Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 1st May 2010 22:17 UTC
Legal We've all heard how the h.264 is rolled over on patents and royalties. Even with these facts, I kept supporting the best-performing "delivery" codec in the market, which is h.264. "Let the best win", I kept thinking. But it wasn't until very recently when I was made aware that the problem is way deeper. No, my friends. It's not just a matter of just "picking Theora" to export a video to Youtube and be clear of any litigation. MPEG-LA's trick runs way deeper! The [street-smart] people at MPEG-LA have made sure that from the moment we use a camera or camcorder to shoot an mpeg2 (e.g. HDV cams) or h.264 video (e.g. digicams, HD dSLRs, AVCHD cams), we owe them royalties, even if the final video distributed was not encoded using their codecs! Let me show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

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 422488
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Congratulations
by Trenien on Mon 3rd May 2010 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Congratulations"
Trenien
Member since:
2007-10-11

Oh yes, I'm perfectly aware of that. As I said in another reply somewhere in these comments, the pricks that want these so much have managed to prevent the EU Parliament from voting the soft' patents into oblivion.

For now, we must be happy they couldn't convince technologically illiterate Mps to make them into law.

As a side note, the Parliament has already shot down any attempt for such patent to crammed down our throats through ACTA (since the extent of what ACTA can do was severely limited in a law that was passed a couple of months ago).
Well, that's the way I have understood it anyway; but I must say I didn't really have the time to really get into that in the last few months, so any correction is welcome.

Reply Parent Score: 1