3 ms·

This topic was vented here some months ago, and the reality of non-commercial use was actually the same then as it is now after this statement from the MPEGLA;

This topic was vented here some months ago, and the reality of non-commercial use was actually the same then as it is now after this statement from the MPEGLA; for-free, non-profit creation, delivery and consumption of video in the MPEG formats was never subject to the license, not for the creators, not for the distributors, not for the end consumers, ever. Hopefully this statement is clarification enough for thick skulls like Thom Holwerda to finally put an end to the vacuous yapping, the wolf calls, and the fear-mongering.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
nanairo 16y ago
I completely agree (that was one---though not the only one---things that made me stop reading OSNews). But I also think that originally it was free (as you said) but only for a certain number of years. In other words the "novelty" is not that it's free (for those cases) but that it's free forever.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
That was a minor side-issue, created entirely by the MPEG-LAs need for strange licence terms that withhold seemingly basic rights from users so that it could later charge you money for the simple act of moving a digital file over the internet, and be able to back that with the threat of patent lawsuits. This is about the (previously) very real threat of future royalties for a subset of that patent-limited file moving activity, namely non-subscription, commercial H.264 videos (e.g. Youtube or Hulu or your random commercial website with a video on it).
- sprout 16y ago
  I have to wonder if that ever would have held up in court. It seems pretty clear that for all the devices that record in H.264, the vendors did not do their due diligence to explain that the user did not have a license to distribute that video after 2015. And the whole concept is just patently absurd anyway, that file transfer infringes their patent when they've already been compensated for the encoder and decoder.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

nanairo 16y ago

I completely agree (that was one---though not the only one---things that made me stop reading OSNews). But I also think that originally it was free (as you said) but only for a certain number of years. In other words the "novelty" is not that it's free (for those cases) but that it's free forever.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

That was a minor side-issue, created entirely by the MPEG-LAs need for strange licence terms that withhold seemingly basic rights from users so that it could later charge you money for the simple act of moving a digital file over the internet, and be able to back that with the threat of patent lawsuits. This is about the (previously) very real threat of future royalties for a subset of that patent-limited file moving activity, namely non-subscription, commercial H.264 videos (e.g. Youtube or Hulu or your random commercial website with a video on it).

sprout 16y ago
I have to wonder if that ever would have held up in court. It seems pretty clear that for all the devices that record in H.264, the vendors did not do their due diligence to explain that the user did not have a license to distribute that video after 2015. And the whole concept is just patently absurd anyway, that file transfer infringes their patent when they've already been compensated for the encoder and decoder.