5 ms·

Finally a worthy debunking of the FUD spread by Mozilla, Thom Holwerda etc. regarding the license fees surrounding H.264. I wonder if this article will finally

Finally a worthy debunking of the FUD spread by Mozilla, Thom Holwerda etc. regarding the license fees surrounding H.264. I wonder if this article will finally be enough to make people understand that Mozilla et al. are either a) confused or b) deliberately spreading lies to instill fear of the H.264 format (while, oddly enough, in the past, they never made a sound about MPEG-1 Layer-III, MPEG-2 video, MPEG-4 ASP video, or AAC audio, all covered by the same licenses). Really, get it into your heads already: 1) YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LICENSING FEES AS AN END CONSUMER ENJOYING MPEG VIDEO/AUDIO 2) YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LICENSING FEES WHEN DISTRIBUTING FREE MPEG VIDEO/AUDIO IN A NON-COMMERCIAL CONTEXT 3) YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LICENSING FEES WHEN DEVELOPING A VIDEO/AUDIO CODEC THAT CREATES MPEG VIDEO/AUDIO WHEN THE SOFTWARE IS FREE AND NON-COMMERCIAL 4) YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LICENSING FEES WHEN YOU, USING ANY SOFTWARE, CREATE MPEG VIDEO/AUDIO THAT WILL BE USED IN A FREE, NON-COMMERCIAL CONTEXT addendum, 5) YOU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LICENSING FEES WHEN YOU DEVELOP SOFTWARE THAT CONTAINS MPEG VIDEO/AUDIO DECODERS/ENCODERS, IF THE DECODERS/ENCODERS AND THE HOUSING SOFTWARE IS FREE AND NON-COMMERCIAL The last point is aimed at developers of software like video players and web browsers, such as Firefox, which just happens to reside in a commercial context due to the massive, multi-million revenues generated by f.e. sponsored search, thus being subject to licensing fees for incorporating H.264 playback...which the Mozilla Foundation of course don't want to be subjected to, because that means less revenue. Remember: profit is the foundation of all industry, and maximizing that profit is the goal of all industry. Sorry for the yelling; just had to get that out of my system. Stupid, greedy Mozilla keep pushing my buttons.

acg 16y ago
There's nothing wrong with Mozilla. The browsing consumer has a choice to choose another browser. I happen to think more than one video format in HTML5 is good for the consumer. If H264 does become the dominant format, then there is nothing to stop the licensing being revised a a future date. To prevent this perhaps you would have an alternative codec ready as an alternative so licensing remains competitively priced. Monopoly isn't the foundation of industry, but often laziness. Mozilla's outpourings, I think, are more of a campaign to get a free alternative to E264. As with all campaigns it could be economical with the truth. It remains to be seen if they have made the right move.
- hackermom 16y ago
  What's wrong are the misconceptions they are deliberately spreading to further their agenda. I am all for multiple choices just like you; I dislike that f.e. Safari has only H.264 support in its native HTML5 video component (problem solved if you have the XiphQT plugin, which takes 2 seconds to download and copy to your ~/Library) just as much as I dislike that Firefox has only Theora support. I want both FF and Safari to support both so the user doesn't have to friggin' switch browser to enjoy this and that website's content - thankfully I can stick to Safari since XiphQT does an awesome job, and I'm damned happy to be able to see both H.264 and Theora content without having to juggle applications. And, admittedly, had I been in charge of picking just one codec for the future, the choice would be so easy, because in this debate I am all about video/audio quality for the end user, and I rrrrreally don't think the world of web video would ever have the carpet swept from under its feet by the MPEG-LA. The notable difference here is that the H.264 camp in this debate isn't spewing bullshit all over the place.
  - metajack 16y ago
    Have you missed the vague patent threats against Theora? MPEG-LA has spewed their share of bullshit, and Thompson before it spewed plenty as well.
jamesbritt 16y ago
FTFA: " ...using H.264 to distribute free internet video to end users doesn't cost a thing, and won't cost anything until at least 2015. After that, it's up in the air, and that's a bridge we'll have to cross when we come to it -- there's a chance the MPEG-LA could start charging a royalty for free video in five years."

acg 16y ago

There's nothing wrong with Mozilla. The browsing consumer has a choice to choose another browser. I happen to think more than one video format in HTML5 is good for the consumer. If H264 does become the dominant format, then there is nothing to stop the licensing being revised a a future date. To prevent this perhaps you would have an alternative codec ready as an alternative so licensing remains competitively priced. Monopoly isn't the foundation of industry, but often laziness. Mozilla's outpourings, I think, are more of a campaign to get a free alternative to E264. As with all campaigns it could be economical with the truth. It remains to be seen if they have made the right move.

hackermom 16y ago
What's wrong are the misconceptions they are deliberately spreading to further their agenda. I am all for multiple choices just like you; I dislike that f.e. Safari has only H.264 support in its native HTML5 video component (problem solved if you have the XiphQT plugin, which takes 2 seconds to download and copy to your ~/Library) just as much as I dislike that Firefox has only Theora support. I want both FF and Safari to support both so the user doesn't have to friggin' switch browser to enjoy this and that website's content - thankfully I can stick to Safari since XiphQT does an awesome job, and I'm damned happy to be able to see both H.264 and Theora content without having to juggle applications. And, admittedly, had I been in charge of picking just one codec for the future, the choice would be so easy, because in this debate I am all about video/audio quality for the end user, and I rrrrreally don't think the world of web video would ever have the carpet swept from under its feet by the MPEG-LA. The notable difference here is that the H.264 camp in this debate isn't spewing bullshit all over the place.
- metajack 16y ago
  Have you missed the vague patent threats against Theora? MPEG-LA has spewed their share of bullshit, and Thompson before it spewed plenty as well.

jamesbritt 16y ago

FTFA: " ...using H.264 to distribute free internet video to end users doesn't cost a thing, and won't cost anything until at least 2015. After that, it's up in the air, and that's a bridge we'll have to cross when we come to it -- there's a chance the MPEG-LA could start charging a royalty for free video in five years."