11 ms·

> [...] the de-facto standard (h264) is owned by a commercial entity which has a grip on the technology not through continuous technological excellence but by a

by ot 16y ago

> [...] the de-facto standard (h264) is owned by a commercial entity which has a grip on the technology not through continuous technological excellence but by a patent grab. Who? > It's naive to think that mpeg la consortium is not aware of how much money they could possibly make by starting to enforce their licensing. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensi...): On August 26, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264 encoded internet video that is free to end users will never be charged for royalties.

jarek 16y ago
That's okay, they'll still rake it in when browser makers and hardware manufacturers pay for /their/ H.264 license.
jbri 16y ago
Right. Because end users are the only people who matter, and it's not like the MPEG-LA could start charging ridiculous fees to anyone who, I don't know, wants to build a decoder from source or something. Oh wait...
true_religion 16y ago
The next line reads: > All other royalties will remain in place such as the royalties for products that decode and encode H.264 video.[12] The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[13] Secondly 'end users' by their definition doesn't include content creators who distribute or encode video. The consortium is going after the supply side, not the demand side. To me, this is a good idea because suppliers are typically large or at least static entities that can easily be identified, and charged. Trying to catch end-users is a fools errand, and makes one a target for hatred ala the RIAA.
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  Suppliers are also people who take videos of their kids and post them on the internet.
  - jarek 16y ago
    The people taking videos of their kids won't be doing H.264. Their videocams and/or their Youtubes will be doing the encoding, and their browsers will be doing the decoding. In both cases, larger organizations which are easier to bill.
    - bzbarsky 16y ago
      Your videocamera's license for H.264, if you actually read it, is likely quite restrictive. If you use it to film a video, post the video on youtube, and get any revenue from the ads on the resulting youtube page, you're in violation of the license terms, for example, for every single video camera I've seen.
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        Can you point to some links? I can't find anything that mentions this in my camera's documentation.
      - bzbarsky 16y ago
        Hmm. I wonder why I can't reply to your comment... As for links (the first one about cameras, the second one following up on it and about more camera models, the last about video editing software): http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Vid... http://dylanreeve.com/videotv/2010/the-mpeg-and-h-264-problem.html http://dylanreeve.com/videotv/2010/the-mpeg-and-h-264-proble... http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/ http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-w...
- ot 16y ago
  If the MPEG-LA decides to make people pay royalties for encoding, content producers can decide to use WebM. I'm just saying that all browser should support WebM and it is probably right to support is as the open video format for the web. But there is no point in removing H264 support for browsers, which is not incompatible with supporting WebM. It's not like Blu-Ray vs. HDDVD. I think this is not ideological, but strategic. They are leveraging the non-negligible Chrome market share to force content producers to support WebM. Even if the format is open, they have quite a few months of strategic advance wrt competitors (Apple?) in designing the hardware support for mobile devices. I'd say that even if Apple decides to support WebM in hardware, it wouldn't be ready before a couple of generations (1.5-2 years?) That's why comments like > Google shows once more that they are visionary company with long-term outlook and an outlook on business that allows them to invest in things that benefit everybody and not just them. look to me naive and "Google fanboy"ist

by ot 16y ago

jarek 16y ago

That's okay, they'll still rake it in when browser makers and hardware manufacturers pay for /their/ H.264 license.

jbri 16y ago

Right. Because end users are the only people who matter, and it's not like the MPEG-LA could start charging ridiculous fees to anyone who, I don't know, wants to build a decoder from source or something. Oh wait...

true_religion 16y ago

The next line reads: > All other royalties will remain in place such as the royalties for products that decode and encode H.264 video.[12] The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[13] Secondly 'end users' by their definition doesn't include content creators who distribute or encode video. The consortium is going after the supply side, not the demand side. To me, this is a good idea because suppliers are typically large or at least static entities that can easily be identified, and charged. Trying to catch end-users is a fools errand, and makes one a target for hatred ala the RIAA.

bryanlarsen 16y ago
Suppliers are also people who take videos of their kids and post them on the internet.
- jarek 16y ago
  The people taking videos of their kids won't be doing H.264. Their videocams and/or their Youtubes will be doing the encoding, and their browsers will be doing the decoding. In both cases, larger organizations which are easier to bill.
  - bzbarsky 16y ago
    Your videocamera's license for H.264, if you actually read it, is likely quite restrictive. If you use it to film a video, post the video on youtube, and get any revenue from the ads on the resulting youtube page, you're in violation of the license terms, for example, for every single video camera I've seen.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      Can you point to some links? I can't find anything that mentions this in my camera's documentation.
    - bzbarsky 16y ago
      Hmm. I wonder why I can't reply to your comment... As for links (the first one about cameras, the second one following up on it and about more camera models, the last about video editing software): http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Vid... http://dylanreeve.com/videotv/2010/the-mpeg-and-h-264-problem.html http://dylanreeve.com/videotv/2010/the-mpeg-and-h-264-proble... http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/ http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-w...
ot 16y ago
If the MPEG-LA decides to make people pay royalties for encoding, content producers can decide to use WebM. I'm just saying that all browser should support WebM and it is probably right to support is as the open video format for the web. But there is no point in removing H264 support for browsers, which is not incompatible with supporting WebM. It's not like Blu-Ray vs. HDDVD. I think this is not ideological, but strategic. They are leveraging the non-negligible Chrome market share to force content producers to support WebM. Even if the format is open, they have quite a few months of strategic advance wrt competitors (Apple?) in designing the hardware support for mobile devices. I'd say that even if Apple decides to support WebM in hardware, it wouldn't be ready before a couple of generations (1.5-2 years?) That's why comments like > Google shows once more that they are visionary company with long-term outlook and an outlook on business that allows them to invest in things that benefit everybody and not just them. look to me naive and "Google fanboy"ist