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 407064
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 31st Jan 2010 16:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

That means that if you are *viewing* H.264 content that the publisher has not licenced, then you the viewer are liable too


Yes. That's what the email explains.

"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."

Pretty clear, people. Why are we even debating this fact?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by cerbie on Sun 31st Jan 2010 18:07 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

...because that is lawyer-speak, which does take some real effort for many of us to parse, for whom English is our native language. It's like vulgar British English v. US English. I can read, and wonder what was just said, then go back and read more carefully, logically working it out.

"(...) not concluded by End Users," is not a phrase we normally read, nor is the grammar common. On top of that, what it really does mean does not make much sense, at first read, given that the idea is rather absurd.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 31st Jan 2010 20:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

...because that is lawyer-speak, which does take some real effort for many of us to parse, for whom English is our native language. It's like vulgar British English v. US English. I can read, and wonder what was just said, then go back and read more carefully, logically working it out.


Agreed, I had to crack open a dictionary to decipher the legalese. Sort of like wording a lay-off notice as "You have been found to be the incumbent of a surplus position."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Sun 31st Jan 2010 22:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

...because that is lawyer-speak, which does take some real effort for many of us to parse, for whom English is our native language. It's like vulgar British English v. US English. I can read, and wonder what was just said, then go back and read more carefully, logically working it out. "(...) not concluded by End Users," is not a phrase we normally read, nor is the grammar common. On top of that, what it really does mean does not make much sense, at first read, given that the idea is rather absurd.


It means that if anybody "upstream" from you (as an end user) did not pay for an h264 license, then you (as an end user) are liable if you watch an h264 video.

By "anybody upstream" I mean: people who encoded the video, people who put the video on the web, people who wrote the OS you are using, people who wrote the video driver you are using, and people who made your video card. If any of them have not paid up on all appropriate license fees (where appropriate is very ill-defined, given the number of patents that are claimed to apply), then you are liable for patent infringement.

Can you vouch for all of them, that they have all paid for proper licenses on your behalf?

For every web video you have ever watched?

How did you check?

Edited 2010-01-31 22:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4