are merely better at marketing, so everyone who wants to do anything with video ends up paying a tax for no real benefit. I favor the elimination of software patents but if we must have them then things like MPEG are one of the few examples of software that probably should qualify for patent protection. The idea that no one would research new video codecs without patent protection is laughable - OS vendors, network operators, et al are highly motivated to do so regardless of patents.Unfortunately making software non-patentable isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Perhaps we should fight for some key changes like reducing the length of software patents to something reasonable like 5 years.I'd also like to see an 'industry standards' exception to patents: Any implementation of an industry standard created by an international standards organization, working group, or similar authority is exempt from patent suits.
Royalties are fixed at some rate determined by the board (but no more than x% of sales price or flat $y per item indexed to inflation) and go into a pool. All patents in the pool are paid out of it. If you think your patent covers something in the standard your only option is to submit your patent to the pool, then you get a cut of the royalties corresponding to your contribution (again as determined by an impartial board). Any fights over standards-related patents would be confined to the board of experts, the royalty rate they determine, and the allocation to each patent. The law would specify that changes to royalties (even court-ordered) can only go into effect once per year and only apply to products manufactured after that date.Such a scheme would encourage everyone to contribute to open standards because it would be the only way to ensure you can avoid patent lawsuits.The one wrinkle is open-source software. I was trying to come up with a workable system.
All I landed on was no royalties required for open-source software or end-users of such software, but if a manufacturer uses such software in a product they sell then they would still be subject to royalties. This all just sounds too complicated. Why not just require that any technology developed for an industry standard, ratified by an international standards body, be given away, with patent rights disclaimed? I honestly don't see why we should allow people to make money off of foundational things like this.
It creates perverse incentives.As you point out, the lack of patent revenue here isn't going to hurt innovation; I agree that it's laughable that the lack of patent protection would stop or even slow down research here. What's being patented isn't the math, it's the implementation of that math.As a counterpoint that argues why software patents should exist, I'll point out this. If you build a mechanical feedback mechanism that acts as a controller for some chemical process, no one doubts that said controller meets the patentability criteria. So why should we penalize inventors for emulating that controller in software instead of doing it in hardware? (Note: this scenario is effectively the one that established the patentability of software).The real problem is that the bar for novelty and obviousness in software ought to be much, much higher, and software, having shorter development cadence, needs shorter patent protection times. The most useful change to patent law would be to have patent times adjust to reflect typical development cadences, as opposed to being fixed across all fields.
Both software and algorithms are an emergent property of the rules of the systems we create. They are essentially akin to prime numbers, in a direct and provable sense.(1) All computable programs can be expressed as a Universal Turing machine.(2) There are countably many Universal Turing machines(3) In an abstract sense, we can thus assign a unique identifier to each possible computer program. I can tell you 'run program 383439343' and that will tell you everything you need to run that function.Most of these programs are of course not correct in the sense that they produce a useful output, or even necessarily terminate. But then, most numbers aren't useful either, it's only because of the emergent properties of our mathematical rules that something like a 'prime number' even has a conceptual meaning, and it's only because of our contextual needs that, say, sorting an array would be a useful output.Distinguishing between algorithms and software is a distinction without a difference. If the two implementations produce a different output, then by definition they must be following a different algorithm. And if they are the same algorithm, then they can be reduced to the same Universal Turing machine. First, Shor's algorithm (as an example) cannot be expressed as a Universal Turing Machine.
Mpeg 2 Extension
Suede coming up deluxe edition torrent download. You are thinking much too small, software implementations on Turing Machines are possible for a strict subset of possible algorithms.Second, even for algorithms which can be expressed as Turing Machines, you are giving the computer science equivalent of saying that a house and it's architecture drawing are the same. One is a thing which exists, one is a description of the thing. You cannot run an unimplemented algorithm without first doing the work of implementing it.
Raspberry Pi Check Mpeg 2 License
I think software patents are unfair because companies claim monopoly or a license fee. Patented software will be built on previous software work so they are not unique pieces of inventions that stand on their own shoulders.Shortly software patents wants sole right use while building on others software work.
Claiming fees for previous inventions.Software should compete on skill of implementation and not legal departments. Thus patents can also be viewed as anti competitive. Whereas big companies with legal departments/ patent trolls can go after smaller competitors.
Your product comparison is shown below. Click a product attribute in the left column to sort by that attribute.Product DetailsImage£2.40£1.20N/AN/AAvailabilityN/AN/A00SummaryPLEASE NOTE, THIS KEY WILL NOT WORK WITH RASPBERRY Pi 4 - RASPBERRY PI 4 DOES NOT HAVE MPEG-2 HARDWARE DECODEThis key will enable a single Raspberry Pi (excluding Raspberry Pi 4) to decode MPEG.PLEASE NOTE, THIS KEY WILL NOT WORK WITH RASPBERRY Pi 4 - RASPBERRY PI 4 DOES NOT HAVE VC-1 HARDWARE DECODEThis key will enable a single Raspberry Pi (excluding Raspberry Pi 4) to decode VC-1 video.OtherN/AN/A.