1) Industry Adoption
-------------------- Jan, Holger, Eric, Andrea, MikeD?, Ryan, MikeS?, Julien, Bill, Shane Codec naming and branding issue Eric: names like Ogg, Vorbis don't really give any idea of what the technology is. Naming could be important to foster mainstream adoption. Mike: But .. h.264, mp3, etc. They're not exactly named well. [Discussion about whether end users know what these names mean] Bill: in my opinion the name doesn't matter, but the long term stability of the name does. Jan: people get confused because Ogg used to mean Audio, but now it means Video Same kind of confusion as with AVI (container vs. content). Bill, Eric, Ryn: problems are: - lack of exposure - changing meaning of names - need for clear and simple definitions ...but these are problems for commercial codecs as well. Using anti-DRM bandwagon to push open media formats Ryan: people are going to be hurt by DRM so we can push alternatives Bill: would have thought open DVD standard would have helped here. Ryan: are DVDs? even relevant? me: people are OK with DVD content protection. More online content that we should concentrate on. Ryan: freedoms are being taken away, so providing alternatives and education should be sufficient Eric: alternative ways to do file sharing? Shane: don't want to be the people that help illegal file sharing. Want to get in with CC. Eric: what about an alternative to DRM that focuses on CC rights protection MikeS?: still a technological protection method MikeD?: CC work can help with this (machine readable, lawyer readable, human readable parts to license) Andrea: is DRM presence or absence really a problem for industry adoption? I don't really think it is. Should concentrate on how we can push the content. Why would industry use open media? Don't need to pay to produce isn't a big issue. Ryan: Need to create a service that uses open content. This will also open up more features for users (e.g. remixing, etc.) Holger: need to work on issues like 4 hours encoding for 1 hour of content then MikeD?: not a problem with core duo (4 streams in realtime!) What needs to happen to get wikipedia to use theora? MikeD?: SoC? project to get media playback integrated with mediawiki, but not pushed back into project. Problems: - cortado instability - bandwidth considerations Jan: potential issue with review burden MikeS?: Community - issue is production tools. The only reasonable way at the moment is for them to use their native tools and us to transcode at the end. Bill: is there a need for specific evangalism? MikeS?: yes, there is a need for it. Ryan: should we be talking about what the issues are here? or are we all painfully aware of it? Bill: also the value add after transcoding - extra stuff that can be done once transcoded content is available Holger: a good strategy is to relate to the Word format Promoting within industry - they're going to want DRM Ryan: DRM isn't working, people are seeing that Jan: industry doesn't agree with that. Even if only stops 10%, might as well put that on. Ryan: maybe convenience is a good way around DRM - e.g. I don't store video any more now that YouTube? is around. Jan: in this case though, convenience means "free". Jean-Marc: People are using DRM for control. Andrea: content like news, current affairs can be released free. Julien: if you want to get big content providers to use it is to show that there's a reasonable chance of there being players on consumer's machines, AND that they can save bits per stream Holger: wikipedia is a better target anyway Bill: and once something like that takes off then industry will follow Jean-Marc: we should just be looking at the easy targets and getting them to help convince the harder targets [ discussion about public broadcasters and open formats ] innovative applications Holger: we need funding developers: Bill: Canon will fund stuff if we can find a good reason, the problem is finding a good reason.