6 ms·

Windows XP does not ship with an h264 codec. It is actually quite difficult for a user to find an h264 codec for Windows if they want to playback videos. Anoth

by doublec 18y ago

Windows XP does not ship with an h264 codec. It is actually quite difficult for a user to find an h264 codec for Windows if they want to playback videos. Another issue with H.264 playback is the licensing costs. According to the mpegla website, after 31st December 2010 content producers will have to pay money just to stream content, let along decode or encode to H.264.

DarkShikari 18y ago
According to the mpegla website, after 31st December 2010 content producers will have to pay money just to stream content, let along decode or encode to H.264. AFAIK, Dec. 2010 is when the current licensing agreement expires and a new one is drawn up. They merely reserve the right to change the agreement to add a fee; they don't say that they will.
- doublec 18y ago
  The summary of license terms are listed on the mpegla web site. If you run a website where users pay to view h.264 videos, either by title or by subscription, you need to pays fees per video if you reach a certain number of viewers. Note that these fees are payable now, there is no grace period for this. For streaming of videos where the end user does not pay (eg. YouTube style services) the terms state: "In the case of Internet broadcast (AVC video that is delivered via the Worldwide Internet to an end user for which the End User does not pay remuneration for the right to receive or view, i.e., neither title-by-title nor subscription), there will be no royalty during the first term of the License (ending December 31, 2010), and after the first term the royalty shall be no more than the economic equivalent of royalties payable during the same time for free television." Free internet streaming is therefore covered by the grace period, but lists the payments required after that as being no more than the equivalent of that for free television - the costs of which are listed in the document. So it seems that in some cases (subscription video) you do in fact have to pay fees now. And in the free internet streaming cases the wording does suggest there will be a cost. It is certainly possible they could decide to make such usage free. This is far more likely to happen, imho, if there are alternatives to h.264 to enable content producers to negotiate the fees with mpegla. Currently if you are streaming h.264 on your site, you're taking the gamble that mpegla won't want a cut of your profits post 2010.
  - blasdel 18y ago
    The MPEGLA has always been extraordinarily unsuccessful at collecting the license fees they think they're owed. The companies that pay in are generally ones that have patents in the portfolio, and thus get a payout right back again.
    - doublec 18y ago
      Refusing to pay the fee is certainly an option. I don't see it being very popular with people investing money in startups when they ask how the startup intends to handle patent licensing and the reply is something like "Oh, we've decided we'll refuse to pay and hope no legal action is taken, or ship parts of our software from various countries where we think it's not covered."
blasdel 18y ago
Windows 7 does ship with one, and it'll be a looooong time before <video> goes mainstream and gets supported in IE. Now that MS is dipping their toe into the h264 waters, it's plausible that they'd bundle h264+VC-1 support with the IE$X upgrade for older Windows. The licensing regime is bound very tightly to the enforceability of software patents. It turns out that distributing source code doesn't constitute patent infringement -- it's a description of the invention, something that should be contained in the freely-distributable patent filing. Even then, you can always distribute binaries from countries where such patents are invalid.
- doublec 18y ago
  Whether or not its a long time before (if ever) <video> goes mainstream doesn't matter. What matters is that an alternative to formats that require a payment is needed. For people who want to use non-proprietary formats, or don't want to pay licensing fees for videos they provide. There should be a way for these people to use video on the web. Even if it remains only a niche usage, and at least provides some leverage to reduce the licensing costs of other formats.

by doublec 18y ago

DarkShikari 18y ago

According to the mpegla website, after 31st December 2010 content producers will have to pay money just to stream content, let along decode or encode to H.264. AFAIK, Dec. 2010 is when the current licensing agreement expires and a new one is drawn up. They merely reserve the right to change the agreement to add a fee; they don't say that they will.

doublec 18y ago
The summary of license terms are listed on the mpegla web site. If you run a website where users pay to view h.264 videos, either by title or by subscription, you need to pays fees per video if you reach a certain number of viewers. Note that these fees are payable now, there is no grace period for this. For streaming of videos where the end user does not pay (eg. YouTube style services) the terms state: "In the case of Internet broadcast (AVC video that is delivered via the Worldwide Internet to an end user for which the End User does not pay remuneration for the right to receive or view, i.e., neither title-by-title nor subscription), there will be no royalty during the first term of the License (ending December 31, 2010), and after the first term the royalty shall be no more than the economic equivalent of royalties payable during the same time for free television." Free internet streaming is therefore covered by the grace period, but lists the payments required after that as being no more than the equivalent of that for free television - the costs of which are listed in the document. So it seems that in some cases (subscription video) you do in fact have to pay fees now. And in the free internet streaming cases the wording does suggest there will be a cost. It is certainly possible they could decide to make such usage free. This is far more likely to happen, imho, if there are alternatives to h.264 to enable content producers to negotiate the fees with mpegla. Currently if you are streaming h.264 on your site, you're taking the gamble that mpegla won't want a cut of your profits post 2010.
- blasdel 18y ago
  The MPEGLA has always been extraordinarily unsuccessful at collecting the license fees they think they're owed. The companies that pay in are generally ones that have patents in the portfolio, and thus get a payout right back again.
  - doublec 18y ago
    Refusing to pay the fee is certainly an option. I don't see it being very popular with people investing money in startups when they ask how the startup intends to handle patent licensing and the reply is something like "Oh, we've decided we'll refuse to pay and hope no legal action is taken, or ship parts of our software from various countries where we think it's not covered."

blasdel 18y ago

Windows 7 does ship with one, and it'll be a looooong time before <video> goes mainstream and gets supported in IE. Now that MS is dipping their toe into the h264 waters, it's plausible that they'd bundle h264+VC-1 support with the IE$X upgrade for older Windows. The licensing regime is bound very tightly to the enforceability of software patents. It turns out that distributing source code doesn't constitute patent infringement -- it's a description of the invention, something that should be contained in the freely-distributable patent filing. Even then, you can always distribute binaries from countries where such patents are invalid.

doublec 18y ago
Whether or not its a long time before (if ever) <video> goes mainstream doesn't matter. What matters is that an alternative to formats that require a payment is needed. For people who want to use non-proprietary formats, or don't want to pay licensing fees for videos they provide. There should be a way for these people to use video on the web. Even if it remains only a niche usage, and at least provides some leverage to reduce the licensing costs of other formats.