Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th May 2010 10:45 UTC
Permalink for comment 426308
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-12-02
Wow, I love the h264 codec, it’s really the best audio/video codec out there.
However MPEG-LA was - and still is - an horrible organization that have unclear and obviously unfair policy...
The simple fact that they can’t precise their licensing policy after 2015 made them evil for business and end-users...
However the MPEG-4 norms including h264 are internationals standards and the MPEG-LA is only responsible for collecting money from the licensing... where patents apply...
Thus I see 2 things:
- First: Web sites hosted in country where software patents don’t apply shouldn’t have to care about MPEG-LA and h264 licensing (please correct me if I’m wrong)
- Second: the action by Nero may lead to make MPEG-LA clarify it’s licensing policy in the long term. And hopefully, non business use of the h264 codec will remain free as it is now.
It’s only make sense that international standards must follow some rule regarding the licensing as it create some king of monopoly.
And having to switch to the inferior VP8 codec is shameful... and not always possible...