Quicktime apparently for home use only... says the TOS

[robcat2075]

Things I've just noticed in the Quicktime TOS.

 

Even if you have the "Pro" version you can't be "pro" with it. Professional use of the important codecs isn't allowed without an additional license from the patent holders.

It is even a violation if you watch some commercial content made by someone who doesn't have the additional license to do it.

13. MPEG-2 Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains MPEG-2 functionality, the following provision applies: ANY USE OF THIS PRODUCT OTHER THAN CONSUMER PERSONAL USE IN ANY MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH THE MPEG-2 STANDARD FOR ENCODING VIDEO INFORMATION FOR PACKAGED MEDIA IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT A LICENSE UNDER APPLICABLE PATENTS IN THE MPEG-2 PATENT PORTFOLIO, WHICH LICENSE IS AVAILABLE FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C, 250 STEELE STREET, SUITE 300, DENVER, COLORADO 80206.

14. Use of MPEG-4. This product is licensed under the MPEG-4 Systems Patent Portfolio License for encoding in compliance with the MPEG-4 Systems Standard, except that an additional license and payment of royalties are necessary for encoding in connection with (i) data stored or replicated in physical media which is paid for on a title by title basis and/or (ii) data which is paid for on a title by title basis and is transmitted to an end user for permanent storage and/or use. Such additional license may be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC. See http://www.mpegla.com for additional details.

This product is licensed under the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer for (i) encoding video in compliance with the MPEG-4 Visual Standard ("MPEG-4 Video") and/or (ii) decoding MPEG-4 video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a personal and non-commercial activity and/or was obtained from a video provider licensed by MPEG LA to provide MPEG-4 video. No license is granted or shall be implied for any other use.

Additional information including that relating to promotional, internal and commercial uses and licensing may be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC. See http: //www.mpegla.com.

15. H.264/AVC Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.

[Rodney]

Which goes a long way toward explaining why folks held out on support enough that Apple didn't continue basic (read: free) support going into 64bit.

And a reason other companies (like Cisco) are researching and developing new patent free codecs.

[John Bigboote]

This is potentially huge. Apple now has a knife to every professional videographer's(and this very forum's) throat. Nice.

[Rodney]

Its not a new term of service.

So, technically they've always had the upper hand.

[pming]

Hiya!

 

IANAL, so...

 

The main "reason", IMHO, for a lot (if not MOST) of the stuff in many TOS's isn't to proove their case in court and win...it's to proove to the court that "you" willingly violated the agreement, thusly they have the right to take you to court. That's usually all they need. I mean, to them it may cost $10,000 to start all this and go to the first court appearance. Of course, YOU have to do this too, in order to defend yourself. I'm not sure about you, but there is *no way in HELL* I could afford $10k just to tell a judge "WTF? Does this even make sense?", and, by some mirical, have the judge say "Yeah, sorry apple, unenforceable in this case. Case dismissed". It STILL cost me $10k. It STILL cost Apple $10k. How much of a dent would that amount put in your bank account vs. Apples?

 

Many TOS's are like this; with much of them completely unenforceable. However, they "get you to court" because of them. You agreed, you broke it; court time. These big corportations have MUCH more money than you (probably), so spending $3 million a year on silly court cases like this would be is expensive, but factored into their "cost of doing business". But you and me, the little guy? Hooped.

 

All that said...unless you suddenly make a dent into Apples bottom line one way or another, they aren't likely going to care. But if you DO (like make a video that is so anti-Apple that it starts to cost them sales), well, *now* they become interested in what you "broke" in the TOS. Welcome to court!

 

As for "They've always had the upper hand". Yes, but it's not because of the TOS. It's because they have more money and the US (in particular) has a judicial system that is basically "he with the most money, wins". Most of the time, anyway.

 

 

Paul L. Ming

[robcat2075]

Perhaps "Pro" is short for something other than "professional", but I can't imagine what.

[largento]

Apple has nothing to do with the fact that MPEG2 LA, LLC. requires you to pay a royalty for using their tech in a commercial product. :-)

 

From what I can figure out from all the lawyer talk on their legal docs, if you manufacture something that uses their video technology (which they have a patent for), you have to pay them a royalty. Included in the list of such things you might manufacture is DVD Video Discs.

 

This is a moot point if you use a licensed replicator (manufacturer) like I did with my two DVDs.

 

[EDIT: For clarity, you have to pay MPEG2 LA, LLC. not Apple. And the cost is something like 3 cents per disc, so it's not very steep.]