3 ms·
What’s the tldr of the licensing problems? I’ve started reading this article which list the various H.26x proposals - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Cod
by radicality 2y ago
What’s the tldr of the licensing problems?
I’ve started reading this article which list the various H.26x proposals - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Coding_Experts_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Coding_Experts_Group
Seems like the group that comes with these is eventually part of the UN ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicat...
Is it because they come with the codecs “jointly” with the MPEG organization, which is for profit?
If the group is part of a standards organization that’s part of the UN, I feel like they should come up with non-patent-encumbered “recommendations”.
- peutetre 2y ago> What’s the tldr of the licensing problems? There are multiple patent pools for H.265 wanting to be paid licensing fees (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Velos Media). HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees. And there are patent holders not in any pool who also want to be paid (Technicolor, Motorola, Nokia, etc.). It's a mess.
- ksec 2y ago>HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees. That is not correct. Unless you meant they once "suggested" to ask for content distribution licensing.
- peutetre 2y agoIt's correct. It's category 4: https://accessadvance.com/topic-what-do-we-license/ https://accessadvance.com/topic-what-do-we-license/
- ksec 2y agoContent distribution licensing fees implies and refers to streaming and broadcasting. Physical Media has always been a seperate and its own category.
- peutetre 2y agoNo, it doesn't. You were wrong. Just accept that and be happy.
- ksec 2y agoOk, I will bite >>HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees. 1. Are Broadcasting and Streaming "content distribution"? 2. Do HEVC Advance and Velos Media currently, or has ever charges for Broadcasting and Streaming? And to quote: You were wrong. Just accept that and be happy.
- peutetre 2y agoThere's nothing to bite. You've been wrong before. You'll be wrong again.
- ksec 2y agoLOL, You didn't even bother answering the question. I will let others be the judge. But it is rather obvious from your other reply about your knowledge on video codec. Have a nice day.
- peutetre 2y agoLook, your claim is that selling movies on discs is not content distribution. But it clearly is. You're just wrong. Don't worry about it.
- ksec 2y ago>Look, your claim is that selling movies on discs is not content distribution. But it clearly is. 1. No where did I make the claim selling movies on discs is not content distribution. It is however NOT ALL content distribution, which is what you implied. And Physical Media licensing has been is own category since MPEG2 as used in DVD. 2. You claim of content distribution does not include Streaming and Broadcasting. Which has been the debate of the HEVC / H,266 licensing programme during its early stage of IP Negotiation terms. If you dont know H.265's history on patent terms then my suggestion is that you read up on it. As it is often the FUD pointed towards H.265. And you are, knowing or not, repeating it. 3. >You're just wrong. Don't worry about it. This is HN. Not Reddit. If you dont know something, ask. Stop pretending you know something that you dont.