WebProNews » StreamCast

Microsoft Taking On JPEG

Nathan Weinberg — Thu, 25 May 2006 21:23:00 +0000

Microsoft has unveiled its new image compression format, called Windows Media Photo, which will be natively supported in Windows Vista and upgrades to XP.

WM Photo features 24:1 compression while retaining far more detail than JPEG or JPEG 2000 formats. Microsoft is shooting to have higher quality than typical digital cameras while at a 12:1 level (most cameras use 6:1, so that’s a very good thing).

The format also has advanced features, including processing to only show part of the image to shrink it, and rotating without re-encoding the image.

The new image format was received with cautious enthusiasm by some of the WinHEC attendees. Ralf Mueller, an application planner at mobile phone maker Sony Ericsson, said he would look into the new format just as his company looked into supporting Windows Media Audio and Windows Media Video.

“Considering our development cycle, I could not see us supporting Windows Media Photo before 2008,” Mueller said.

Yet, success will depend on adoption, Wells said. Microsoft will need to get players such as Adobe Systems and Apple Computer on board to win over the graphics professionals, he noted. A major unknown is licensing, which Microsoft has not yet addressed. “Licensing can kill this,” Wells said.

Microsoft has finished the first official version of the “porting kit” software needed to build support for Windows Media Photo into devices and platforms other than Windows. It should be available soon, Crow said.

Licensing details for the technology are still being ironed out. These could be a concern, Crow acknowledged, but “the philosophy has been that licensing should not be a restriction” to adoption, he said.

I gotta say, even if the format was terrible, I’m delighted to see Microsoft do this. There is no conceivable reason image compression should stay the same, no more than video or audio codecs should. Microsoft pushing a new format invites development and improvement, and hopefully everyone will win in the end.

Here’s what I want to know: Are we going to get Windows Media Photo for Web? Right now, for websites concerned with bandwidth, there’s a lot of improvement needed for browser-served images. I’d like Microsoft to optimize the lower end of the codec for web pages, saving every possible bit, and doing a much better job than JPEG/GIF/PNG are doing. Just look at how poorly modern image compression handles Windows Vista screenshots, and you’ll see what I mean.

And if Microsoft is smart, it’ll realize that owning a popular media format is more important than making money off of it, since adoption of Windows Media Photo will likely help calm people who are psychologically averse to using Windows Media Audio and Windows Media Video files. Give away a lifetime non-commercial license of WM Photo for free to Apple and Adobe, please!

(via TechMeme)

Add to Del.icio.us | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Nathan Weinberg writes the popular InsideGoogle blog, offering the latest news and insights about Google and search engines.

Visit the InsideGoogle blog.

Morpheus Gives Red Pill To eBay

WebProNews Staff — Wed, 24 May 2006 19:43:14 +0000

The company behind the Morpheus file sharing software, StreamCast Networks, updated a lawsuit against Skype’s founders and added eBay to the list of defendants.

"Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?" -- Morpheus, The Matrix

Twenty-two defendants including online auctioneer eBay have been named in StreamCast’s action against the original Kazaa co-founders, Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis. The duo also founded Skype, which they sold to eBay in 2005. Now they have been accused of a plot to steal away StreamCast’s right to match offers for the technology by selling it to companies they secretly controlled.

StreamCast described the actions of Skype’s/Kazaa’s founders and the other defendants (but not eBay) as an “elaborate over-seas shell game” focused on stealing and profiting from StreamCast’s FastTrack technology. FastTrack had been the component in Morpheus that enabled peer-to-peer connections to take place.

FastTrack allegedly made its way into the Skype VoIP software, according to the complaint. StreamCast claims it had the first right to acquire FastTrack and other assets, but through the transfer of the technology to various holding companies set up by Skype’s founders, they were able to take the technology and the Morpheus userbase away from StreamCast.

“We are taking action because we believe the rights to the Skype and FastTrack technologies were swept out from under our feet, and our 28 million Morpheus users were stolen from us,” said Michael Weiss, CEO for StreamCast Networks. “The real story needs to be told.”

The company also suggested eBay did not do enough to determine that Zennstrom and Friis had been involved with Kazaa and Sharman Networks of Australia, Kazaa’s distributor. Also, they said eBay should have known that StreamCast had ownership rights to the technology, though Skype’s founder said otherwise.

StreamCast asked for actual and punitive damages of at least $16.4 billion, an injunction against Skype, and a jury trial.

"Welcome to the real world." -- Morpheus, The Matrix

—

Add to Del.icio.us | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

Supreme Court To Hear Peer-2-Peer Client Grokster Case

Chris Richardson — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:27:02 +0000

P2P client Grokster and MGM Studios are preparing to face in Supreme Court on Tuesday in a case having broad ramifications towards the use and sharing of entertainment-based properties.

According to Wired.com, the MGM Studios vs. Grokster “pits all the major movie studios and record labels against Grokster and StreamCast Networks, two operators of file-sharing services.” The Supreme Court will see the case after a the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Grokster’s developers were not liable when users of their client violate various copyright laws.

This Appeals Court decision followed the ruling of the 1984 Supreme Court Sony Betamax case. The Electronic Frontier Foundation describes the ramifications of the Betamax case as:

Sony v. Universal Studios, or the Betamax case, is a landmark copyright case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984 that has sheltered a wide array of technology innovators from lawsuits at the hands of the entertainment industries. In fact, it is thanks to the Betamax ruling that the makers of not just VCRs, but also every other technology capable of being used for infringement (e.g., photocopiers, personal computers, Cisco routers, CD burners, and Apple’s iPod) can continue to sell their wares without fear of lawsuits from copyright owners.

Wired goes on to reveal the Supreme Court should have a decision by June concerning the Grokster/MGM trial.

Because Grokster is relying on the Betamax decision and the EFF is representing StreamCast during these hearings, it is important to understand their position:

It is remarkable to compare the arguments the entertainment industry is making against P2P in 2005 to the ones it made against the VTR (what they called VCRs back then) in 1982. A comparison makes it clear that the entertainment industry is in 2005 trying to roll back the protections established more than twenty years earlier in the Betamax case.

In their synopsis, the EFF provided a table demonstrating the similarities between the Grokster case and the Betamax ruling:

P2P

“By design, Grokster and StreamCast are used overwhelmingly for infringement.”

Betamax

“The district court expressly found pervasive librarying activities, and the uncontroverted survey evidence established that 69% to 75% of all Betamax owners maintain large libraries of off-the-air recordings and that the vast majority of programs in those libraries are copyrighted motion pictures…. This same survey shows that less than 9% of all recordings consists of religious (0%), educational (1.6%), and sports (7.3%) programs — the type of material purportedly owned by most of the limited number of witnesses who testified that they did not object to VTR copying.”

The Supreme Court nevertheless held that the use of the Betamax to record programs authorized for recording, less than 9% of uses, was a substantial noninfringing use sufficient to protect Sony from copyright liability.

P2P

“…Grokster and StreamCast have chosen not to implement available technologies that would block or filter infringing content on their networks.”

Betamax

“[Noninfringing] uses could also continue if petitioners were directed to devise a technological means to prevent VTR copying only of programs owned by respondents and others who object to such copying.”

Disney and Universal claimed that an inexpensive “jamming” circuit could be inexpensively added to the Betamax that would respond to a “broadcast flag” embedded in TV broadcasts.

P2P

“Unlike the defendant in Sony Betamax, Grokster and StreamCast have done far more than merely sell a product with the constructive knowledge that some buyers might put it to infringing use.”

Betamax

“Since petitioners’ advertisements, brochures and instruction manuals unquestionably cause, urge, encourage and aid VTR purchasers to infringe respondents’ copyrights, petitioners are liable by analogy to [patent law] notwithstanding their claim that VTRs are staple articles of commerce…. [P]etitioners’ advertisements “exhort” Betamax purchasers to record “favorite shows,” “movies,” “classic movies” and “novels for television” and to “build a library.”

P2P

“Infringing content is the powerful magnet that draws users to respondents’ services and fuels their profits…. [T]here is no evidence that these noninfringing uses would attract a single user, much less enough users to create commercially sustainable networks.”

Betamax

“Unlike cameras, typewriters and Xerox machines, whose primary market is derived from non-infringing uses, there would be little, if any, market for VTRs if they could not be used for infringing purposes. Petitioners’ unwillingness to devise a technological means of preventing copying of copyrighted works makes plain that without the ability to make unconsented copies of the copyrighted motion pictures owned by respondents and amici, there would be little if any market for VTRs.”

Chris Richardson is a search engine writer and editor for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest search news.