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,

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.