Linked by Kroc Camen on Fri 1st Jan 2010 15:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 402031
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by cerbie
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 07:14
in reply to "RE: Comment by cerbie"
last I checked, h264 licenses costs were made against the tool makers, not the tool users.
If I make an h264 video, I don't have to worry about licensing costs... the browser vendor does.... and now that windows, Mac and Linux support h264 playback, I think it is moot.
If I make an h264 video, I don't have to worry about licensing costs... the browser vendor does.... and now that windows, Mac and Linux support h264 playback, I think it is moot.
You didn't check very well.
Beginning in 2011, you will apparently have to pay a yearly royalty fee if you make a website that includes any h264 video. The more video data you send to more users, the higher the royalty fee will be. Sites such as Youtube are already looking at alternatives, to the extent that Google has purchased On2 (owners of the VP6, Vp7 and VP8 codecs).
http://newteevee.com/2009/08/05/google-buys-on2-now-controls-vp6-co...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On2_Technologies
Edited 2010-01-03 07:25 UTC




Member since:
2005-11-10
That was sarcasm, right? You would actually prefer a 'Web where if you want to put a video on your own website, the legal eagles have the full right to swoop down on you and demand money for it? Yeah, that'll be just great for everybody. We already have the audio-police suing people for having a radio on within earshot of a human being, the last thing we need is the video police targetting bloggers.