Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th May 2010 12:52 UTC, submitted by mrsteveman1
Internet & Networking Mozilla, sticking to its ideals of the open web, decided long ago that support for the patent-encumbered H264 codec would not be included in any of its products. Not only is H264 wholly incompatible with the open web and Free software, it is also incredibly expensive. Mozilla could use one of the open source implementations, but those are not licensed, and the MPEG-LA has been quite clear in that it will sue those who encode or decode H264 content without a license. Software patents, however, are only valid in some parts of the world, so an enterprising developer has started a project that was sure to come eventually: Firefox builds with H264 support.
Permalink for comment 425045
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: ...
by smitty on Mon 17th May 2010 03:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
Member since:

You asked me for a source, you don't provide one for your claim? Hilarious.

Show me an actual press release by the MPEG-LA that states that non-distributing home users are about to be sued by the MPEG-LA and show me how that would be compatible the the licensing terms.

OK, here you are:

The important bit is at the end:
I would also like to mention that while our Licenses are not concluded
by End Users, anyone in the product chain has liability if an end
product is unlicensed. Therefore, a royalty paid for an end product by
the end product supplier would render the product licensed in the hands
of the End User, but where a royalty has not been paid, such a product
remains unlicensed and any downstream users/distributors would have

Therefore, we suggest that all End Users deal with products only from
licensed suppliers.

Care to show me your source now? That seems pretty darn ironclad to me.

You're joking, right?
AVC licensing by the MPEG-LA solely centers around distribution: distribution of content and distribution of codecs.
Both kinds of distribution have the same terms: Free of charge under 100,000 copies per year.

Let's say I wanna give my 5 friends videos of my family vacation. When I do it, I'm still way below the 100,000 limit

Yeah, but how did you give it to them? I hope you didn't put it up on a public website, because anyone could get to that and easily bump it over the limit. I guess we're back to using snail mail and sending people DVDs. And if you break that distribution rule, then everyone else who took advantage also suddenly broke the rule, without even realizing it. So if you're an innocent user, would you really trust putting your legal liability in the hands of whoever that distributer is?

No. They have nothing to do with this topic.

They stand in as examples of large litigious groups trying to protect IP. Sounds a lot like the MPEG-LA to me.

Copyrights and patents are even covered by entirely different laws.

Neither MPAA nor RIAA have actual licensing terms posted on their webites that grant free distribution of less than 100,000 copies per year.

Of course copyright law is different than patents. You're completely missing my point.

Don't confuse your state of mind with mine.

Dude, there's no reason to get nasty here. Do you really think a judge is going to throw a case out just because it's against a small end user rather than a larger target? Seriously?

Edited 2010-05-17 03:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4