Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 31st Jan 2010 14:20 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Internet & Networking Despite the recent interest in adopting HTML5's video tag, there is still one major problem: there is no mandated standard video codec for the video tag. The two main contestants are the proprietary and patended h264, and the open and free Theora. In a comment on an LWN.net article about this problematic situation, LWN reader Trelane posted an email exchange he had with MPEG-LA, which should further cement Theora as the obvious choice.
Thread beginning with comment 407054
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Patently absurd
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 31st Jan 2010 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Patently absurd"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

even as screwed up as the U.S legal system is that wouldn't fly... at least not yet


A system that could award millions in damages for downloading a few mp3s is also capable of granting damages when a mere user inadvertently consumes h24 content without a license.

Edited 2010-01-31 16:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Patently absurd
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 31st Jan 2010 16:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Patently absurd"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

it isn't the content, it is the tool used to play the content.... VLC for instance.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Patently absurd
by darknexus on Sun 31st Jan 2010 16:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Patently absurd"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

That's your interpretation of it. Trouble is the statement is sufficiently vague as to be interpreted several different ways (typical legal doublespeak, of course). You interpret it to mean the toolchain, but to me it sounds a lot more like they could go after the end users too. It does say anyone in the content chain. Anyone. That's the all important word.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Patently absurd
by r_a_trip on Mon 1st Feb 2010 13:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Patently absurd"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

it isn't the content, it is the tool used to play the content.... VLC for instance.

Isn't that academic? If I download H264 encoded video, I'm not merely going to store it as hard disk filler. I'm going to view it.

So consuming content is inevitably going to mean using a H264 decoder.
Given that the world and his dog seems to have a patent in H264, if they really press it, it seems that unlicensed use could run into the millions in damages (especially if proven willful --> triple damages).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Patently absurd
by DrillSgt on Mon 1st Feb 2010 15:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Patently absurd"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"even as screwed up as the U.S legal system is that wouldn't fly... at least not yet


A system that could award millions in damages for downloading a few mp3s is also capable of granting damages when a mere user inadvertently consumes h24 content without a license.
"

Could you please point to just 1 case where the person got fined millions of dollars for downloading?? What color is the sky in your world??

Reply Parent Score: 2