Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 1st May 2010 22:17 UTC
UPDATE: Engadget just wrote a reply to this article. The article says that you don't need an extra license to shoot commercial video with h.264 cameras, but I wonder why the license says otherwise, and Engadget's "quotes" of user/filmmaker indemnification by MPEG-LA are anonymous...
UPDATE 2: Engadget's editor replied to me. So according to him, the quotes are not anonymous, but organization-wide on purpose. If that's the case, I guess this concludes that. And I can take them on their word from now on.
UPDATE 3: And regarding royalties (as opposed to just licensing), one more reply by Engadget's editor.
Permalink for comment 422136
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2009-08-26
They wouldn't sue unless you were making a lot of money, and if you're making a lot of money then you can probably afford the 2 cents per disc royalty fee.
They would likely send you a letter first asking for any back dues that they could show you clearly didn't pay.