5 ms·
It's not "don't ask, don't tell," it's "don't ask, don't care." My agreement with Monty's assessment depends upon the definition of the "codec market". The peo
by bradleyland 13y ago
It's not "don't ask, don't tell," it's "don't ask, don't care."
My agreement with Monty's assessment depends upon the definition of the "codec market". The people who write the checks to pay the royalties know the costs very well. The people who pay indirectly don't care, because the costs are low enough that they don't register any pain for them. Arguably, what has been reached is an optimal economic balance.
When incorporating footnote 1, it appears that he's talking more about the selective enforcement that MPEG LA engages in, which I could see being more of a don't ask, don't tell scenario, but I'm not sure the limited number of licenses are proof that companies don't know about their licensing issues. It's just proof that MPEG LA selectively enforces the licensing requirements; a fact that is pretty well known amongst those who are in the affected markets.
The arguments in support of an open web, with open audio & video codecs, are (under current circumstances) principle-based arguments. It is notoriously difficult to get people to take action over principled issues unless there is some practical impact that they can feel directly. Mozilla made an attempt at this by digging in their feet on the H.264 inclusion issue. Unfortunately, that stand didn't really affect end-users, because website authors worked around the issue (e.g., Flash video players).
If open web proponents want to advance their agenda, they need to be more strategic. They need to identify and execute on plans that increase end-user exposure to MPEG LA licensing restrictions in a way that has a practical impact on them.
If that's not possible, then you're left with a principled disagreement only. If that's the case, then we have to fall back to the rationalization presented in Carl Sagan's "Dragon in My Garage" argument. If there is no practical difference between open and closed video codecs, then there is no difference at all. The principle disagreement is as incorporeal as Carl's dragon.
- eevee 13y agoSo they need to do something like create a completely free codec that blows current offerings out of the water? :) I read some of the Daala "demos". I don't know video codec technology from a hole in the ground, but it sounds pretty interesting. http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/ http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/
- josephlord 13y agoI'm not really disagreeing with your substantive points but wanted to clear up a misunderstanding. The MPEG-LA does not enforce anything. Companies with patents in the pool can enforce them (they can also license them outside the pool). Companies (that aren't Lodsys like trolls) aren't likely to bring action where there isn't significant revenue to obtain unless there is a strategic threat to them. I would also like to pick up your language. The MPEG codecs are open although they are not free, Free or Libre.
- ZeroGravitas 13y agoThey're only "open" according to some definitions. In this list of definitions of "open standard" in Wikipedia it only meets 2.5 out of 18, and the first one is that of a group that develops the MPEG standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard The main sticking point, which is also what holds up W3C and IETF acceptance is not being "royalty-free".