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 422398
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2010-05-03
Is anyone trying to enforce these provisions? Have there been any attempts to collect such royalties? Have there been any attempts to pay such royalties?
Of course I'm against the ridiculously broad claims of legal rights that abound these days.
Every time I break shrinkwrap, install software, and click yes on a little box or button that says I accept a EULA, I know I've agreed to something absurd.
But, perhaps foolishly, I've become inured to it as a formality that makes no difference.