4 ms·

H.264 is not a "proprietary video codec", it's a patent-encumbered codec. The spec is available for free on the ITU website(http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264 h

H.264 is not a "proprietary video codec", it's a patent-encumbered codec. The spec is available for free on the ITU website(http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264 http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264) and several open source implementations exist.

ramy_d 14y ago
The spec is useless, even harmful, if 3 years from now MPEG LA decides to start charging content providers a licensing fee for their content, even if that content is distributed for free. If we start using a codec for which the patents are owned by a company, and that company dictates the licensing terms for that codec, then aren't we handing control to how the content is distributed to said company? what do we know about MPEG LA?
- protomyth 14y ago
  http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/26/mpeg-la-makes-h-264-video-royalty-free-forever-as-long-as-its/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/26/mpeg-la-makes-h-264-video...
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    > as long as it's freely distributed
    - protomyth 14y ago
      I was responding to the line "if 3 years from now MPEG LA decides to start charging content providers a licensing fee for their content, even if that content is distributed for free."
      - Dylan16807 14y ago
        Aren't encoding and distribution fees both licensing fees faced by content providers? Your overall argument here isn't very strong.
        protomyth 14y ago
        If you are distributing free content, they have pledged not to charge you. It isn't so much an argument as a statement of fact.
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        They don't charge for the distribution but don't you have to create content to be a content provider?
        protomyth 14y ago
        Which is paid for by the folks making the software tools unless the OS paid the fee for the codec in which case you're good. The camera manufacture either paid the fee or shoots a format that can be converted on the PC.
  - JoshTriplett 14y ago
    That says absolutely nothing about h.264 decoder or encoder implementations, such as the decoders needed in web browsers to handle h.264 in <video> tags; that just says MPEG-LA won't charge people distributing h.264 video files.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      The parent post didn't mention decoders / encoders, it mentioned free content. These articles[1][2] explain the costs and possible increases[3]. Apple, Microsoft, and Google have bought the license for their libraries on their platforms. [1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/2884 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-an... [2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-they-really-cost/2122 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-the... [3] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx last question
    - nnethercote 14y ago
      Exactly. All they've said is "we promise we won't charge you for sending bits of h.264-encoded data across a wire". It's not clear that they legally could charge for that even if they wanted do! And yet they've fooled vast numbers of people into thinking that h.264 is free-of-charge as a result. It's the most impressive piece of anti-FUD I've ever seen, sadly.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
Proprietary, as in proprietor, as in owner of property, as in someone with property rights, as in government-granted monopolies, as in patents. In fact in some contexts, proprietary is a synonym for patent e.g. patent medicine. edit: from wiktionary, definition 3 Manufactured exclusively by the owner of intellectual property rights (IPR), as with a patent or trade secret.

ramy_d 14y ago

The spec is useless, even harmful, if 3 years from now MPEG LA decides to start charging content providers a licensing fee for their content, even if that content is distributed for free. If we start using a codec for which the patents are owned by a company, and that company dictates the licensing terms for that codec, then aren't we handing control to how the content is distributed to said company? what do we know about MPEG LA?

protomyth 14y ago
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/26/mpeg-la-makes-h-264-video-royalty-free-forever-as-long-as-its/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/26/mpeg-la-makes-h-264-video...
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  > as long as it's freely distributed
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I was responding to the line "if 3 years from now MPEG LA decides to start charging content providers a licensing fee for their content, even if that content is distributed for free."
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      Aren't encoding and distribution fees both licensing fees faced by content providers? Your overall argument here isn't very strong.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        If you are distributing free content, they have pledged not to charge you. It isn't so much an argument as a statement of fact.
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        They don't charge for the distribution but don't you have to create content to be a content provider?
        protomyth 14y ago
        Which is paid for by the folks making the software tools unless the OS paid the fee for the codec in which case you're good. The camera manufacture either paid the fee or shoots a format that can be converted on the PC.
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  That says absolutely nothing about h.264 decoder or encoder implementations, such as the decoders needed in web browsers to handle h.264 in <video> tags; that just says MPEG-LA won't charge people distributing h.264 video files.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    The parent post didn't mention decoders / encoders, it mentioned free content. These articles[1][2] explain the costs and possible increases[3]. Apple, Microsoft, and Google have bought the license for their libraries on their platforms. [1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/2884 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-an... [2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-they-really-cost/2122 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-the... [3] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx last question
  - nnethercote 14y ago
    Exactly. All they've said is "we promise we won't charge you for sending bits of h.264-encoded data across a wire". It's not clear that they legally could charge for that even if they wanted do! And yet they've fooled vast numbers of people into thinking that h.264 is free-of-charge as a result. It's the most impressive piece of anti-FUD I've ever seen, sadly.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

Proprietary, as in proprietor, as in owner of property, as in someone with property rights, as in government-granted monopolies, as in patents. In fact in some contexts, proprietary is a synonym for patent e.g. patent medicine. edit: from wiktionary, definition 3 Manufactured exclusively by the owner of intellectual property rights (IPR), as with a patent or trade secret.