IRC office hours/Office hours 2014-01-16

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion about the Multimedia Vision and MP4 video file hosting
Fabrice Florin, facilitating

All times are UTC

[19:00:30] <fabriceflorin> Hello everyone, thanks for joining us for this office hours chat to discuss our plans for the Multimedia team!
[19:00:36] <Philippe> Hi fabriceflorin :)
[19:00:50] <Keegan> Hi
[19:00:53] <fabriceflorin> Who is here to discuss our multimedia plans?
[19:01:13] <fabriceflorin> I would like to introduce a few members of our team, who will be joining this discussion:
[19:01:41] * Ironholds raises a hand
[19:01:43] <Ironholds> I'm here ;p
[19:01:49] <NotASpy> so you are
[19:02:05] <fabriceflorin> marktraceur is software developer on our multimedia team, Keegan is community liaison ...
[19:02:06] <Ironholds> NotASpy, my client has you joining after I said that; I don't trust your username any more ;p
[19:02:26] <fabriceflorin> robla is our director of engineering for platform, and guides our multimedia efforts
[19:02:56] <fabriceflorin> Philippe Beaudette is here to provide a community advocacy perspective ...
[19:03:11] <kim_bruning> Ironholds, correct order here :-P
[19:03:16] <NotASpy> any legal people around, fabriceflorin ?
[19:03:22] <fabriceflorin> and I am Fabrice Florin, multimedia product manager and your host for this discussion. Welcome all!
[19:03:25] <Philippe> Luis intends to join, I believe, NotASpy
[19:03:28] * greg-g won't point fingers at the legal people
[19:03:33] <NotASpy> great
[19:03:34] <marktraceur> lvillaWMF is already here!
[19:03:38] * lvillaWMF waves
[19:03:42] <Philippe> Obvs, I ignored him :P
[19:03:45] <sikory> greg-g: great; pointing fingers is rude
[19:03:47] <kim_bruning> ohai lvillaWMF
[19:03:56] * kim_bruning points thumbs at the legal person
[19:04:05] <fabriceflorin> The main topic of today's discussion is going to be a MP4 Video RfC we posted yesterday.
[19:04:52] <fabriceflorin> Before we start this discussion, I would like to invite folks to check out a proposed Multimedia Vision for 2016, and comment on its discussion page, on your own time:
[19:04:59] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, couldn't you have just announced a microsoft takeover? That'd be less contentious ;-)
[19:05:02] <greg-g> I have a question regarding the timing of this. Was this a "we had a office hours planned but the RFC is kinda trumping the topic, naturally." or "We really only announced the IRC office hour 1.5 hours before it started"?
[19:05:08] <Philippe> kim_bruning: lol
[19:05:33] <fabriceflorin> Now on to today's main topic: our multimedia team seeks your guidance on whether or not to support the MP4 video format.
[19:05:43] <Philippe> greg-g: rather the first, I believe
[19:05:51] <Ironholds> I have a whole mess of questions on that topic ;p
[19:05:58] <fabriceflorin> Here is the RfC we opened today to discuss this together, as a movement:
[19:06:07] <marktraceur> Ironholds: You? Really?
[19:06:17] <greg-g> Philippe: hope so :)
[19:06:36] <fabriceflorin> As you know, the MP4 digital video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC.
[19:06:39] <greg-g> looks like we have a few more people coming in now
[19:06:42] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, you guys intend to use open formats, but store mp4 alongside, right?
[19:07:14] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, as long as one doesn't store exclusively the closed format, at least total disaster is averted ;-)
[19:07:19] <fabriceflorin> kim_bruning: The proposal would be to feature dual formats for all video files on our server: MP4 and open formats.
[19:07:22] <Josve05a> I love the .avi format
[19:07:25] * kim_bruning wants to point that out before folks go "zomg sellout"
[19:07:41] <fabriceflorin> We believe that supporting the MP4 format would make it much easier for our users to view and contribute video on Wikimedia projects -- and video files could be offered in dual formats on our sites, so we could continue to support current open formats (WebM and Ogg Theora).
[19:07:47] <KTC> kim_bruning, they're going to do that anyway ;)
[19:07:51] <bawolff_halfhere> Josve05a: thats actually multiple (like tiff)
[19:07:52] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, I still don't like it, but there won't be any snipers in your future. (at least not hired by me ;-)
[19:07:53] <fabriceflorin> However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required.
[19:08:12] <marktraceur> Josve05a: It's also only a container - the determination of codec is still important
[19:08:31] <greg-g> marktraceur: there's a bit of confusion along those lines, indeed.
[19:08:38] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, define acceptable legal terms for us? (and can we get legal comment on that?)
[19:08:38] <Philippe> marktraceur: has that determination been made?
[19:08:44] <fabriceflorin> We would appreciate your guidance on whether or not we should support MP4 on our sites. I propose we begin by asking for views in favor of MP4 support for a few minutes, then focus on views against it.
[19:08:52] <marktraceur> Philippe: Well, that's what the RFC is about! :)
[19:09:00] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, what about balanced views?
[19:09:04] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin, that doesn't seem massively useful
[19:09:06] <fabriceflorin> Are there views in favor of MP4 support?
[19:09:08] <Ironholds> we have an RfC for people giving views
[19:09:09] <Josve05a> marktraceur I know. I just wanted to point out that I like videos with it, since they run smoothely-er on my PC.
[19:09:11] <Philippe> Really, cuz I didn't see the codec choice delineatd there?
[19:09:12] <brion> marktraceur: by "MP4 format" we generally refer to "MP4 container with AVC or H.264 video and/or AAC audio", roughly
[19:09:15] <Ironholds> I understood that this would be an /office hours/ session
[19:09:24] <marktraceur> Yes
[19:09:26] <Ironholds> in other words, a venue for people in support and opposition to ask questions
[19:09:32] <brion> there should be a little faq page on the rfc to that effect :)
[19:09:33] <kim_bruning> I second Ironholds
[19:09:34] <Ironholds> and people who haven't made their minds up,, too
[19:09:38] <greg-g> Ironholds++
[19:09:40] <geniice> Ironholds yes it is. It gives me targets
[19:09:50] <bawolff_halfhere> its unclear to me if we will transcode original resolution of mp4 uploads, or just specific resolutions like current transcodes
[19:09:51] <Ironholds> not an additional vector for !votes - particularly one that is so obfuscated from a lot of the community
[19:09:56] <robla> to add to what fabriceflorin is saying, we'd like to make sure that if we support MP4 now, and decide later that it was a mistake, we can back out without losing content
[19:10:07] <NotASpy> Support of MP4 could serve to support the format, not supporting it could support truly open codecs and promote the demise of a patent encumbered format.
[19:10:18] <fabriceflorin> Also, are there specific questions we should make sure to cover in this discussion?
[19:10:40] <geniice> does anyone have a copy of the Epic M Red Dragon manual?
[19:10:51] <Dragonfly6-7> sorry, I got here late, can soemone give me a quick summary ?
[19:10:52] <kim_bruning> bawolff_halfhere, I would assume transcode at original resolution, to ensure minimal data loss.
[19:10:53] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin, the easiest way to resolve that seems to be for people to just ask those questions ;p
[19:10:53] <marktraceur> Josve05a: I think a lot of the issues we have with MP4 we would potentially have with AVI, but without a lot of the benefits - I don't see AVI being better supported on mobile or browsers than MP4.
[19:11:00] <Ironholds> Dragonfly6-7, nothing of substance has been discussed so far.
[19:11:03] <kim_bruning> Dragonfly6-7, we're deciding what we're discussing ;-)
[19:11:12] <geniice> Dragonfly6-7 arguing about the agenda
[19:11:20] <fabriceflorin> welcome Fuzheado ! We're asking for views in favor of MP4 support: would you like to present your perspective now?
[19:11:26] <Keegan> Soon we'll start using leaves as currency :)
[19:11:30] <wctaiwan> is there, without jailbreaking, a way for users to view WebM / Ogg Theora videos on iOS devices?
[19:11:32] <kim_bruning> Do I want to moderate thee channel somehow? ;-)
[19:11:47] <Ironholds> so, no official comment on 'this is office hours, not an RfC'? Alrighty
[19:11:55] <Josve05a> Keegan ++
[19:11:59] <Fuzheado> wctaiwan: not really
[19:12:13] <Fuzheado> hi fabriceflorin, all
[19:12:21] <kim_bruning> I once again second the gentleman who holds the iron ;-)
[19:12:30] <Josve05a> SO MUCH TEXT! slow down. I want to read it all!
[19:12:34] <kim_bruning> would also prefer q&a format
[19:12:40] <ChrisGualtieri> Agreed.
[19:12:43] <YuviPanda> (+1)
[19:12:43] <kim_bruning> do we have a third?
[19:12:45] <fabriceflorin> Is there anyone in this room that is unsure about whether or not to support MP4? If so, are there specific questions we could answer to help you reach an informed decision?
[19:12:47] <marktraceur> Josve05a: We'll also push logs out afterwards, don't worry
[19:12:54] <legoktm> Is there a reason why the license agreement has to be private?
[19:12:54] <kim_bruning> that's 4
[19:13:00] <Fuzheado> The very practical case for MP4 is that it will be a while before anything free or non-free will be as popular. H.264 is burned into lots of hardware
[19:13:01] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, :-)
[19:13:02] <greg-g> fabriceflorin: people are asking for that to be the topic, yes.
[19:13:11] * Aranda56 isn't sure what MP4 does so maybe I could learn from this discussion
[19:13:14] <bawolff_halfhere> +1 to legoktm
[19:13:25] <Josve05a> (+1) for MP4
[19:13:29] <greg-g> oh, there's a private license agreement?
[19:13:31] <ChrisGualtieri> I know some of the situation, but not enough to be truly informed.
[19:13:31] <Dragonfly6-7> so... mp4 is the successor to mp3, and the debate is whether mediawiki should support it?
[19:13:32] <fabriceflorin> Welcome geeni, glad you could join us!
[19:13:33] <kim_bruning> Aranda56, MP4 is a container format for video. In short, video files :-)
[19:13:51] <bawolff_halfhere> dragon: not quite
[19:13:56] <Aranda56> kim_bruning so the MP3 of videos?
[19:14:01] <kim_bruning> Ok, 2nd point of order, who is answering questions
[19:14:13] <kim_bruning> Aranda56, An mp3 of videos. And not the most popular one around these parts. ;-)
[19:14:16] <Fuzheado> Aranda56: best you do some background reading outside of irc...
[19:14:17] <Philippe> OK, I've seen a couple of questions out there....
[19:14:17] <bawolff_halfhere> mp3 was the audio part of a previous mpeg video standard
[19:14:27] <Fuzheado> i think that's too elementary for our convo here
[19:14:28] <geniice> Aranda56 no. MP3 patent situation is accidentally messy. MP4 is more deliberate
[19:14:42] * Josve05a is woundering if he is allowed to be in this chat, and vote, since he is not an admin/work for the foundation...�
[19:14:43] <Philippe> ONe is "Is there a reason why the license agreement has to be private?" Another was
[19:14:51] <twkozlowski> Is there a reason we want to accept a patent-encumbered format/codec to support a closed operating system?
[19:14:53] <kim_bruning> Aranda56, but the proposal is to support mp4 anyway, because there's zillions of people who can only view video in mp4 format.
[19:14:54] <geniice> Aranda56 for example there is some pointless stuff in MP4 so that apple would have something to put into the patent pool
[19:15:01] <asaifm> Yes, is this RFC backed supported by some statistics? No. of users accessing commons from mobile platforms? No. of users who prefer to use mp4 over open formats?
[19:15:08] <Keegan> Josve05a: You are certainly welcome here
[19:15:12] <twkozlowski> If iOS doesn't support Ogv/WebM, that's their loss.
[19:15:28] <kim_bruning> twkozlowski, sort of, if we support mp4 we reach so many more people with it
[19:15:44] <brion> twkozlowski: because people are human beings, not their devices
[19:15:52] <geniice> we've featured videos on en's main page. I don't recall complaints
[19:15:55] <brion> and people should have access to free information regardless of the flavor of their devices
[19:16:05] <kim_bruning> brion, it does take away som e incentive to vote with one's wallet though ;-)
[19:16:08] <fabriceflorin> Hi, legoktm, the proposed MP4 license agreement would be private, at the request of the licensor, MPEG-LA. Read more here:
[19:16:12] <ChrisGualtieri> The Apple issue with mp4 format is a pain... a real pain... but we should not throw away our values and principals for exposure.
[19:16:14] <twkozlowski> People make informed decision to use non-free software
[19:16:42] <wctaiwan> fabriceflorin: that should be linked on the main RfC page.
[19:16:42] <robla> legoktm: regarding private license policy, that's more a question for MPEG-LA (the folks responsible for the license). we're merely respecting their request
[19:16:49] <greg-g> fabriceflorin: are there other examples where we enter into private agreements with software licensors to run Wikipedia et al? cc lvillaWMF
[19:17:02] <lvillaWMF> greg-g: not sure what you mean by "run Wikipedia"
[19:17:03] <twkozlowski> If they want to use a device that doesn't support free video formats, are we to intervene in that?
[19:17:03] <fabriceflorin> legoktm: This is not unique to us, MPEG-LA does not make its standard agreement public, though they provide this overview:
[19:17:07] <Aranda56> I don't think it will be a big deal for us to use non-free software if the most important part is improving the Wikipedia for the long term
[19:17:12] <geniice> robla have you asked them how good their physical security is?
[19:17:14] <Keegan> Okay so the first question here and a prominent one on the RfC is "Why is there/what is in the private licensing agreement?"
[19:17:21] <brion> Aranda56: we'll be using free software to do the conversion.
[19:17:25] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: there is a set of software needed to "run" wp, are we also already agreeing to private agreements there?
[19:17:36] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: eg, maybe Maxmind?
[19:17:47] <twkozlowski> Well, an "only-for-Wikimedia" agreement that's private is so not connected to our values.
[19:17:49] <bawolff_halfhere> What is maxmind?
[19:17:50] <legoktm> greg-g: we use Maxmind's free database last time I checked
[19:17:50] <Aranda56> brion oh ok
[19:17:59] <Ironholds> we use their free one? their free one sucks
[19:18:00] <legoktm> bawolff_halfhere: ip geolocation
[19:18:05] <brion> however using free software to do things that are encumbered by patents requires a patent license, separate from the copyright license to use or redistribute the software
[19:18:05] <twkozlowski> Aranda56: it absolutely is a deal.
[19:18:06] <greg-g> legoktm: don't think so
[19:18:10] <bawolff_halfhere> ok
[19:18:32] <Ironholds> Aranda56, so, my biggest issue, at least, is not the non-free element. Don't get me wrong, that's still a complaint I have ;p.
[19:18:33] <twkozlowski> We have the choice of going our way and reaching our goals of creating a free encyclopaedia/media repository slowly but steadily
[19:18:42] <Ironholds> I'm just slightly confused as to how we can even have a discussion about this.
[19:18:44] <lvillaWMF> greg-g: as brion is pointing out, there is no software being licensed here.
[19:18:44] <Philippe> I mean, greg-g.... we don't publish every contract that we enter into.... so it depends on how you define a "secret agreement"?
[19:18:51] <twkozlowski> or accepting that we have to compromise to reach this goal faster
[19:18:52] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: s/software/patent/
[19:19:02] <Ironholds> That is, "we'd like you to agree to something. We can't tell you the conditions of what you're agreeing to".
[19:19:10] <robla> brion: I don't think we can say for sure we'll be using free software for this.
[19:19:13] <Ironholds> even if people agree, it isn't an informed agreement.
[19:19:24] <greg-g> Philippe: see above, agreements that are needed to run the software. Not personal contracts for instance.
[19:19:28] <johnsu01> fwiw, the FSF published some info about the private agreement in 2010 at
[19:19:32] <brion> robla: we locked that in months ago didn't we? is there some news here i don't know about?
[19:19:32] <Philippe> A question from asaifm: Yes, is this RFC backed supported by some statistics? No. of users accessing commons from mobile platforms? No. of users who prefer to use mp4 over open formats?
[19:19:35] <greg-g> thanks much johnsu01
[19:19:42] <twkozlowski> The community should absolutely have the ability to read the agreement.
[19:19:45] <fabriceflorin> Are there other important questions about this RfC which we should address here?
[19:19:54] <greg-g> fabriceflorin: we're still discussing some
[19:19:58] <twkozlowski> If not, the whole issue sould be off the table.
[19:20:05] <mdale> There was the estimate of 150 million of our visitors that can't view video
[19:20:05] <Keegan> So if we're offering dual hosting of MP4 and Ogv/WebM, most of this is the issue of principles, yes?
[19:20:18] <Ironholds> my biggest question would be how it's possible to have it as an RfC. Again, RfCs imply informed consent; the private license means that it is not really possible to do that.
[19:20:18] * NotASpy nods
[19:20:19] <kim_bruning> twkozlowski, that's a position to write on the RFC.
[19:20:36] <kim_bruning> twkozlowski, right now I think we want to ask questions :-)
[19:20:38] <greg-g> robla: is that on the RFC (possibility of non-Free Software)?
[19:20:39] <bawolff_halfhere> Geniice's comment is very concerning. I would love for legal to comment on it
[19:20:46] <ChrisGualtieri> Transparency is built into the system, but if editors are going into something blind, how is it really a fair and informed decision possible?
[19:20:49] <Ironholds> (this is not to say I want us to just announce we're supporting MP4 now and not discuss it, but I think the structure of the discussion as it currently stands is detached from the /equitable/ structure)
[19:20:52] * greg-g hasn't read the whole thing, had a sick toddler last night
[19:20:57] <kim_bruning> greg-g, well, defer to fabriceflorin a little, else we're going off track way fast :-)
[19:21:00] <lvillaWMF> huh, interesting
[19:21:02] <marktraceur> johnsu01: Have you linked to that on the RFC? It might be relevant information in the oppose section.
[19:21:05] <Keegan> bawolff_halfhere: lvillaWMF should be able to address that
[19:21:22] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, what's interesting to you?
[19:21:30] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: that FSF published a copy of the agreement
[19:21:30] <twkozlowski> Secret agreements are totally opposed to what we stand for.
[19:21:40] <Josve05a>
[19:21:41] <Keegan> (Geni's comment is that MP4 videos wouldn't be compatible with CC- BY-SA)
[19:21:42] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: I had googled before we launched this to see if there was a public copy
[19:21:48] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, Awesome. do you have a link? :-)
[19:21:54] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: scrolls up :)
[19:21:57] <kim_bruning> and we should totally put that on the RFC too :-)
[19:22:00] * kim_bruning scrolls
[19:22:05] <robla> brion: I don't remember making that an absolute requirement, and anyway, we had many of the conversations about this before the Cisco announcement (which is only free as in beer)
[19:22:08] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: appears that doesn't come up in Google because it is scanned, so not searchable
[19:22:27] * kim_bruning just tried to locate the buttons for retweet and favorite on irc. <oops>
[19:22:29] <brion> robla: cisco's stuff is useless for us (no audio)
[19:22:33] <twkozlowski> lvillaWMF: can you e-mail this to me? I'll run it through OCR for you no problem
[19:22:36] <lvillaWMF> bawolff_halfhere: geniice : so, the answer to that is waaaay more than IRC-length
[19:22:39] <twkozlowski> or link, whatever.
[19:22:51] <johnsu01> marktraceur: haven't yet, can do when I post my other comment, but maybe someone else will beat me to it
[19:22:56] <marktraceur> 'kay! Thanks :)
[19:23:02] <fabriceflorin> asaifm: mobile use of Wikimedia sites is already large (33% of total pageviews last month) and growing rapidly. Here are stats that may help answer your question:
[19:23:06] <brion> robla: as far as I'm concerned, using FOSS to do the conversion is a pretty strong requirement
[19:23:11] <Keegan> twkozlowski: The link to the FSF scan? I can email you
[19:23:22] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin, yes, but that's distinct from "how much are they using multimedia"
[19:23:31] <geniice> couldn't we just try and get WebM support into Magic Lantern?
[19:23:33] <lvillaWMF> bawolff_halfhere: geniice : the short answer is that it isn't a conflict with CC BY-SA; CC is agnostic to the underlying technology and failings/restrictions/etc. it has (except for deliberate DRM)
[19:23:38] <Ironholds> the squid logs tell us what proportion of users to all sites, including things like the blog, are from phones.
[19:24:09] <twkozlowski> Keegan: yes please
[19:24:11] <bawolff_halfhere> lvillaWMF: it would be great if the long answer could be included on rfc
[19:24:13] <geniice> lvillaWMF I'm aware of the strict legalities I was referring to the spirit of the license.
[19:24:15] <Ironholds> lvillaWMF, fabriceflorin: then I'm confused. In the RfC Fabrice said "Redistribution of videos encoded in the MP4 format on our sites would be subject to the license terms specified by their authors/uploaders (typically CC-BY-SA-3.0), which would make commercial usage unlikely in most case"
[19:24:26] <ChrisGualtieri> This thing contains royalities and such... This goes right against the core tenets...
[19:24:27] <Ironholds> ..which seems odd. The last bit, at least. I'm assuming it was a typo ;p
[19:24:51] <greg-g> that quote is troublesome to me
[19:24:53] <ChrisGualtieri> On a basic it level it looks like adaptating MP4 would compromise our CC by SA.
[19:25:03] <lvillaWMF> geniice: the spirit of the license has always been technology-agnostic. If you publish a book under CC, you don't have to buy everyone a photocopier. If you put a statue under CC, you don't have to invent a statue-copying machine. etc. :)
[19:25:09] <lvillaWMF> bawolff_halfhere: yes, I plan to do that
[19:25:23] <bawolff_halfhere> thanks
[19:25:34] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: but, are others able to make and distribute a derivative without paying the mpeg-la?
[19:25:47] <Ironholds> indeed, that's the thing
[19:25:50] <geniice> lvillaWMF no but I'm not meant to demand that they use my photocopier and charge for that
[19:26:02] <fabriceflorin> Ironholds: I am planning to elaborate on my previous statement to clarify that after closer legal review, use of MP4 video is NOT incompatible with CC-BY-SA.
[19:26:09] <lvillaWMF> greg-g: you mean, other than by using the WebM version? (i.e., by the fact that we'll go above/beyond what the license actually requires?)
[19:26:10] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin, okay, cool :)
[19:26:27] <twkozlowski> Keegan: any ideas where I could publish the text of that secret agreement?
[19:26:32] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: assume no parallel distribution for a second
[19:26:35] <sikory> the internet
[19:26:39] <NotASpy> fabriceflorin: brilliant, that's may biggest concern.
[19:26:43] <greg-g> assume the file is only on commons in h264
[19:27:02] <lvillaWMF> I'm not eager to assume facts that will not be true.
[19:27:03] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: last I heard, parallel distribution wasn't explicitly a part of CC licenses :)
[19:27:07] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, of course it's not incompatible :-)
[19:27:10] <geniice> NotASpy not that statement while true is deeply missleading
[19:27:27] * Josve05a gets glasses, a bigger screen, starts to scroll to the top, the scroll bar goes down to the bottom automaticly. Josve05a screems!
[19:27:30] <greg-g> but, the point is, I may get a copy of the h264 from somewhere other than Commons.
[19:27:33] <lvillaWMF> but if you insist, then you get the long answer, which as I said, isn't really IRC-able
[19:27:36] <Keegan> twkozlowski: Probably any place you want off-wiki. I'm not certain of the legality of publishing it so...
[19:27:42] <kim_bruning> NotASpy, You do still officially need a licensed decoder. (or an eyepatch and a parrot ;-)
[19:27:43] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: is it on wiki?
[19:27:43] <fabriceflorin> NotASpy: Thanks, and my apologies for any confusion. This is a complex matter, and lvillaWMF is more knowledgeable on this point than I am, as our legal counsel.
[19:27:50] <lvillaWMF> greg-g: it's not, yet
[19:27:52] <greg-g> k :)
[19:28:00] <johnsu01> fabriceflorin: but of course there is a difference between whether it contradicts the license, and whether it contradicts the reasons Wikimedia chooses that license in the first place. If there are cases when Wikimedia is okay with works being distributed without permission to make derivatives, or commercial derivatives, then why is CC-BY-SA the license to start with
[19:28:06] <geniice> lvillaWMF I know the long answer. this isn't the first time the issue has come up
[19:28:22] <kim_bruning> NotASpy, OTOH this is somewhat offset by the fact that the proposal would have MP4 alongside open formats
[19:28:30] <legoktm> Question: What would this mean for wikis who use InstantCommons? Do they need to get license agreements too?
[19:28:50] <greg-g> good question legoktm
[19:28:55] <fabriceflorin> On a related topic, here is a background note that may be relevant: Do users of Wikimedia need an MP4 license?
[19:29:00] <twkozlowski> Keegan: I'll publish it tonight and link the text on the RFC page
[19:29:01] <greg-g> we seem to maybe be breaking some promises there
[19:29:12] <lvillaWMF> geniice: <shrug> assume what you want :)
[19:29:18] <fabriceflorin> Our findings are that users of Wikimedia do not need to buy or agree to patent licenses in order to play, edit, distribute, or upload videos from Wikimedia.
[19:29:19] <mdale> legoktm: I would think not.
[19:29:30] <mdale> it would be essentially embed streamed from wmf
[19:29:34] <marktraceur> legoktm: fabriceflorin's link seems to hold the answer "Merely distributing MP4 files never requires a patent license."
[19:29:39] <twkozlowski> fabriceflorin: how about using the videos for commercial purposes?
[19:29:44] <greg-g> what about derivatives, marktraceur ?
[19:29:45] <mdale> + that
[19:30:00] <kim_bruning> upload videos to wikipedia, or download from?
[19:30:02] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin, yeah, I've read that. As a firefox user who can't use ogg vorbis I'm totally down with improving video format options
[19:30:25] <AVRS> Ironholds: why can't you use ogg vorbis with Firefox?
[19:30:29] <Ironholds> but the argument doesn't support "we need MP4", it supports "we need a video format that works in a variety of browsers"
[19:30:31] <legoktm> doesn't instantcommons store thumbnails locally? /me investiages
[19:30:35] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: that section fab linked to might be a good place for that answer, btw :)
[19:30:39] <Ironholds> I think WebM would be more conformed to our values than MP4.
[19:30:47] <kim_bruning> what guarantees do we have that the MPEG LA will tighten their fist. (ignoring the rebels slipping through their fingers for a moment)
[19:30:48] <Ironholds> AVRS, absolutely no idea; it's just never worked for me properly :)
[19:31:02] <kim_bruning> that they won't tighten their fist, rather?
[19:31:05] <mdale> kim_bruning: I think we can always "turn it off"
[19:31:08] <YuviPanda> Ironholds: we already support WebM, fwiw.
[19:31:18] <bawolff_halfhere> Legoktm: store not create
[19:31:18] <mdale> we will continue full support for webm
[19:31:20] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: specifically if adding in "distributing a derivative, commercially" ;)
[19:31:30] <kim_bruning> mdale, in the current configuration, it seems like that should be possible. As long as patent licenses prohibit retroactive terms.
[19:31:31] * greg-g is done giving notes to lvillaWMF
[19:31:32] <fabriceflorin> twkozlowski: After discussing this with lvillaWMF, it is now my understanding that commercial use of MP4 files is authorized under the terms of CC-BY-SA.
[19:31:45] <Keegan> mdale: Precisely. If turned off, there will still be copies in the free-format forms
[19:31:47] <Ironholds> YuviPanda, ah. Then..what?
[19:31:54] <legoktm> bawolff_halfhere: right. thanks :)
[19:32:03] <johnsu01> if only our friends at Apple and Google would share information about the number of complaints they receive from Wikipedia users unable to access video on those platforms, then we would have some data about the possible effectiveness of Wikipedia etc as a driving force for positive change in this area
[19:32:11] <Ironholds> if we already have WebM support..
[19:32:16] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, That's not the main problem though, right? Someone still needs to make a distribute MP4 players to make it all work.
[19:32:20] <bawolff_halfhere> Google supports webm
[19:32:32] <kim_bruning> johnsu01, would you be willing to ask them?
[19:32:32] <Ironholds> chrome has WebM, Firefox has WebM, Opera has WebM, and IE and Safari are getting plugins
[19:32:34] <bawolff_halfhere> Its only iphones that are a problem
[19:32:40] <johnsu01> bawolff_halfhere: poorly, on mobile devices
[19:32:47] <Ironholds> and it's FSF supported
[19:32:47] <kim_bruning> bawolff_halfhere, oh, that's interesting
[19:32:58] <bawolff_halfhere> works on my phone :p
[19:33:00] <mdale> Keegan: sure, but you could turn off "encoding" if that were to incur costs .. and we could write a rule that only distributed the webm versions.
[19:33:03] <lvillaWMF> fabriceflorin: twkozlowski: I think that's… not quite right, but explaining the nuance is not going to work here. I would say more precisely that CC's rights/permissions are different from, and don't interact with, the patent rights/permissions
[19:33:05] <brion> iOS, windows phone, other non-android minority platforms <- no WebM
[19:33:11] <marktraceur> Howdy paroneayea!
[19:33:15] <brion> windows & mac with stock browsers and no plugins <- no WebM
[19:33:16] <paroneayea> heya marktraceur
[19:33:22] <YuviPanda> bawolff_halfhere: it's not just iOS, practically. Most devices have a hardware h264 decoder/encoder - no such love for WebM. Battery life will be drastically affected with software encoding/decoding
[19:33:25] <kim_bruning> mdale, if you see the rfc, I propose thee opposite direction as 2nd choice
[19:33:26] <brion> there are ways (native apps, javascript) but it's work
[19:33:26] * Keegan nods
[19:33:27] <HaeB> Ironholds: have you read ?
[19:33:37] <kim_bruning> brion, that sucks :-(
[19:33:38] <johnsu01> kim_bruning: I would be willing to try :) but I would not expect Apple to talk to me.
[19:33:39] <HaeB> has some information about webm
[19:33:50] <kim_bruning> johnsu01, well, if you don't try, they won't talk to you either
[19:33:51] <lvillaWMF> brion: you forgot professional video cameras, edit suites, etc.
[19:33:59] <paroneayea> I'm sick and overwhelmed with work prepping for mediagoblin fundraising, so I'm passively observation, with the one comment
[19:34:02] <bawolff_halfhere> whats java install base now a days? Most windows users might have that
[19:34:06] <kim_bruning> johnsu01, so things can only improve ;-)
[19:34:07] <geniice> brion in fairness what percentage is IE down to these days?
[19:34:13] <lvillaWMF> bawolff_halfhere: but cameras don't.
[19:34:14] <Ironholds> geniice, actually it's quite high
[19:34:15] <paroneayea> that h.264 on wikipedia would be a huge, huge bummer
[19:34:18] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: but they (the rights/limitations of the patent license) limit what a user can do with the file? as in, there will be another "WARNING: YOU MUST FULLOW SOME SECRET AGREEMENT" info box on all h264 files? (sorry, being a bit extreme to catch all the nuance ;) )
[19:34:19] <brion> lvillaWMF: true, true, but i figure if you've got the pro edit suite you *should* be able to figure out how to convert to webm ;)
[19:34:23] <fabriceflorin> kim_bruning: My understanding is that MP4 support is built-in as a default on a very wide range of mobile phones, desktop computers and their browsers, as well as home video devices, making this a very ubiquitous standard.
[19:34:26] <brion> but it's an extra step yes
[19:34:27] <kim_bruning> johnsu01, maybe ask together with lvillaWMF or with fabriceflorin :-)
[19:34:28] <paroneayea> but many others I like in here can also elaborate
[19:34:36] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, yes.
[19:34:42] <geniice> Ironholds yes but no plugins means IE without flash which is unusual
[19:34:44] <bawolff_halfhere> Msie was actually low
[19:34:46] <brion> geniice: IE's been going up actually, since IE10 and IE11 came out
[19:34:50] <marktraceur> paroneayea: Well put
[19:34:55] <darkweasel>
[19:34:57] <Ironholds> geniice, well, yes, quite.
[19:35:05] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, it's becoming a monoculture
[19:35:06] <bawolff_halfhere> compared to what it used to be
[19:35:10] <geniice> and a lot of the web breaks if you don't have flash
[19:35:12] <Ironholds> "special software installations" == "plugins"
[19:35:15] <HaeB> in general, should have the current list of supported formats
[19:35:17] <johnsu01> kim_bruning: of course :) but I'm also making the point that this discussion is happening without a very important piece of information -- how much does Wikimedia's stance here help drive free format adoption, and how much would offering the patented format undermine that. I know this is a community with a lot of respect for data and it seems a real shame to contemplate this decision without information along those lines.
[19:35:18] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, and MPEG LA has incentive to reap at some point
[19:35:22] <geniice> its rather nice actualy. Most of the ads don't work
[19:35:22] <Ironholds> I can't imagine anyone on IE or windows generally surviving without a little bit of adobe
[19:35:27] <Ironholds> geniice, indeed ;p
[19:35:45] <kim_bruning> johnsu01, I second your point :-)
[19:35:47] <brion> which is why lack of webm in flash KILLS me
[19:35:52] <brion> adobe promised back in the day :(
[19:36:04] <bawolff_halfhere> realistically we have not affected free formats very much
[19:36:09] <kim_bruning> brion, could we bribe adobe?
[19:36:23] <johnsu01> bawolff_halfhere: data for that?
[19:36:25] <geniice> not sure we could afford it
[19:36:26] <Ironholds> use the money for the licensing to bribe adobe. adobe are cheap ;p
[19:36:26] <kim_bruning> brion, I mean seriously, what would they ask, a couple of FTE?
[19:36:27] <brion> kim_bruning: we could try, but i don't know if that's a good use of donor money :)
[19:36:28] <greg-g> bawolff_halfhere: why do you say that?
[19:36:31] <NotASpy> kim_bruning: easier to blackmail them over their useless security, surely :p
[19:36:47] <kim_bruning> geniice, sometimes a few FTE does wonders
[19:36:50] <Josve05a> Ironholds +
[19:37:06] <greg-g> bawolff_halfhere: Wikipedia is usually the thing people point to as *the* example of why open format support is good
[19:37:10] <kim_bruning> or FTE-months or what have you :-P
[19:37:23] <lvillaWMF> for those of you asking about us driving adoption, I urge you to read Mozilla's post on h264 from last year:
[19:37:31] <geniice> If we want high quality video can't we get webM support into Magic Lantern?
[19:37:37] <fabriceflorin> Are there any questions about how we would propose to implement a 'dual format' for all videos on our site? Here is an overview of the current system being considered:
[19:37:39] <YuviPanda> +1 to reading Mozilla's blog post.
[19:37:42] <greg-g> lvillaWMF: it's a bit of a different use case/situation though
[19:37:42] <brion> greg-g: unfortunately we're also the ones who get pointed to with "look nobody can view your damn videos" :P :)
[19:37:50] <greg-g> brion: where nobody == iphone users
[19:37:53] <bawolff_halfhere> Greg-g: just how i feel, i dont have any evidence
[19:37:55] <kim_bruning> politically, wikimedia is one of the largest open format groups on the planet. If we bow to MPEG LA, it will be noticed. fabriceflorin what's the position of your team on this?
[19:38:09] <brion> iPhone users, Safari users, IE users
[19:38:15] <geniice> brion again we didn't get complaints back when we ran an ogg theora video on the en main page
[19:38:27] <brion> geniice: that points more to the shitty communication channels we have than anything else
[19:38:37] <ossguy> since lvillaWMF mentioned it, I'll post my rebuttal to Mozilla's blog post:
[19:38:43] <ossguy> "Video, fragmentation, and Firefox"
[19:38:47] <fabriceflorin> I also have a more general question to this group about the relative importance of our educational mission and our free software mission. If we had to chose one over the other, which do you think is most important?
[19:38:54] <ossguy> (mentioned Mozilla's blog post, that is)
[19:38:58] <asaifm> greg-g ++
[19:38:58] <greg-g> My major concern is not only this RFC, but the webRTC MTI decision going on. If we cave (yes cave) and support MPEG-LA, that will be a huge data point that the Apples will use to say webRTC should only require h264.
[19:39:07] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, free software. Britannica does the educational better, frankly
[19:39:11] <geniice>
[19:39:14] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin, that's a false dichotomy
[19:39:15] <mdale> kim_bruning: I think mozilla "bowing" to h.264 was much more notable.
[19:39:17] <Philippe> Is it really a binary choice?
[19:39:18] <Ironholds> we're not choosing between them
[19:39:18] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, we're the free software alternative :-)
[19:39:22] <Ironholds> we're choosing which we /emphasise/
[19:39:25] <Ironholds> on a case-by-case basis.
[19:39:33] <AVRS> WLM 2014 in Russia was sponsored by Nokia (anti-WebM) with Windows-based cameras
[19:39:34] <mdale> we have under 40k videos… many people don't even know that video exists on wikipedia at all.
[19:39:40] <kim_bruning> AVRS, ick
[19:39:43] * bawolff_halfhere 's phone is about to die :(
[19:39:48] <Keegan> fabriceflorin: kim_bruning was curious as to the position of the multimedia team
[19:39:49] <Ironholds> so when we're talking about educational components which are optional and addons - in other words, videos, since our main business is text - I'd prioritise our openness values
[19:39:50] <kim_bruning> good point, mdale
[19:39:54] <darkweasel> fabriceflorin: the difference between wmf projects and other educational projects is first and foremost that wmf projects are free as in freedom
[19:39:57] <twkozlowski> mdale: You're talking Wikimedia Commons
[19:40:00] <fabriceflorin> Ironholds: Your point is well taken, but if we had to emphasize one over the other, which would seem more important?
[19:40:02] <twkozlowski> how many videos are there on Wikipedia?
[19:40:04] <darkweasel> everything else comes after that IMHO
[19:40:06] <geniice> mdale err wikipedia in terms of format is mostly Encarta derived. Encarta didn't have many videos either
[19:40:13] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin, in this *specific case*, freedom
[19:40:15] <greg-g> ugh, I have to go, enjoy the rest of the office hour, thanks for the participation fabriceflorin and lvillaWMF .
[19:40:22] <lvillaWMF> and look how great Encarta is doing these days! ;)
[19:40:32] <NotASpy> fabriceflorin: there's an argument that you can't have truly free content without truly free underlying software powering it.
[19:40:33] <Ironholds> multimedia is ultimately an extension; it's not our bread and butter, not the thing most of our users rely on.
[19:40:41] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, I think that to be able to purvey large amounts of free content, first we need content, and it must be free
[19:40:53] * aude waves
[19:40:55] <Ironholds> okay, my battery is pretty much dead
[19:40:59] <kim_bruning> fabriceflorin, so in line with Ironholds , freedom has a slight edge
[19:40:59] <Ironholds> if I vanish, that's why ;p
[19:41:01] <geniice> Making encyclopedic videos is hard.
[19:41:11] <brion> ok question for the crowd: is anybody actively interested in working on better WebM support for the affected platforms?
[19:41:15] * kim_bruning waves to aude
[19:41:16] <marktraceur> Thanks for the thoughts, Ironholds
[19:41:22] <kim_bruning> ohai aude, awesome you're here :-)
[19:41:32] <fabriceflorin> twkozlowski: To date, about 38,000 video files have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in open formats.
[19:41:34] <brion> cause if we're just gonna say "stay free!" and do no more, we're kinda dropping the ball
[19:41:36] <Ironholds> brion, I would love to help if I had the chops, but I'm happy to help rabble-rouse, at least.
[19:41:42] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin, that's telling, to me.
[19:41:47] <brion> someone needs to commit to doing or sponsoring the work if we say no to MP4.
[19:41:51] <lvillaWMF> fabriceflorin: telling of *what*?
[19:41:53] * kim_bruning takes a look
[19:41:54] <lvillaWMF> oops
[19:41:54] <YuviPanda> brion: it's also a case of hardware support, in which we can kinda do nothing
[19:41:59] <lvillaWMF> I mean Ironholds : telling of what?
[19:42:02] <Ironholds> 38,000 videos, versus 4 million articles on en.wp alone. Multimedia is an addon; we have room to be principled without dramatically compromising our educational work
[19:42:16] <aude> it's hard to upload them
[19:42:22] <brion> YuviPanda: we can leave hardware to Google :)
[19:42:24] <marktraceur> aude: But we don't know that's the primary reason
[19:42:26] <Ironholds> if it was a conversation about...some weird, craptacular law in which we needed licensing for text, I'd probably go the other way around ;p
[19:42:30] <brion> all we can manage is software :(
[19:42:31] <aude> (plus collect / take)
[19:42:31] <marktraceur> Because no data
[19:42:37] <mdale> Brion: I think the google webm project would be interested… and we should do that anyway, but there are millions of devices out there that will never support software solution well.
[19:42:40] <Ironholds> it's about balancing on a case-by-case basis, based on the scale of the impact it has on the end user.
[19:42:45] <kim_bruning> brion, I take your point
[19:42:52] <lvillaWMF> Ironholds: you sound like a greek: "we don't have many texts, we have a lot of orally-transmitted epic poems, text must be an add-on" :)
[19:42:52] <aude> and if from an archival source (even US archives), it's complicated to judge if it's really public domain
[19:42:53] <kim_bruning> brion, the alternatives don't look great
[19:42:56] <Ironholds> mdale, there are still people on IE8. We'll never have anyone ;p
[19:42:58] <YuviPanda> marktraceur: have you tried uploading video to commons?
[19:42:59] <aude> or has element of non public domain
[19:43:06] <aude> 2 cents :)
[19:43:09] <Ironholds> lvillaWMF: and you sound like a startup CEO ;p
[19:43:23] <marktraceur> YuviPanda: No, but that's because I haven't needed to. I think that's probably a relevant part of the conversation too.
[19:43:27] <twkozlowski> YuviPanda: without UploadWizard? works like a charm :-)
[19:43:37] <Ironholds> (actually, anyone in SF; the team at Avocado are great fun and buy you lunch. Note this for the future.)
[19:43:45] <twkozlowski> trouble starts when your video is > 100 MiB
[19:43:56] <aude> +1
[19:43:59] <twkozlowski> which is generally a couple of minutes.
[19:43:59] <fabriceflorin> twkozlowski: About 7 million video files are being 'used' in pages on other Wikimedia projects (or 40% of total files), based on an SQL query described here by bawolff_halfhere :
[19:44:01] <Ironholds> brion, I'll help with rabble-rousing and documenting and analytics-y...stuff, if thats useful.
[19:44:10] <brion> Ironholds: that would be awesome :)
[19:44:11] <Ironholds> totally down with volunteering for this ;)
[19:44:30] <twkozlowski> fabriceflorin: I have uploaded more than a hundred videos myself
[19:44:38] <twkozlowski> so I kind of know how this works :)
[19:44:47] <Coren> How don't see how our dedication to open formats is in any way harmed by allowing an encumbered codec and container alongside the open ones. It costs disk space (not an issue), and makes our content more available to more people (win).
[19:44:47] <geniice> brion added mention of Magic Lantern. Don't know enough about the software and hardware platform to know how doable it would be
[19:44:51] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin, that appears to be all image files, not videos
[19:44:54] <Ironholds> unless I'm misreading
[19:45:06] <Ironholds> brion, cool. Start a thread!
[19:45:09] <brion> geniice: ooh that sounds spiffy
[19:45:10] * aude worked on
[19:45:15] <Ironholds> greg-g, we need your FOSS contacts. marktraceur, we need your free time.
[19:45:17] <brion> another power user tool :D
[19:45:18] <twkozlowski> yea, ++ Ironholds
[19:45:21] <fabriceflorin> twkozlowski: Good point, we haven't broken this down for video, but this should be possible in coming weeks.
[19:45:30] <marktraceur> Ironholds: What free time
[19:45:30] <aude> which ones are really public domain?
[19:45:32] <AVRS> How many cameras make MP4 videos, and how many make e.g. MJPEG?
[19:45:59] <NotASpy> AVRS: most Nikons, especially the SLRs, use MP4, as far as I know.
[19:46:16] <Ironholds> marktraceur, well, the free time you'll have for not having to spend hours on MP4 ;p
[19:46:26] <Ironholds> okay, battery dying. WebM people: start email thread.
[19:46:29] <fabriceflorin> But our observations are that our current open video formats have a number of restrictions that make them hard to use by casual users.
[19:46:37] <marktraceur> Ironholds: Pretty sure that's gonna go to UploadWizard
[19:46:43] <Ironholds> marktraceur, details, details
[19:46:58] <darkweasel> Coren: the current situation kinda puts pressure on browser makers to support free formats
[19:47:09] <darkweasel> because they have an interest in being compatible with wikimedia
[19:47:14] <AVRS> NotASpy: I have a Nikon that uses MJPEG in AVI
[19:47:16] <darkweasel> we should see it this way, not the other way round
[19:47:18] <YuviPanda> darkweasel: did you see the link from Mozilla lvillaWMF pointed out to:?
[19:47:24] <brion> darkweasel: they don't, though, because we have very little such content of interest to them
[19:47:38] <darkweasel> YuviPanda: i think not
[19:47:38] <brion> whereas EVERYBODY got mp4
[19:47:44] <twkozlowski> Well, let me says this.
[19:47:46] <Coren> darkweasel: Except that it does not, in practice. Also, we have no clout with the hardware manufacturers at all.
[19:47:53] <twkozlowski> Videos have amazing potential. Just look up the Cheetah video.
[19:47:54] <lvillaWMF> we have no clout
[19:47:57] <lvillaWMF> because we have no content
[19:48:06] <twkozlowski> or the amazing astronomy thing someone uploaded
[19:48:09] <YuviPanda> darkweasel:
[19:48:12] <lvillaWMF> when it comes time to choose the next winning codec
[19:48:12] <lvillaWMF> we can sit at the table and say "we are wikipedia, we like format X" and be ignored
[19:48:13] <lvillaWMF> or we can sit at the table and say "we are wikipedia, and we have a million videos that 1/2B people look at a month, we like format X" and not be ignored
[19:48:18] <NotASpy> AVRS: what model do you have ?
[19:48:26] <YuviPanda> +1 to lvillaWMF.
[19:48:39] <twkozlowski> -1 to lvillaWMF.
[19:48:44] <aude> which hardwares are problem? (mobile?)
[19:48:51] <mdale> lvillaWMF: good point
[19:48:52] <twkozlowski> Why should we decide to choose the next winning codec at all?
[19:49:05] <twkozlowski> Stick with freedom.
[19:49:09] <twkozlowski> It worked nice so far.
[19:49:11] <lvillaWMF> twkozlowski: because the next time a codec is chosen, it will be between an open codec and a closed codec
[19:49:13] <Coren> aude: Mostly; battery life is a very big issue without hw support. Also, cameras.
[19:49:15] <fabriceflorin> Creating videos in open formats is difficult, as most mobile phones do not let you record in these formats now. Transcoding with tools like Firefogg is hard. Open video files cannot be viewed on a significant portion of mobile devices. Over 150 million users visit our site every month in browsers that do not support our file formats.
[19:49:15] <AVRS> In Russia (where there is no MPEG LA), Wikipedia hasn't yet been blocked despite censorship blacklisting of articles.
[19:49:16] <mdale> it has not worked nice so far
[19:49:30] <aude> Coren: so taking video with mobile?
[19:49:39] <Coren> aude: Or most camcorders.
[19:49:40] <YuviPanda> aude: viewing with Mobile is also a battery issue
[19:49:50] <lvillaWMF> twkozlowski: so we can either have no influence (making the closed codec more likely to win) or we can have influence (making the open codec more likely to win)
[19:49:52] <ossguy> mdale: how do you mean?
[19:50:03] <twkozlowski> lvillaWMF: I accept this, but I don't think we should be the ones to decide that.
[19:50:05] <AVRS> NotASpy: S5...something
[19:50:08] <HaeB> twkozlowski: define "nice"
[19:50:09] <aude> hmmm, how much difference?
[19:50:11] <mdale> we have almost zero video participation on wikimedia sites
[19:50:14] <geniice> fabriceflorin compared to actualy shooting an encyclopedic video transcoding isn't too hard
[19:50:18] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, bismark would be proud! ;-)
[19:50:26] <geniice> fabriceflorin particularly if you allow for low quality VLC transcodes
[19:50:28] <lvillaWMF> twkozlowski: you claim to care about open formats, but you don't think we should want to help open formats?
[19:50:29] <Coren> twkozlowski: We won't "decide", but as a major playing in the Open knowledge movement it'd be nice if we were /heard/ at least. :-)
[19:50:29] <mdale> less then .02 percent or so of wikipedia articles include videos.
[19:50:31] <twkozlowski> HaeB: ever heard of the GFDL-then-CC-BY-SA encyclopaedia Wikipedia?
[19:50:31] <lvillaWMF> twkozlowski: that's… very odd :)
[19:50:32] <Philippe> Godwin's law, kim_bruning .... once removed
[19:50:40] <twkozlowski> HaeB: that one worked nice.
[19:50:46] <ossguy> mdale: I see
[19:50:56] <kim_bruning> twkozlowski, well, we'd like to decide to choose a free format
[19:51:04] <johnsu01> lvillaWMF: I don't know how you can make those claims with no data
[19:51:07] <aude> already you can upload video (any format? mp4) to internet archive
[19:51:08] <HaeB> twkozlowski: this conversation is about video and commons
[19:51:10] <geniice> Coren so take a bunch of BBC technicians to the pub
[19:51:11] <kim_bruning> Philippe, Bismark wasn't so bad, just ... misunderstood.
[19:51:12] <aude> and they transcode it into ogv
[19:51:21] <kim_bruning> Philippe, and he does set the standard for chicanery ;-)
[19:51:24] <AVRS> Is video important enough here to take the amount of it into account?
[19:51:25] <twkozlowski> Coren: we can be heard. We stick with what we have. That's taking a stand.
[19:51:27] <Philippe> I thought I did that, kim_bruning
[19:51:35] <Coren> mdale: You're right. There's a good argument that we have so few videos /because/ it's so hard to transcode, edit, upload as it is.
[19:51:37] <mdale> taking a stand for what?
[19:51:43] <aude> what about something like that?
[19:51:55] <aude> but only serve ogv
[19:51:57] <johnsu01> lvillaWMF: do you know how many complaints Apple receives right now about lack of webm support?
[19:52:04] <marktraceur> Coren: But not substantiated at all, because there are so many other possible causes for the number of videos we have.
[19:52:09] <kim_bruning> aude, that's my 2nd choice on the RFC :-)
[19:52:10] <HaeB> twkozlowski: so what do you mean by "nice"?
[19:52:12] <twkozlowski> mdale: Taking a stand for free formats. We already do that.
[19:52:13] <lvillaWMF> johnsu01: we have lots of knowledge on how standards decisions are made, and we have lots of data that in this round (vp8 v. h264) the open standard has lost.
[19:52:21] <AVRS> You won't be getting interesting video in most articles on software or ancient history if it becomes very easy.
[19:52:23] <aude> internet archive is a pleasure for uploading videos
[19:52:34] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, do you have a writeup on how standards decisions are made?
[19:52:43] <twkozlowski> HaeB: We have a nice free encyclopaedia. We can have a nice free media repository, too. If it takes longer with free formats, then so be it.
[19:52:50] <johnsu01> lvillaWMF: this is much more than a binary win/lose question -- how much pressure is currently being applied that those companies are choosing to ignore or live with
[19:52:50] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, because that's the kind of meta-wikipedia stuff I love to read :-)
[19:52:51] <mdale> we would be better position to promote free formats if we had content. Its easy to be in favor of something if its not being used.
[19:52:53] <Coren> AVRS: No, but science, biology, sociology are all prime destinations.
[19:53:03] <ossguy> lvillaWMF: Mozilla people suggest we've lost to H.265 already, too
[19:53:05] <fabriceflorin> Have we asked ourselves how important is video to our overall goals for Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects? If it is important, it would seem worthwhile to make video easier to view and contribute by more users. If it is not important, the current status quo may not be such an issue.
[19:53:15] <kim_bruning> johnsu01, at some point, this is something one needs to research :-)
[19:53:16] <mdale> … Google youtube for example… is able to promote webm far more then we are with out active content
[19:53:21] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: I have not; it'd be interesting to write but it's pretty low priority.
[19:53:31] <mdale> with active content, and audience comes influence.
[19:53:33] <twkozlowski> mdale: but we have some content; not much, but we do have some.
[19:53:38] <mdale> without no one cares.
[19:53:41] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, I think the biggest challenge in the 21st century right now is governance
[19:53:45] <twkozlowski> and as someone said, transcoding the video isn't the hardest part
[19:53:53] <HaeB> twkozlowski: so instead of "It worked nice so far." you actually meant "it will work nice, but i can't explain how"
[19:53:53] <twkozlowski> shooting an encyclopaedic video is harder.
[19:53:53] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, anything that contributes to understanding of our governance is a plus
[19:53:54] <geniice> fabriceflorin the history of encyclopedias and dictionaries suggests not very important.
[19:54:14] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, slightly less urgent for h.264 perhaps, but somewhat more urgent for global warming and such ;-)
[19:54:18] <lvillaWMF> haha
[19:54:27] <lvillaWMF> well, these are different from that problem
[19:54:33] <NotASpy> AVRS: the D4/D800/D7000 SLRs use H.264/MPEG-4 with AVC. They're already popular, but per Coren, I too wonder if the transcoding of videos is the reason why there are so few videos. We should have more videos than we do.
[19:54:34] <YuviPanda> geniice: the history of encyclopedias and dictionaries also seem to suggest that letting anyone edit is not very important.
[19:54:35] <twkozlowski> HaeB: if you think that's what I meant, then so be it.
[19:54:39] <AVRS> There are VP9 and Opus coming too
[19:54:48] <Philippe> So, i'm gonna have to head out before too long..... I see the issues with soem serious new layers of complexity here though....
[19:54:51] <aude> in terms of "encyclopedia", i think people only want short clips in articles
[19:54:52] <Coren> geniice: Really? the history of encyclopedias and dictionaries also suggests editing is not very important. Only a small upstart that's 13 years old has started doing it. :-)
[19:54:57] <kim_bruning> ossguy, what can wmf do to bolster mozilla? :-)
[19:55:02] <aude> and then we have longer full version on commons
[19:55:15] <aude> people would complain loudly if i dumped an hour long video into an article
[19:55:20] <ossguy> kim_bruning: in what way? to what end? (maybe I'm missing some context)
[19:55:22] <aude> s/would/do
[19:55:23] <Coren> aude: That sounds reasonable.
[19:55:26] <fabriceflorin> This MP4 proposal is based on the assumption that video can be effective to help users learn in the medium that best fits their needs. As online video usage keeps growing rapidly worldwide, videos appear useful to serve our educational mission. From that standpoint, Wikimedia is now lagging far behind other sites in this field and MP4 support could be useful in that respect.
[19:55:27] <sikory> or they just wouldn't watch it
[19:56:08] <aude> or full version can be on internet archives
[19:56:09] <kim_bruning> actually, that's a good question to our discussion-coordinator fabriceflorin (and lvillaWMF alluded) : long term: what can we do to bolster Mozilla on the (standard) field of battle ?
[19:56:16] <fabriceflorin> So is video important to our goals or not? What do you think?
[19:56:36] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, the more different processes I see, the more they all start to look similar
[19:56:38] <aude> fabriceflorin: important but weighed against open format
[19:56:41] <ossguy> kim_bruning: ah, I see; I'm not sure Mozilla can go back at this point
[19:56:45] <aude> both are important
[19:56:46] <twkozlowski> We should ask the question: is the fact that we accept only free formats the reason we have so few video files?
[19:56:47] <ossguy> they've already committed to H.264 support
[19:56:50] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, I need grist for my brain ;-)
[19:56:58] <asaifm> Yes it is important. But the long time support to mp4 is against open access
[19:57:02] <mdale> I think we have tried the free format approach for several years, its important to switch strategies if the current strategy is not working. Google and youtube through support of mp4 have far grater influence in promoting free formats. If we want to promote free formats, we have to have content and participation as a basis. We will have the same near zero influence going forward if we don't have that basis. mp4 is free for usage, we should strati
[19:57:12] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: Mozilla has already made that decision
[19:57:27] <fabriceflorin> kim_bruning: We will reach out to Mozilla to compare notes on this topic. For now, it's worth noting that Mozilla incorporated MP4 into Firefox and most of their products last year:
[19:57:34] <AVRS> Two different issues: allow uploading MP4, and host MP4 for the readers as a first-class format
[19:57:37] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: for this round
[19:57:40] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, right, but there's always a next round!
[19:57:45] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: right
[19:57:50] <fabriceflorin> OK, folks, we're almost out of time. Any final comments or questions?
[19:57:54] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, yes, like I said, this was a long term question.
[19:58:02] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: and the best way we can influence them in the next round, as I said earlier, is to *have content*
[19:58:12] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, indeed you did mention that.
[19:58:16] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: if we have a million videos, we can have a lot of influence in the next round of the discussion, not just for Mozilla, but for many vendors
[19:58:30] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, if you have a write-up about that you can attach to the RFC, you might be able to tilt things one-way or the other :-)
[19:58:31] <odinho> But as AVRS said, do we allow to upload h264 or any formats now? Is that easy?
[19:58:32] <NotASpy> how valuable is H.264 and MP4 to its patent holders, realistically ?
[19:58:37] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, this is true :-)
[19:58:46] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, but short term we lose ground
[19:58:50] <odinho> If I could just upload my video from my camera, and it'd get transcoded to webm/ogv that would at least be easy.
[19:58:57] <lvillaWMF> kim_bruning: short term, I'm afraid we've already lost that ground :(
[19:59:00] <geniice> lvillaWMF you got data on how many sites have a million videos?
[19:59:03] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, so this needs to be explained and worked out very carefully
[19:59:06] <kim_bruning> lvillaWMF, *nod*
[19:59:12] <geniice> odinho have many encyclopedic videos have you made
[19:59:14] <lvillaWMF> geniice: not offhand; probably not more than a handful, though
[19:59:25] <ossguy> it seems like several people are in favor of uploading in MP4, but not publishing in MP4
[19:59:39] <lvillaWMF> geniice: to be clear, having a million videos (or whatever the # is) is not a magic solution
[19:59:45] <fabriceflorin> Thank you all for your helpful comments! I encourage everyone to participate in the RfC, if you haven't already:
[19:59:58] <mdale> ossguy: seems like not very free .. to restrict the source materials from the users.
[19:59:59] <lvillaWMF> geniice: YouTube obviously has a lot of videos and it did not end the VP8/H264 discussion.
[20:00:00] <Keegan> fabriceflorin: I'll post the logs :)
[20:00:16] <fabriceflorin> And we would also be grateful for your comments about this proposed Multimedia Vision for 2016:
[20:00:16] <lvillaWMF> geniice: but I think the only reason that discussion did not end earlier was because of YouTube.
[20:00:16] <fabriceflorin>
[20:00:29] <geniice> Out of interst how many people on this channel have uploaded a video to wikipedia and how many have tried?
[20:00:31] <fabriceflorin> Keegan: Thanks for posting the logs.
[20:00:32] <marktraceur> Keegan: If people continue talking it may be useful to wait a while
[20:00:32] <ossguy> mdale: the lesser evil perhaps, though?
[20:00:33] <AVRS> ossguy: Yes: conversion does happen anyway. Though most videos need to be edited, too.
[20:00:44] <mdale> ossguy: I don't think h.264 is evil.
[20:00:50] <mdale> its a codec
[20:01:00] <ossguy> ok, I didn't mean to make it a moral stance; sorry
[20:01:00] <Keegan> marktraceur: Yeah I am
[20:01:16] <ossguy> the less-problematic option, given Wikimedia's goals
[20:01:20] <fabriceflorin> geniice: I have uploaded a couple dozen videos to Commons. It's been a hard experience for me, personally. I am a long-time TV producer and reasonably tech-savvy.
[20:01:25] <AVRS> mdale: also different ways: provide MP4 in HTML5 (worse) or only as a source file (better)
[20:01:33] <mdale> it has royalties in certain situations, it should be leveraged to achieve wikipedia's Golas in certain domains
[20:01:37] <odinho> geniice: I have made many videos, but I don't think any of them are encyclopedic. :)
[20:01:41] <twkozlowski> fabriceflorin: was the hard part on Commons part?
[20:01:52] <twkozlowski> fabriceflorin: I thought uploading stuff through UW was pretty easy, to be honest.
[20:02:06] <mdale> AVRS: I don't think that addresses the main issue… viewing experience is crap on mobile.
[20:02:21] <mdale> or non existant today.
[20:02:23] <geniice> Historicaly the tricky bit was using ffmpeg2theora if you weren't command line savy
[20:02:26] * marktraceur goes to get lunch
[20:02:26] <twkozlowski> If you have a video ready, transcoding it takes minutes, and is as simple as one command (or a few clicks of a button).
[20:02:38] <mdale> we developed all sorts of tools to try and make it eaiser
[20:02:42] <mdale>
[20:02:44] <mdale> for example
[20:02:45] <marktraceur> I'll check back and definitely read the logs later, thanks all for coming
[20:02:58] <mdale> but it does not solve the mobile situation .. its not as open of a platform
[20:03:17] <twkozlowski> geniice: I have uploaded multiple videos, and some of them have been used in Wikipedia articles.
[20:03:38] <twkozlowski> We had a video with Obama's speech on Boston bombings inside the Wikipedia articles within hours.
[20:03:39] <fabriceflorin> twkozlowski: There were issues with transcoding (Firefogg doesn't always work for me and Miro has poor resolution), as well as uploading and adding all the relevant information. Then when I tried to share the videos with people in my community, many couldn't view the video files, because their browser or mobile phone would not let them. So I often post important videos to Vimeo or YouTube, if it's important to me that people see them.
[20:03:46] <johnsu01> thanks for hosting this, talk to you all on the RFC page :)
[20:03:47] <AVRS> I think at the FSF's sites, there have been Ogg Theora videos that played poorly in some players. I've never had such a problem with my videos.
[20:03:57] <AVRS> Or with most Theora videos.
[20:04:22] <HaeB> twkozlowski: i upload the wmf metrics meeting every month, and the conversion from mp4 to webm takes over an hour on my laptop
[20:04:26] <twkozlowski> fabriceflorin: you're partially talking about UW and the need to properly describe a file on Commons
[20:04:30] <twkozlowski> that's unrelated.
[20:05:00] <twkozlowski> How many 1-hour encyclopedic videos would you watch?
[20:05:00] <AVRS> (I've always used command line transcoders, that seemed complex)
[20:05:09] <twkozlowski> aside from documentaries.
[20:06:09] <AVRS> twkozlowski: what is a 1-hour encyclopedic video that is not a documentary and is worth watching w/o seeking?
[20:06:19] <AVRS> and not a speech
[20:06:30] <twkozlowski> no idea, but HaeB brought an example of monthly metrics meetings videos
[20:06:33] <twkozlowski> these take an hour
[20:07:02] <AVRS> Are you wondering if they are worth transcoding at all?
[20:07:07] <geniice> Videos I've made myself have always maxed out at under a minute. EG
[20:07:17] <twkozlowski> no, he said that these take more than a few minutes to transcode, AVRS
[20:07:31] <twkozlowski> (I think) HaeB
[20:07:34] <Coren> twkozlowski: I would expect that encyclopedic vidoes worth watching are those of historical events, speeches, and so on.
[20:08:04] <Coren> POTS addresses seem to me like something we'd want.
[20:08:15] <twkozlowski> We have lots of them.
[20:08:16] <Coren> (For instance)
[20:08:21] <HaeB> this is about blanket rhetorical claims like "<twkozlowski> If you have a video ready, transcoding it takes minutes"
[20:08:22] <brion> there's also the question of collecting source material, then editing it *within* the wikimedia system
[20:08:31] <AVRS> events yes, but they can be unique and then should not be provided additionally in MP4
[20:08:31] <brion> rather than doing all your editing offline where it can't be replicated
[20:08:33] <twkozlowski> HaeB: and that's absolutely true
[20:08:50] <HaeB> for your personal use case
[20:08:53] <twkozlowski> there are very few videos that would take more than that
[20:09:04] <Coren> AVRS: Why? To make sure fewer people can watch them?
[20:09:28] <AVRS> Coren: if a video is unique, it's an incentive to learn to watch in a free format
[20:09:29] <geniice> 25 min stuff does exist
[20:09:31] <geniice>
[20:09:34] <HaeB> in general, it seems pretty clear that there is a demand for longer videos, or (for example) the community wouldn't have asked to raise the 100mb upload limit
[20:09:38] <AVRS> I mean a video not originally in MP4.
[20:09:48] <HaeB> and later 500mb to 1000
[20:10:10] <Coren> AVRS: You're presuming that (a) that option is actually available to anyone, that (b) they have the capacity to do so and (c) that they have any reason to do so and not just "meh, broken"
[20:10:18] <Coren> AVRS: I contend that all three are false.
[20:10:39] <AVRS> Coren: I mean only videos for which option (c) is irrelevant
[20:10:50] <AVRS> Coren: and option (a)... iPhones?
[20:11:17] <AVRS> Coren: do mobile devices have smaller resolution?
[20:11:40] <AVRS> Or are tablets also mobile devices and have high resolution?
[20:11:54] <Coren> AVRS: All mobiles. Last I checked, no android phone had hardware support for VP8 or Theora
[20:12:27] <Coren> AVRS: Yes, tables are mobile-ish in constraints (they have battery life as an important consideration, and more limited hardware than most desktops)
[20:13:52] <Coren> Also (a) includes people who use Internet cafes, school computers, etc. Any device over which they do not have administrative control.
[20:15:06] <AVRS> There is/was a host for source files