4 ms·

Royalty-free MPEG video codec to up the ante for Google's WebM/VP8

12 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago

Tsiolkovsky 16y ago
This is just not enough, Far from it, It would also have to be free to implement without any restrictions and it should be free as in freedom, like Ogg Theora and WebM are.This is just MPEG-LA mafia being scared because they will not be able to extort money when they want to. The best for free and independent web and video is if this MPEG-LA shit dies as soon as possible.
- jeremyswank 16y ago
  According to these: [MPEG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg) and [MPEG LA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-LA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-LA) are not the same organization. Quote "MPEG LA is not affiliated with MPEG, the Moving Picture Experts Group."
  - FlorianMueller 16y ago
    Yes, my article on this states: "t's important to note the difference between MPEG, the standardization body, and MPEG LA, the licensing agency. MPEG defines standards, and those can be royalty-free or royalty-bearing, depending on what the owners of the essential patents agree upon in each case. MPEG LA manages patent pools related to royalty-bearing standards, serving right holders and licensees as a one-stop solution by way of aggregation."
- tzs 16y ago
  "extort"? "mafia"? This is not Reddit. Hacker News has generally been a breath of fresh air compared to Reddit, Digg, and so on due to an adult level of discourse. Let's keep it that way.
muro 16y ago
same troll as before.
- tzs 16y ago
  Stop with the ad hominems. It is clear you have no clue what you are talking about on this subject.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
If you leave Google conspiracy theories out of consideration it should be obvious that Opera, Mozilla and the FSF (amongst others in the WebM supporters list: http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/) don't actually care about WebM in itself, they support free software/open source/open web friendly, royalty-free formats. But it's not just lack of royalties alone, they have to be useful too, so the more viable in the market the better, given the basic requirements are met. That's why they supported Theora, and now prioritise WebM, and make clear they're happy to support any new codecs that meet their needs. Examining the new MPEG proposal from their point of view would be interesting. For example, why is it better than just waiting for MPEG1/2 which already has great free software encoders and is implemented everywhere to fall out of patent coverage. How good can it possibly be if they take an ultra-conservative approach to patents? Better or worse than Theora? When will it be ready? When will hardware support it, if at all? How can they avoid poisonous politics in their "open and inclusive" process if they are at the same time pushing H.264 and H.265 as the (very, very lucrative) present and future of video codecs? Why did it take MPEG so long to do this? How do we know this won't end up like the royalty-free profile of H.264 which they promised but never delivered? Which royalty-free audio codec do they intend to pair it with? (Another interesting thing to read would be to choose H.264 patents at random and say "Let's just imagine VP8 infringed this. How much worse would the encoder/decoder be if VP8 simply dropped this element?" 10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.000001%? This blog's analysis in parts seems to suggest that a single blow would kill VP8, in others he more realistically claims that it would require a number of difficult to work around/buy out/invalidate patents before it becomes a complete road block for VP8)
bb1000 16y ago
The royalty-free MPEG video codec is currently vapourware.

This is just not enough, Far from it, It would also have to be free to implement without any restrictions and it should be free as in freedom, like Ogg Theora and WebM are.This is just MPEG-LA mafia being scared because they will not be able to extort money when they want to. The best for free and independent web and video is if this MPEG-LA shit dies as soon as possible.

jeremyswank 16y ago
According to these: [MPEG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg) and [MPEG LA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-LA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-LA) are not the same organization. Quote "MPEG LA is not affiliated with MPEG, the Moving Picture Experts Group."
- FlorianMueller 16y ago
  Yes, my article on this states: "t's important to note the difference between MPEG, the standardization body, and MPEG LA, the licensing agency. MPEG defines standards, and those can be royalty-free or royalty-bearing, depending on what the owners of the essential patents agree upon in each case. MPEG LA manages patent pools related to royalty-bearing standards, serving right holders and licensees as a one-stop solution by way of aggregation."
tzs 16y ago
"extort"? "mafia"? This is not Reddit. Hacker News has generally been a breath of fresh air compared to Reddit, Digg, and so on due to an adult level of discourse. Let's keep it that way.

muro 16y ago

same troll as before.

tzs 16y ago
Stop with the ad hominems. It is clear you have no clue what you are talking about on this subject.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

If you leave Google conspiracy theories out of consideration it should be obvious that Opera, Mozilla and the FSF (amongst others in the WebM supporters list: http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/) don't actually care about WebM in itself, they support free software/open source/open web friendly, royalty-free formats. But it's not just lack of royalties alone, they have to be useful too, so the more viable in the market the better, given the basic requirements are met. That's why they supported Theora, and now prioritise WebM, and make clear they're happy to support any new codecs that meet their needs. Examining the new MPEG proposal from their point of view would be interesting. For example, why is it better than just waiting for MPEG1/2 which already has great free software encoders and is implemented everywhere to fall out of patent coverage. How good can it possibly be if they take an ultra-conservative approach to patents? Better or worse than Theora? When will it be ready? When will hardware support it, if at all? How can they avoid poisonous politics in their "open and inclusive" process if they are at the same time pushing H.264 and H.265 as the (very, very lucrative) present and future of video codecs? Why did it take MPEG so long to do this? How do we know this won't end up like the royalty-free profile of H.264 which they promised but never delivered? Which royalty-free audio codec do they intend to pair it with? (Another interesting thing to read would be to choose H.264 patents at random and say "Let's just imagine VP8 infringed this. How much worse would the encoder/decoder be if VP8 simply dropped this element?" 10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.000001%? This blog's analysis in parts seems to suggest that a single blow would kill VP8, in others he more realistically claims that it would require a number of difficult to work around/buy out/invalidate patents before it becomes a complete road block for VP8)

bb1000 16y ago

The royalty-free MPEG video codec is currently vapourware.