Launching Xcode If nothing happens, download Xcode and try again. Latest commit. Git stats 6 commits 1 branch 0 tags. Failed to load latest commit information. What you are licensing for the RPi is Broadcom's specific implementation for on-board hardware acceleration. To implement that, Broadcom will have paid a licence fee for the use of the patented idea, and have invested time and effort to create the implementation.
If they choose to continue to only permit its use on payment of a fee, that's their business and it does not expire just because the patent has. Military and Automotive Electronics Design Engineer retired For the best service: make your thread title properly descriptive , and put all relevant details in the first post including links - don't make us search!
Last edited by RichardS on Mon May 21, am, edited 1 time in total. How would you get paid if your employer didn't make an income? The choice is simple: if you want what a commercial enterprise has to offer, you pay for it or do without. Trying to find ways to have it for free destroys industry. Contrary to popular belief, humorous signatures are allowed.
To a certain extent, I agree. If license fees for MPEG codecs have kept codec researchers in jobs, then that's a good thing. However, it's difficult for me to believe that there are literally thousands of substantial patentable improvements over the state of the art in HEVC. How many of those companies are paying for cutting-edge research and how many just got a patent that mentioned coding so they could get a part of the royalties? I have neither the time nor the expertise to go through that list and tell you which are "worthy" and which are "trollish", but its farcical to suggest that all of them are so valuable that the owners deserve to rent-seek the entire video industry.
MaxBarraclough on Feb 15, It's trendy to pretend that pharma patents are the Devil incarnate because they enable exploitative pricepoints by the patent-holder, but the fact is that's what enables the profit motive for the research in the first place. At least, I've never seen a serious argument against this, only righteous blustering. The fact that US pharma companies spend more on advertising than on research, has no bearing here. Much of the research is done in non-commercial settings.
Then companies pick the most promising stuff, patent it and run clinical trials. The real cost is the clinical trials, not the basic research. Read the wording, they often talk about the "cost of bringing a drug to market" which isn't so much the discovery phase as the "prove it" phase.
As an example of exploitation see the statin drugs used to lower cholesterol. These were originally isolated from an ancient Chinese herbal "red yeast rice" and found to be effective. So some company patented the molecule, did clinical trials, and profit! I chose this one because I have personal experience getting dramatic reduction in my cholesterol from taking red-yeast-rice.
It's also a nice example of how the system is broken. We all could have benefited from trials proving that red-yeast-rice reduces cholesterol, but that's not what happened. The company would not have funded the trials if they couldn't patent the molecule. IMHO if clinical trials were cheaper there would be no need for granting monopolies via patents to cover the costs.
I also don't see why trials are so expensive. There are plenty of doctors treating plenty of patients that are willing to try things.
All we really need is a set of rules to protect people from irresponsible trials, and formal study procedures to document results and determine efficacy. It doesn't seem too complicated right?
No IP protection would destroy the pharma industry. There would have to be a redesign of the entire institution as we know it. Researcher: "I've found that this rhinovirus is devastating to certain kinds of tumors when injected into them We need to do more testing, and in humans.
Do something else, or find a way to 'make it better' so we we can patent it and make money. Now imagine this: Researcher: "I've found that this rhinovirus is devastating to certain kinds of tumors when injected into them We could test that virus on a number of people if they were willing to try it.
I'd argue that it would cost the government less to fund the studies than to pay medicaid costs for the patented treatments. Sure, change would need to happen but it would happen fast, and in the mean time nobody would eliminate current treatments - they're already established and profitable. There was a paper from one of the Fed branch offices about this. It turns out that the US has two independent mechanisms to help pharma companies make money: patents and FDA-granted exclusivity.
It's unclear that patents are needed. I admit I don't know much about the latter, but what about international markets? An observation without any kind of control is not really good evidence.
Of course that means it's not evidence of the contrary either. However I do agree that profit is a very powerful motivator, and I see no easy way to make sure the money is better spent otherwise although there's no reason for all research to be profit driven, publicly funded research can definitely be good thing even if only as competition.
However I get the impression that we're at the point where there are so many things that can be cured if money is no objection that money is starting to become an objection, and nobody seems to be prepared to do what is essentially putting a price on human life. The original argument for patents was to avoid secret sauces that die with their companies.
The reality is that companies that would use secret sauces still do, and those whose technology would be trivially reverse-engineerable patent it. Houshalter on Feb 15, And the distinction between designing an algorithm and designing a machine is kind of arbitrary. If you are going to get rid of one you should get rid of the other and abolish patents entirely. At least the core concepts should not be patentable under any system. And then any inventions around it done at publicly funded institutions should probably not be patentable under any system.
Companies don't really invent very much, they usually find things or take existing things and try to monopolize them with patents. The distinction isn't arbitrary. There is no calculation you can perform on an abstract Turing machine that will cause it to generate electricity or thrust or refine steel or physically prevent someone from accidentally sticking their hand in a saw blade.
Houshalter on Feb 18, I don't see the difference. The process of designing a thing is the same whether it's an algorithm or a pile of gears. Sure real world inventions can involve new scientific discoveries. But most don't, and scientific discoveries shouldn't be patentable anyway.
That won't work. Already today many companies don't even patent stuff anymore, but claim their technologies to be trade secrets, and still manage to prosecute anyone trying to share them. Certain subjects should not be patentable. Medical research should be funded by the government and the results should be in the public domain. The lives not lost because of the drive to discover patentable research would need to be measured against that.
I assume you do not believe there is such a drive, but I think that researchers can have multiple, co-existing motivations. Maybe we can still keep the patent tag, but devoid of any other conditions except that this one tech was created by the patent holder. In this case, the "patentable" motivation will still be valid. Out of interest, what of the research that the government inevitably declines to fund, for whatever reason?
Should a private entity be allowed to do the research and monetise the results? Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. The Overflow Blog. Maximum Purchase:. Currently: Delete Maximum Size:. MediaInfo will tell you the specific video codec for any video file you examine.
Even if you are using another Raspberry Pi distribution, the command line instructions and the manual configuration are still applicable to you and your Pi unit.
First, we will walk you through getting the serial number off the board and purchasing the licenses you need. In order to purchase the licenses you need, you will have to retrieve the unique serial number for your Raspberry Pi board. This number is not printed anywhere on the circuit board but is instead stored in the hardware; it must be retrieved using the command prompt. For the full list of control keys, see the output of omxplayer -k.
Enable Additional Video Codecs. HACK Why buy codecs? Isn't codec free? Wed Apr 09, pm Hello, I have this question: Why do you need to pay to buy the extra codecs? Aren't the codecs open-source or at least free? Re: Why buy codecs? Wed Apr 09, pm H is include in the base price of the Raspi's.
The other codecs need to be paid for. This is because they are not free or opensource actually, even people using the open source codecs on PC should be paying a licence fee.Advanced Search Search Tips. You raspberry pi mpeg 2 codec free need to provide your device's internal digit serial number as part of your order. Your serial number is not the number printed on your board. Prices include VAT. Prices exclude shipping, which will be calculated at checkout. For cancellations and returns, contact raspberry pi mpeg 2 codec free raspberrypi. Please wait Raspberry Pi Store. Search Advanced Search Search Tips. MPEG-2 license key. Minimum Purchase:. Maximum Purchase:. Currently: Delete Maximum Size:. Find Similar Products kpeg Category License keys. VC-1 license key. Choose Options. Related Products. You Recently Viewed This key will enable a single Raspberry Pi (excluding Raspberry Pi 4) to decode MPEG-2 video in hardware. You will need to provide your device's internal. On the Raspberry Pi 4, the hardware codecs for MPEG2 or VC1 are permanently decode_MPG2 is a licence key to allow hardware MPEG-2 decoding, e.g. There are open-source, free, and paid for codecs (2) MPEG4, MPEG2 & VC-1 are paid-for, closed source codecs (3) I can play MPEG4 videos. This doesn't mean the Raspberry Pi is not capable of decoding media encoded in MPEG-2 or VC-1, but that by default the codecs cannot run. You normally have to pay a license to use it on the pi. Do not confuse this with the x hardware en/decoder in the Pi, it is free. devsmash.online › nucular › raspi-keygen. Reverse-engineering efforts to generate license keys for Raspberry Pi This is an effort to reverse-engineer the Raspberry Pi license key check for MPEG-2 and should be only taken for the always-allowed H codec) to always be taken. The point of buying the license keys is to enable hardware decoding of MPEG-2 and VC-1 — see Why does the Raspberry Pi need a MPEG (currently: devsmash.online) their encoder/decoder legally, so perhaps future raspberry pi will have different The Alliance for Open Media was formed because royalty-free audio and video. the Raspberry Pi would have to process video files with software codecs for They also couldn't afford a blanket license for the MPEG-2 codec, so they worked. Cut and paste the formatted license entries you received in your email, like so:. Question feed. After that I could load and unload disks and play them. Post as a guest Name. The new moderator agreement is now live for moderators to accept across the…. For cancellations and returns, contact store raspberrypi. Transgender employees in tech: Why this "progressive" industry has more work to do. Do you plan to use it for a project at the headquarters of the MPAA? Delivered Tuesdays Sign up today. It needs to be externally powered. Leave the existing entries alone.