Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

98 comments

·February 14, 2025

amiga386

> However, in 2023, MPEG LA was acquired by Via-LA, and everything changed. When I reached out to Via-LA in late 2024 to confirm FFmpegKit’s position under their terms, I received no response.

The real reason. Greedy bastards, and the risk of your business being set on fire by greedy bastards, even if they don't have a right to anything - they can still threaten to waste your time and money and offer a shakedown instead.

I've never used FFmpegKit (I've mostly just used the command-line, or indirectly via yt-dlp and Handbrake) but just hearing about it now, the maintainer sounds like an awesome person who really went above and beyond to support free software, so hooray for them! I bet it was useful for thousands of other projects, and those people are all grateful too.

cm2187

From the article, Via-LA just didn't respond to the author, that doesn't really say anything about their position. It's a bit premature to call them greedy bastard. The author is doing this out of an abundance of caution, not in response of a legal action.

bayindirh

Considering that MPEG-LA and in turn Via-LA only provides non-commercial licenses with the hardware which can encode/decode the codecs under their umbrella, and (Via-LA) stays silent on a matter so they can snipe people from the distance, they are the de-facto greedy ones.

ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42736254

amiga386

If I write to the Mafia asking to confirm they won't burn my store to the ground, they won't write back saying "no".

They're not obligated to respond, and they enjoy the fear, uncertainty and doubt their non-response creates.

iambateman

If I ask my city if they will enforce their explicitly written zoning policy against renting a single room to a tenant, they won’t write back. But they also have no intention of enforcing that policy.

It doesn’t make them evil…just bureaucratic.

doawoo

Having dealt with MPEG-LA before, it makes me so wildly angry that a company composed of nothing but lawyers can suck money out of any product that wants to use a widely supported, arguably critical video codec.

The process for reporting to them for sales is also horrible. Uploading excel spreadsheets to an ASP.NET backend that's barely holding together. It's minimal effort from them to leverage all possible legal action over you. Horrible.

duped

I'm no lawyer but I feel like a company shouldn't have standing to contest a patent if they can't demonstrate damages, like a product losing sales because someone else is selling a competing product using technology under their patent.

And "we paid for something and want ROI" are not damages. There's no legal right to profit from an investment. You gotta use it or lose it.

DannyBee

Unfortunately, patent rights are quite literally the right to exclude others from doing things. That's it.

Patent owners don't even have the right to make the invention themselves (because it may infringe on other patents).

So your problem is fairly foundational.

webstrand

The judiciary has decided to ignore the preamble "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". If that language was respected, the way parents currently work would be clearly unconstitutional.

dylan604

In this case though, licensing their code is their use of the product. Don't let your ire of patent trolls lump everyone together. I'm not saying MPEG/Via-LA are angels, but they own rights to code that is used by millions while holding active licenses with people using that code.

duped

I don't have ire for patent trolls, they exist within the system they create. I have ire for the patent business because I've read and written a number of patent applications, and see the entire thing as mostly bogus.

Normally you can't win a lawsuit without proving damages. My overarching point is that buying IP with no intent to use it does not create damages when someone infringes it. And relicensing IP is not "using" the IP to me - you either use it, or lose it. Unless of course, you're the original author (and by author, I mean the humans, not businesses that paid them)

The point of IP laws is to protect creators and encourage development. When the resulting markets do the opposite you have to ask if the design of those laws is flawed, and I really believe that.

kelnos

My ire for patent trolls is distinct.

The patent "business" is just garbage. A company full of lawyers collecting rents on mathematical algorithms does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts".

I think there is still a place for patents, but most of the time they seem to just stifle innovation and increase the cost of everything.

chefandy

As an artist, this sort of shit makes me apoplectic. I’m frustrated that society has no way to compensate people that do creative work for a living other than the same mechanism that virii like this extract money from other people’s work using a paper turnstile and heavy penalties for violations. And between the two kinds of entities, only one realistically even has the significant resources needed to engage the mechanism. I understand that a lot of folks in tech consider both of these usages to be largely equivalent but that’s a different conversation.

echelon

> I’m frustrated that society has no way to compensate people that do creative work for a living other than the same mechanism that virii like this extract money from other people’s work using a paper turnstile and heavy penalties for violations.

Steam, YouTube, Instagram, Patreon, BandCamp, commissions... The creator economy is booming and is on the rise. I've seen some metrics say it's got a 40% CAGR.

MrBeast, PsychicPebbles, VivziePop, Joel Haver - all made brands for themselves. The currency is personal brand. Most of the creators I follow these days are indies, not big studios.

But even excepting that, you can always work for a big studio if you're not interested in the additional headache of working for yourself and building a personal brand. Gaming, film, and music are huge and there are companies hiring in these spaces.

chefandy

You’re conflating “content creators you’re aware of” and the entire collection of industries that comprise commercial art. Indeed, the search engine optimizing celebrity influencer content creation market is booming— a lot of it either being backed by legacy media, re-using other people’s content directly, or being better at marketing AI knockoffs of other people’s content than the original creators. Do you think that any of those content creators hesitate for a second to use copyright protections against someone gaining popularity using their scripts/footage/audio, etc to make the same kind of content? Beyond that, most commercial art isn’t feasible to sell in those mediums. The people benefiting from this is so infinitesimally small compared to and not representative of the many commercial art markets at large— everything from concept artists to graphic designers to dancers— that it’s entirely forgivable to exclude it from analysis altogether, let alone basing your analysis on it. You might as well deem someone with a gunshot wound perfectly healthy based entirely on their hair.

The other direct-sell platforms you referenced have already been flooded by people bulk-creating AI knock-offs. The giant slop hose has already won the race to the bottom making it nearly impossible for people that aren’t already established to get started. It’s most obvious in stock photo markets, but in music, some of the creation tools specifically advertise generating output to avoid triggering copyright scanners.

And no, you can’t just go grab a job at the big studios because a) a lot of them are using, or assuming they’ll soon be able to effectively use, the same AI tools that everyone else is based in other peoples labor and eliminating FTEs, b) since so many commercial artists have been displaced by tech companies essentially selling their work, everybody— including former freelancers and indies— is shooting for the same dwindling set of jobs, and c) nobody in those industries is leaving their jobs because they know it might be the end of their career if they do.

I don’t expect you to understand the markets outside of your area of expertise, but I would appreciate your being less patronizing while you attempt to explain my career to me.

dbspin

'MrBeast' please don't compare this nonsense to creativity. He's a business man, and an extremely dishonest one [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dslLBsHkVzE]. A genius at 'optimising' 'content' for 'the algorithm'. The man has not one creative or artistic bone in his body.

It's enormously disingenuous to compare the rise of hucksters like this to artists or creative professionals.

Further - gaming has just seen the greatest layoffs in history, as all the major studios and publishers attempt to reduce costs and leverage 'AI', since the games as a service model is winner takes all. Independent film is all but dead since the franchise film has taken the box office. And music, are you kidding? Spotify has so cucked musicians that it's actively replacing them with AI generated mush, trained on their work, and the economic disparity is so great there's nothing they can do about it - https://www.fastcompany.com/91170296/spotify-ai-music

doawoo

> all made brands for themselves

Ah there's the magic word! You shouldn't have to be a "brand"... the people you listed are not who I would call "independent".

Capitalism is the root of evil to all this. Sorry.

Gormo

It seems really strange that a library that wraps FFMpeg is being discontinued due to patent concerns with the underlying codecs, but those codecs are only implemented in FFMpeg itself, which continues along without issues.

amiga386

ffmpeg, VLC and its associated projects are hosted in France. There aren't any US companies for the MAFIAA to shakedown, and if they tried to file for software patent infringement in France, the French courts would tell them to fuck off.

So they go after ffmpeg's US-based users/customers instead.

ksec

Are you suggesting using ffmpeg in US is illegal? As far as I am aware there are plenty of US companies using ffmpeg.

amiga386

Using ffmpeg is not illegal.

Any software you write, or even run, may or may not infringe some half-assed patent, and you will never know until the troll wielding it and deliberately trying to keep it hidden, pounces on you, usually demanding money, threatening to use their government-backed exclusive rights to their "invention" so you either pay what they ask, do what they ask, or they sue you for infringement and sometimes win. Larger companies have large troves of patents and they really don't care what's in them, they care that they have lots and you don't, and they can use them to crush you in court unless you give in to whatever they demand.

Some companies you know of may already have given in, and may already be paying licensing fees to patent holders. It sickens me.

I'm not suggesting, I'm telling you there is an entity, formerly MPEG-LA, now Via Licensing Corp, who maintain a pool of patents that supposedly claim exclusive rights to aspects of some of the video codecs implemented in FFMPEG.

If they hear you're making money, and you use video codecs -- ffmpeg's implementation or otherwise -- they may come to shake you down. They get to pick and choose who they accuse of patent infringement. They can do it at any time (before the expiry of the last patent in the pool). They can do it at the point where they'll have maximum leverage over you. Software patents give them that opportunity.

Should they get in touch with you, your response should be made in consultation with qualified lawyers.

https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html

> Q: Bottom line: Should I be worried about patent issues if I use FFmpeg?

> A: Are you a private user working with FFmpeg for your own personal purposes? If so, there is remarkably little reason to be concerned. Are you using FFmpeg in a commercial software product? Read on to the next question...

> Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?

> A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.

HeatrayEnjoyer

Do French courts enforce patents differently?

amiga386

France was one of the first countries in Europe to ban software patents, in 1968.

France is also a party to the European Patent Convention, which specifically states that programs for computers are not patentable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...

Software patents are mainly a US-only thing.

rs186

Part of me wish that there are teams in China or Russia who can take over the development and ignore all the idiotic demands from these associations.

weinzierl

"To get clarity, I consulted an IP law firm. Their review raised concerns about potential risks related to licensing and patents. They recommended retiring the project and removing older binaries as the safest option. They did suggest some alternative paths, but those options would have required significant time, effort, and money, neither of which I could commit."

Thanks to Taner Sener for putting in all the effort! I guess most technical people shudder at the mere thought of dealing with all the legal matters.

bsimpson

Paying contractors to support your free GitHub project is wild.

Open source is beautiful and broken at the same time.

freeone3000

I don’t see this being broken in the slightest! What’s the issue with paying someone to write code you don’t want to?

bsimpson

Feeling obligated to appease unseen internet freeloaders.

If you do it because you want it for your stuff, cool.

If you do it because you feel obliged to appease "the community" who takes for granted that you support them, that's a symptom of the broken model that is open source.

Has echos of the Linux for Apple Silicon guy last week who used to be a Wii modder, tired of the support tickets from entitled pirates, moved to a niche Linux distro, and discovered a similar sense of entitlement in the issue tracker.

kelnos

In general, nothing, but it made me a bit sad that the maintainer believed he "owed" the community (likely 99% full of people who were using his work for free) to the point that he spent money for someone else to do work that he couldn't find time to do himself. Instead of just shuttering the project earlier, and saving that money.

I really hope the "significant sum" he paid was out of donations to the project, and not his own money. Even then, it sounds like he's poured a ton of his time and energy into the project over the years, so even if it was all donated money, he certainly could have kept it for himself without any moral/ethical concerns.

pjc50

Ah, it's MPEG-LA again, the reason why we can't have nice things.

stackedinserter

FTFY the laws that allow MPEG-LA to exist are the reason why we can't have nice things.

DrillShopper

It can be both - just because it's legal for MPEG-LA to act that way it doesn't require them to do so

kelnos

No, but human nature is such that all it takes is a handful of unscrupulous people who see laws that they can use to their financial advantage. We can certainly assign blame to the people who work for MPEG-LA/Via-LA, but ultimately there will always be organizations like that as long as the law allows or incentivizes that sort of thing.

If we care about outcomes, the only thing to do is get the law changed so companies like that can't exist. Not because they are banned, but because there's no business model there.

r2vcap

I’ve never used FFmpeg-kit—I always use FFmpeg from distro packages (Linux, Homebrew) or build it selectively—so I’m not sure how important it is. Is it just a thin wrapper around the FFmpeg C API for various platforms?

If that’s the case, software engineers relying on it should learn how to build FFmpeg from source and handle platform-specific challenges (especially on Android). The loss of the overall community support doesn’t seem that significant, right?

That said, whether someone uses FFmpeg-kit or builds FFmpeg manually, the legal risks remain the same. If they don’t understand codec patents (like x264 and MPEG-LA) or GPL/LGPL obligations, they could face lawsuits or be forced to release their code under GPL. The real issue isn’t FFmpeg-kit—it’s whether developers actually understand these legal implications.

Artoooooor

Ah, patent rights, when even legality of something can be debatable. How the heck is anyone supposed to follow the law if for every action A they have to ask lawyer if A is legal?

pipeline_peak

“Guy gets tired of doing whole ass job in his spare time”

Jk, thank you for your work!

bobbob1921

Its unfortunate that more corporations don’t contribute to the same open source that they make use of for profit. (I know some do however).

j1elo

Why #1: not enough time and money.

The project had become a time sink, I get it. But that's exactly why OSS is a "What You See Is What You Get".

Normally I'd encourage any OSS maintainer in this position to just announce their intentions and let the community (as small as it might be) decide to either inherit maintenance and development of the project, or let it languish. I don't see any reason to close the repos so dramatically, depriving potential future readers of reaching the source code and improving upon it, as is the spirit of OSS.

The project had also become an actual cost, getting to the point of hiring contractors to make releases and please users (who would most probably have been unwilling to pay for that themselves, as my experience tells me most FOSS users are just freeloaders with no intention at all of supporting the project in any way or means). Well, what can I say, this conversation appears from time to time in HN. OSS maintainers need to have that special kind of ability to say "No" or even "I don't care" because otherwise the project (and its users) tend to absorb the author's attention, goodwill, wallet, and enthusiasm. It's very healthy, as a maintainer, to be able to ruthlessly point to the License file whenever someone complains and even _requires_ attention. The "Provided on an AS-IS BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND" phrase is wonderful.

I understand the author. The feeling of attachment and goodwill, the desire to show the highest attention to detail and quality support for a project is always there. We all experience it. But it's important to remember at all times that OSS is just an act of generosity to the universe, it cannot become a self-induced hell.

Why #2: legal concerns around potential litigations.

Yeah, I know it myself too: distributing FFmpeg binaries can be a legal risk if some codecs were enabled in the build.

Still no reason to shut everything down... or is it? My gut instinct for this is to "just" (I know, not a trivial change, but not astronomically complicated either) change to a "provide your own FFmpeg executable, please" model. Then, proceed with abandoning the project, as per the previous point.

Or just move everything to an anonymous Chinese Git provider.. and forget about receiving legal threats in there (just half-joking!)

ericdiao

FFMpegKit at https://github.com/arthenica/ffmpeg-kit is discontinued by the author