FFmpeg info
To transcode your videos locally on your server, OpenPackage Video uses FFmpeg. This is free software, like Drupal.
If you are using the transcoder at openpackage.biz, then you do not require FFmpeg.
Some of the technology in FFmpeg is covered by software patents. Most countries do not recognise software patents, the notable exception being the USA. Check out this video.
If you use FFmpeg for commercial purposes in a country that does recognise software patents you are exposing yourself to the risk of litigation. Here is what FFmpeg have to say on the matter.
However, if you are a private user using FFmpeg for your own personal purposes, then there is nothing to worry about.
If you are using OpenPackage Video in a commercial manner in a country that recognises software patents, we recommend you outsource the transcoding to us. This frees you from the risk of litigation and also offers the advantage of not having to worry about FFmpeg maxing out your web server. Also, it is not usually possible to have FFmpeg installed in a basic web hosting package.
Installation
These instructions are specific to unix systems like Linux. For FFmpeg under Microsoft Windows see this site. We, of course, recommend you use OpenPackage Video (and Drupal in general) on a unix system.
The important thing when installing FFmpeg is ensuring that it supports the codecs you require. The FFmpeg packaged with your distro may have poor codec support (e.g. Debian / Ubuntu's FFmpeg doesn't support mp3).
To ensure you have all the codecs you require we recommend you compile the latest version of FFmpeg.
You need subversion installed. Use your distro's package manager to install it. Then checkout FFmpeg from its repository:
svn checkout svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/ffmpeg/trunk ffmpeg
cd ffmpeg
You then need to configure FFmpeg. Below is the configure command we recommend. However, it may detect that you do not have all the required libraries in place. In this case, either install them with your distro's package manager or remove them from the configure command. If you are using Fedora, you may wish to try Livna.
./configure --prefix=/usr --enable-static --enable-shared --enable-gpl --enable-postproc --enable-swscale --enable-pthreads --enable-liba52 --enable-libamr-nb --enable-libamr-wb --enable-libfaac --enable-libfaad --enable-libmp3lame --enable-libx264 --disable-ffserver --disable-ffplay --disable-debug --disable-network --enable-nonfree --enable-avfilter --enable-avfilter-lavf --disable-devices --disable-vhook
You then need to build FFmpeg and install it:
make
sudo make install
I have made it!!!!!!!!!!!! It works more or less.
Two steps to upgrade this tutorial:
"chmod + x configure version.sh"
and I mad with ./configure with no options.
But now the video conversion is ok, but with no audio...
Can you help me to correct this configuration mistake?
Thank you
Bendo
You need to enable the codecs. --enable-libmp3lame is essential for sound.
Thank you man!
What I have to do now? Launch again configure - make - install with the new option?
Can I install the lame using apt-get install?
(I use Debian 3.1)
Thanks again
Here is some information on how to get it to work on Ubuntu 6.10: http://drupal.org/node/202133#comment-663842
i'm no lawyer, but saying that ffmpeg is solely covered by software patents and using it in a country that doesn't endorse them is legal is simply wrong.
the video and audio compression technologies contained in ffmpeg are covered by various industry patents that are very valid in most countries of the world!
just have a look at the patent portfolio managed by the mpeg la: http://www.mpegla.com
if you check out patents involved in the various codecs, you can see that there are many national (of various countries) and even a few european patents listed.
don't take me wrong: i have mixed feelings towards patents, and completely defy trivial patents, software patents and patent trolls. but in many cases, companies, educational institutions and individuals invest a lot of money in developing new advantages, so they do deserve a fair ROI. of course, i'd prefer if "fair use" clauses would be more common, but since many patents are not enforced under any circumstances, i too consider that as a kind of "allows fair use" stanza from the patent holders.
and besides, technologies like mpeg1/2/4 (asp, avc, etc.) are not too expensive too license (or even free for most ffmpeg users). just have a look at the site of the MPEG LA i provided above.
Europe does not formally recognize software patents but the European Patent Office grants them nonetheless; it's then up to individual national courts to decide whether the patents are valid or not, when/if they come to court.
It is incorrect to say that patents reflect investment in technologies. Often those who get the patents are not those who did the research. If you look at patent law in Europe you will see it's "first to file", not "first to invent". The USA changed to "first to file" as well, because of the impossibility of proving who invented new things. The reason, obvious to anyone who actually does research, is that all innovation happens in parallel, in many places at once. The "inventor" is a myth used by the patent system to justify its own existence.
There is no ROI for patent holders because there is no I. The patent is simply a grant to exclusive rights in a market, a political construction designed to give business a chance to operate without all that annoying competition. This theory of "promote growth through protection" stems from the 1800's and has been totally discredited in every sphere except the patent industry. Growth and ROI come from healthy competition in a free market, the opposite of patent protection.
There are several reasons why free software projects cannot comply with patent licensing plans. First, it's not allowed by licenses like the GPL. Second, and this is why the GPL disallows it, taking a patent license make the software non-free. If the distribution and use of the software depends on a license from a third party, we have lost the freedom that lets us make free software in the first place. Lastly, the cost of a patent license, even if 'very low', is unpayable for free software projects, which distribute their work at no charge to a large number of unknown users.
There are also severe ethical concerns with a system of protection that strips developers of the rights to their own work. See http://www.ethipat.org.
So what can a project like FFmpeg do? IANAL but this problem has faced free software projects for many years. It is a fact of life that the patents which cover the codecs, though software patents, are upheld by most EU countries. When people say "Europe does not allow patents on software" they are inaccurate. Europe most definitely does. In theory, "pure software" with no "technical effect" can escape. But in practice all software has a "technical effect" (this term is not formally defined anywhere), even if it's just making a pixel blink.
However, just because patents are applied for, or granted, does not make them the Law. A patent is only as strong as the decision of a civil court. Would civil courts be willing to prosecute a free software project? It seems highly unlikely but there is a non-zero risk. Have these patents already been upheld in court? I do not know, but this would be useful to know.
Businesses quite regularly ignore or violate patents that they consider invalid or nonsense. It's a risk of doing business. Usually, patent holders will only go to the effort of suing when there is real commercial-scale competition going on. When it comes to free software, they are more likely to use bluff and FUD. So, Microsoft knows that patents are the Achilles heel of free software but just makes noises.
It's also worth understanding that politicians are increasingly aware of just how important free software and open standards are. The days when a free software project could be sued for patent infringement, with no political fallout, are disappearing.
Our solution - at the FFII - is to actively fight for a better set of laws, to get software explicitly excluded from patentability. Software patents are poison to the digital economy. It's not about investment and R&D but simply about monopolies and cartels and a lucrative business in creating trouble for hard-working people.
Post new comment