Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Mar 2010 21:59 UTC
Multimedia, AV "A lot of commercial software comes with H.264 encoders and decoders, and some computers arrive with this software preinstalled. This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like. Unfortunately for them, it ain't so."
Permalink for comment 411747
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Greed
by lemur2 on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Greed"
Member since:

"Oh yes, greed. God forbid anyone get paid for any of this...

Rah rah, fight the power.

No problem with them getting paid for their codec, greed, etc. I'll just use a competing free product, and someone else can pay them. Fortunately, I don't have any need for h264.

It is already paid for. Mozilla gave just $100,000 to to fund the Thusnelda project that achieved considerable improvements in Theora:

and x264 implements h.264 as a non-funded free software project:

... so even with the most outlandish inefficiencies and incompetence the original development costs for h.264 couldn't be more than a few tens of millions.

Just a few licenses from large users (digital TV broadcast, for example) would have paid that back years ago.
Under the terms of the agreement, you have two options: a one-time payment of $2,500 “per AVC transmission encoder” or an annual fee starting at “$2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least 100,000 but no more than 499,999 television households, $5,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at least 500,000 but no more than 999,999 television households, and $10,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at 1,000,000 or more television households.”

$10,000 per year from 10,000 digital TV stations (worldwide there would be far more than that) is $100,000 million per year right there. From just one market.

As the OP said ... greed. Pure greed.

Edited 2010-03-02 11:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2