7 ms·

Vysor is no longer available – H.264 licensing

61 points by mmastrac 11y ago

blindfly 11y ago
I didn't even know this existed, and now it's gone! I've been looking for something like this for awhile and would gladly pay for it. The few similar things out there are all clunky, slow, and just not up to the task. I'd throw in $50 or so just for this if it worked :)
DiabloD3 11y ago
Honestly, we need to start changing the laws to prevent patent abuse. If your patents become part of a must-implement standard (with your permission, of course, mpeg-la members have obviously given theirs), then your patents become null for anyone implementing that standards, ie, you are forced to license them for free. Using patents like this is pretty much the patent equivalent of entrapment. Also, why isn't Vysor just using the HMTL5 facilities to use hardware h264 enc/decs?
- toyg 11y ago
  Someone could link the sea of posts anticipating this exact scenario when the standard was discussed, but it's a waste of time. After all, browser makers surely have the users' best interest in mind, right? Apple, Google and Microsoft cannot all be wrong (and evil) at the same time, right? Right?
  - serge2k 11y ago
    AV codecs are a patent minefield, and sitting on your hands waiting for a guaranteed free standard is a pretty shitty option for users. Even Firefox realized that.
    - TD-Linux 11y ago
      Firefox currently ships VP8 and VP9. It includes H.264 support not for concerns about it being "guaranteed free", but for web compatibility.
      - serge2k 11y ago
        That was exactly my point.
- rincebrain 11y ago
  Based on his comments, it seems that the MediaSource APIs are not sufficient for low latency, and most Android devices don't have HW VP[89] encoder support.
  - TD-Linux 11y ago
    While VP9 encoding hardware is still rare, hardware VP8 encoding on Android is pretty common due to Hangouts and the Chromecast using it.
    - aorth 11y ago
      For reference: Systems with dedicated VP8/VP9 support http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/socs http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/socs
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Also, why isn't Vysor just using the HMTL5 facilities to use hardware h264 enc/decs? Or the built-in Chrome API for that, PPB_VideoEncoder: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/struct_p_p_b___video_encoder__0__2 https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/stru...
  - serge2k 11y ago
    Developing a pepper plugin for video decoding is a pain in the butt. Well actually, it might be okay on desktop.
  - soliton4 11y ago
    there is actually no way to get a h264 stream(!) decoded with onboard html5. using pepper plugins would limit your users to chrome. another alternative might be flash but i dont blame anyone for not taking this alternative serious.
  - koushikdutta 10y ago
    Vysor was written in early 2015. VideoEncoder was not available until around December 2015. But yes, I've switched.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Standards-setting bodies typically address this today through the use of standard-essential-patent policies. IEEE, for example, requires assurance from such patent holders that they will either not enforce the patent against those implementing the standard, will grant a license free of charge, or will grant a license "under reasonable rates." https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/approved-changes.pdf https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/approved-... Not sure why improving this state of affairs would require a change in underlying patent laws. We just need standards bodies to adopt more general patent policies--which could be accomplished by preferring to use standards from orgs with better patent policies.
  - frenchy 11y ago
    > Not sure why improving this state of affairs would require a change in underlying patent laws. The problem with this is that there will always be someone who will happily say "Sure, I'll call your patent a 'standard' if you give me a little bit of money to 'certify' it."
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      Actually the problem these days is that standard-essential patents are considered less valuable because they tend to require FRAND licensing. This is the problem companies like Motorola and Samsung ran into during the smartphone patent wars. They could not ask for injunctions or high royalties for many of their patents as they were standards-essential, and they lost a lot of leverage. Secondly, standards setting bodies are usually a conglomerate of members from competing companies and hence a huge political bureaucratic mess, so it's not as easy to get something into the standard just for some money.
    - pdabbadabba 11y ago
      Maybe. But then there's the little matter of adoption. The fact that some body or other called a patent technology a "standard" is meaningless, and not especially problematic. The problem comes when this standard actually comes into widespread use.
slashink 11y ago
Keep an eye on Alliance of Open Media ( http://aomedia.org http://aomedia.org ). Basically Amazon, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla and Netflix got fed up with the licensing model of H.265/HEVC which is even worse than that of H.264 (dual patent pools which different licensing terms where you have to pay both). Intent is for it to be royalty free, open and supported in major browsers and devices.
tacos 11y ago
If we want people to pay us for software, we have to contribute toward a system where value is added and money is extracted as goods and/or services of increasing value are developed and transition between entities. This radical concept is known as "industry." The alternative is to be mindless coder drones that produce "content" for people who don't value it but profit from it. Like musicians producing music for music companies but somehow not getting paid for it, you too can be a doofus with a Google+ account adding value to the Android or Apple ecosystem with your free app. Get "wrote an app" on your resume, make a snappy logo, then flounce out with a sad Google+ post to extract maximum brogrammer value! I increasingly see these issues as self-serving ways for some dude to get out of the hassles of maintaining some bullshit free app with 8 users. Somewhere there's a real company who'll cut the $50k check. Somewhere there's a hungrier, smarter developer who'll work around the issue. Somewhere there's a dirtier, angrier developer who'll fight for what's right against inane licensing terms. This developer is none of the above, nor is he contributing to furthering the industry. Begone.
Sephr 11y ago
He included an unlicensed H.264 decoder in his app. He could have avoided this by either using Chrome's built-in APIs[1], utilizing Cisco's free H.264 implementation[2], or simply paying the license fees himself. Google and Cisco are already paying the fees to make developers lives easier. As much as I hate patent trolls, this isn't really patent trolling. To make matters worse, I informed Koushik Dutta about this possible issue back in 2015[3] and he closed my GitHub issue and ignored it. I'm not surprised at the outcome. [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/struct_p_p_b___video_encoder__0__2 https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/stru... [2]: http://www.openh264.org/ http://www.openh264.org/ [3]: https://github.com/koush/vysor.io/issues/84 https://github.com/koush/vysor.io/issues/84
- userbinator 11y ago
  utilizing Cisco's free H.264 implementation What difference does it make? It even seems backwards in some sense --- that writing code based on a freely available spec means you have to pay a license fee, yet someone else can give away their implementation freely? IANAL, so perhaps what we think of as the crazy and contorted bureaucratic mess that is the patent system would make sense in some strange and twisted way to those who designed it.
  - Sephr 11y ago
    The difference is that Cisco is already paying the license fee for you, as long as you use their pre-built binaries.
    - ndesaulniers 11y ago
      > as long as you use their pre-built binaries. That's so fucking stupid.
      - throwawaykf05 11y ago
        Not really, it's just compliance with the license that a piece of software is offered with. Things are no less silly in the world of open source. You are bound to honor the license of the open source software that you use. For instance, if your app links to a GPL library, you are bound to offer your code under the GPL too. However if it links to a BSD-licensed library that does the exact same thing, you don't have to.
userbinator 11y ago
Couldn't he have just added a disclaimer that the app may contain patented technology, but software patents are not enforceable everywhere? I doubt FFmpeg has paid a single cent of license fees to anyone, and yet it's survived and still available for anyone to download and use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg#Legal_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg#Legal_aspects I believe the way to fight software patents is civil disobedience.
- cbhl 11y ago
  Problem is whether patents can be enforced in the jurisdiction where the author lives.
- TD-Linux 11y ago
  Downstream projects of FFmpeg such as VLC certainly have been affected [1]. The interesting thing is that most of the problems have been with audio formats - this is the first I've seen for an open source project using H.264. The Wikipedia article is a bit misleading because although it cites the EU as an example, most software patents are allowed in the EU, including many H.264 patents. I would encourage you to fight software patents not by infringing, but by using royalty-free alternatives. [1] https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=125032 https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=125032
dchuk 11y ago
Damn, I love Vysor, and was actually using it for a big product demo while this apparently was getting removed from Chrome app store. Real bummer.
- blindfly 11y ago
  Do you happen to still have the extension installed you could pack...? I'd love to get my hands on it.
  - HappyTypist 11y ago
    The extension is open source and on GitHub.
    - blindfly 11y ago
      You got it! Thanks for the tip. I just found my way over there and the whole thing is 100x better than I expected to find. Not an ad in sight and not even a message asking for donations. I'm thirsty for more now!
  - blindfly 11y ago
    Disregard, we're good! It's really awesome actually and it's a pity such a thing would ever be pulled :(
withinrafael 11y ago
Just wanted to provide some bits about the MPEG-LA AVC patent portfolio licensing (which includes H.264 enc/dec). I went through this process for work and it's pretty painless. The licensors are very responsive will help you find a solution. They're not trying to shake you down. (I'm not familiar with Vysor but whatever you do, stay away from libvlc if you're looking for a decoder/encoder. That stuff is not kosher in most countries. ffmpeg is a gray area too.) Some highlights from a few years ago (may differ slightly now but unlikely): * No licensing fee * Free for private/personal, non-commercial usage (e.g. non-monetized YouTube, cat videos) * < 100,000 units = no royalties! (Unit defined as encoder or decoder) * > 100,000 units = 0.20c/unit The process is simple, you ping them, they FedEx you a stack of easy to read papers, sign it, and mail it back. [IANAL so obvious use-common-sense boilerplate goes here.]
- Nullabillity 11y ago
  > They're not trying to shake you down. ... yes, that's exactly what they are doing?
  - withinrafael 11y ago
    It's my understanding that a "shake down" is an act built on /unreasonable/ demands. This is hardly unreasonable though do recognize that's subjective.
Ace17 11y ago
As the decoder was software based, preparing a switch to VP9 or AV1 may be a strategic move.
- koushikdutta 10y ago
  Most Android phones only have an h264 encoder.

61 points by mmastrac 11y ago

I didn't even know this existed, and now it's gone! I've been looking for something like this for awhile and would gladly pay for it. The few similar things out there are all clunky, slow, and just not up to the task. I'd throw in $50 or so just for this if it worked :)

DiabloD3 11y ago

Honestly, we need to start changing the laws to prevent patent abuse. If your patents become part of a must-implement standard (with your permission, of course, mpeg-la members have obviously given theirs), then your patents become null for anyone implementing that standards, ie, you are forced to license them for free. Using patents like this is pretty much the patent equivalent of entrapment. Also, why isn't Vysor just using the HMTL5 facilities to use hardware h264 enc/decs?

toyg 11y ago
Someone could link the sea of posts anticipating this exact scenario when the standard was discussed, but it's a waste of time. After all, browser makers surely have the users' best interest in mind, right? Apple, Google and Microsoft cannot all be wrong (and evil) at the same time, right? Right?
- serge2k 11y ago
  AV codecs are a patent minefield, and sitting on your hands waiting for a guaranteed free standard is a pretty shitty option for users. Even Firefox realized that.
  - TD-Linux 11y ago
    Firefox currently ships VP8 and VP9. It includes H.264 support not for concerns about it being "guaranteed free", but for web compatibility.
    - serge2k 11y ago
      That was exactly my point.
rincebrain 11y ago
Based on his comments, it seems that the MediaSource APIs are not sufficient for low latency, and most Android devices don't have HW VP[89] encoder support.
- TD-Linux 11y ago
  While VP9 encoding hardware is still rare, hardware VP8 encoding on Android is pretty common due to Hangouts and the Chromecast using it.
  - aorth 11y ago
    For reference: Systems with dedicated VP8/VP9 support http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/socs http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/socs
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> Also, why isn't Vysor just using the HMTL5 facilities to use hardware h264 enc/decs? Or the built-in Chrome API for that, PPB_VideoEncoder: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/struct_p_p_b___video_encoder__0__2 https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/stru...
- serge2k 11y ago
  Developing a pepper plugin for video decoding is a pain in the butt. Well actually, it might be okay on desktop.
- soliton4 11y ago
  there is actually no way to get a h264 stream(!) decoded with onboard html5. using pepper plugins would limit your users to chrome. another alternative might be flash but i dont blame anyone for not taking this alternative serious.
- koushikdutta 10y ago
  Vysor was written in early 2015. VideoEncoder was not available until around December 2015. But yes, I've switched.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
Standards-setting bodies typically address this today through the use of standard-essential-patent policies. IEEE, for example, requires assurance from such patent holders that they will either not enforce the patent against those implementing the standard, will grant a license free of charge, or will grant a license "under reasonable rates." https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/approved-changes.pdf https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/approved-... Not sure why improving this state of affairs would require a change in underlying patent laws. We just need standards bodies to adopt more general patent policies--which could be accomplished by preferring to use standards from orgs with better patent policies.
- frenchy 11y ago
  > Not sure why improving this state of affairs would require a change in underlying patent laws. The problem with this is that there will always be someone who will happily say "Sure, I'll call your patent a 'standard' if you give me a little bit of money to 'certify' it."
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    Actually the problem these days is that standard-essential patents are considered less valuable because they tend to require FRAND licensing. This is the problem companies like Motorola and Samsung ran into during the smartphone patent wars. They could not ask for injunctions or high royalties for many of their patents as they were standards-essential, and they lost a lot of leverage. Secondly, standards setting bodies are usually a conglomerate of members from competing companies and hence a huge political bureaucratic mess, so it's not as easy to get something into the standard just for some money.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    Maybe. But then there's the little matter of adoption. The fact that some body or other called a patent technology a "standard" is meaningless, and not especially problematic. The problem comes when this standard actually comes into widespread use.

slashink 11y ago

Keep an eye on Alliance of Open Media ( http://aomedia.org http://aomedia.org ). Basically Amazon, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla and Netflix got fed up with the licensing model of H.265/HEVC which is even worse than that of H.264 (dual patent pools which different licensing terms where you have to pay both). Intent is for it to be royalty free, open and supported in major browsers and devices.

tacos 11y ago

If we want people to pay us for software, we have to contribute toward a system where value is added and money is extracted as goods and/or services of increasing value are developed and transition between entities. This radical concept is known as "industry." The alternative is to be mindless coder drones that produce "content" for people who don't value it but profit from it. Like musicians producing music for music companies but somehow not getting paid for it, you too can be a doofus with a Google+ account adding value to the Android or Apple ecosystem with your free app. Get "wrote an app" on your resume, make a snappy logo, then flounce out with a sad Google+ post to extract maximum brogrammer value! I increasingly see these issues as self-serving ways for some dude to get out of the hassles of maintaining some bullshit free app with 8 users. Somewhere there's a real company who'll cut the $50k check. Somewhere there's a hungrier, smarter developer who'll work around the issue. Somewhere there's a dirtier, angrier developer who'll fight for what's right against inane licensing terms. This developer is none of the above, nor is he contributing to furthering the industry. Begone.

Sephr 11y ago

He included an unlicensed H.264 decoder in his app. He could have avoided this by either using Chrome's built-in APIs[1], utilizing Cisco's free H.264 implementation[2], or simply paying the license fees himself. Google and Cisco are already paying the fees to make developers lives easier. As much as I hate patent trolls, this isn't really patent trolling. To make matters worse, I informed Koushik Dutta about this possible issue back in 2015[3] and he closed my GitHub issue and ignored it. I'm not surprised at the outcome. [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/struct_p_p_b___video_encoder__0__2 https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/stru... [2]: http://www.openh264.org/ http://www.openh264.org/ [3]: https://github.com/koush/vysor.io/issues/84 https://github.com/koush/vysor.io/issues/84

userbinator 11y ago
utilizing Cisco's free H.264 implementation What difference does it make? It even seems backwards in some sense --- that writing code based on a freely available spec means you have to pay a license fee, yet someone else can give away their implementation freely? IANAL, so perhaps what we think of as the crazy and contorted bureaucratic mess that is the patent system would make sense in some strange and twisted way to those who designed it.
- Sephr 11y ago
  The difference is that Cisco is already paying the license fee for you, as long as you use their pre-built binaries.
  - ndesaulniers 11y ago
    > as long as you use their pre-built binaries. That's so fucking stupid.
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      Not really, it's just compliance with the license that a piece of software is offered with. Things are no less silly in the world of open source. You are bound to honor the license of the open source software that you use. For instance, if your app links to a GPL library, you are bound to offer your code under the GPL too. However if it links to a BSD-licensed library that does the exact same thing, you don't have to.

userbinator 11y ago

Couldn't he have just added a disclaimer that the app may contain patented technology, but software patents are not enforceable everywhere? I doubt FFmpeg has paid a single cent of license fees to anyone, and yet it's survived and still available for anyone to download and use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg#Legal_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg#Legal_aspects I believe the way to fight software patents is civil disobedience.

cbhl 11y ago
Problem is whether patents can be enforced in the jurisdiction where the author lives.
TD-Linux 11y ago
Downstream projects of FFmpeg such as VLC certainly have been affected [1]. The interesting thing is that most of the problems have been with audio formats - this is the first I've seen for an open source project using H.264. The Wikipedia article is a bit misleading because although it cites the EU as an example, most software patents are allowed in the EU, including many H.264 patents. I would encourage you to fight software patents not by infringing, but by using royalty-free alternatives. [1] https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=125032 https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=125032

dchuk 11y ago

Damn, I love Vysor, and was actually using it for a big product demo while this apparently was getting removed from Chrome app store. Real bummer.

blindfly 11y ago
Do you happen to still have the extension installed you could pack...? I'd love to get my hands on it.
- HappyTypist 11y ago
  The extension is open source and on GitHub.
  - blindfly 11y ago
    You got it! Thanks for the tip. I just found my way over there and the whole thing is 100x better than I expected to find. Not an ad in sight and not even a message asking for donations. I'm thirsty for more now!
- blindfly 11y ago
  Disregard, we're good! It's really awesome actually and it's a pity such a thing would ever be pulled :(

withinrafael 11y ago

Just wanted to provide some bits about the MPEG-LA AVC patent portfolio licensing (which includes H.264 enc/dec). I went through this process for work and it's pretty painless. The licensors are very responsive will help you find a solution. They're not trying to shake you down. (I'm not familiar with Vysor but whatever you do, stay away from libvlc if you're looking for a decoder/encoder. That stuff is not kosher in most countries. ffmpeg is a gray area too.) Some highlights from a few years ago (may differ slightly now but unlikely): * No licensing fee * Free for private/personal, non-commercial usage (e.g. non-monetized YouTube, cat videos) * < 100,000 units = no royalties! (Unit defined as encoder or decoder) * > 100,000 units = 0.20c/unit The process is simple, you ping them, they FedEx you a stack of easy to read papers, sign it, and mail it back. [IANAL so obvious use-common-sense boilerplate goes here.]

Nullabillity 11y ago
> They're not trying to shake you down. ... yes, that's exactly what they are doing?
- withinrafael 11y ago
  It's my understanding that a "shake down" is an act built on /unreasonable/ demands. This is hardly unreasonable though do recognize that's subjective.

Ace17 11y ago

As the decoder was software based, preparing a switch to VP9 or AV1 may be a strategic move.

koushikdutta 10y ago
Most Android phones only have an h264 encoder.