Linked by Kroc Camen on Fri 1st Jan 2010 15:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 402101
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.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-02
I did not know that. Well, screw H.264, then. I rather think the way Fraunhofer did MP3 was awfully good, and promoted wide use. Royalties per transmission will be a good way to choke it off, and doing so after it's been out and become popular will foster only the best PR.
I think it's insane that we have IP law systems that will even allow that sort of licensing, too. A cost for an encoder and/or decoder, if you're out to sell it to somebody, is entirely fair. A cost for that, and for making content and/or using it? No. Participation costs BAD. It is not analogous to something like TV, where there is ongoing content creation, and service maintenance, that basically doesn't exist on the side of the video format guys.
Edited 2010-01-02 19:44 UTC