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 407153
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Correction
by tyrione on Mon 1st Feb 2010 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Correction"
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

Technical matters are not really the issue here.

The issue is that h.264 is entirely unsuitable for web video, because of the way it's licensed.

The issue in question is the requirement that anyone who distributes an h.264 decoder is required to pay a royalty to the MPEG-LA (currently, up to US$0.20 per unit).

Since this requires the ability to monitor distribution, and to restrict redistribution (otherwise, you could get one copy from Mozilla and give it to thousands of end-users), this is entirely incompatible with any free software.

The license is not transferrable. If Mozilla had a license, it would only cover copies distributed by Mozilla. Linux distributors could not include Firefox. Developers of other software that uses Gecko could not distribute Gecko without getting their own license. OEMs could not include Firefox on a machine (PCs, netbooks, phones, whatever) without getting their own license. No forking. No modified versions. No developing new software based on it. No incorporating it into something else.

The h.264 decoder licenses would also seem to limit distribution of source code, which makes matters even worse. Notice that Chrome has an h.264 decoder, but Chromium (the open-source version) does not.

Opera has a similar problem as Mozilla - they couldn't include a licensed h.264 decoder in their free desktop browser for the same reasons that Mozilla can't include one in Firefox. They also won't, because it's too expensive.

That's not even getting into licenses for encoders (same as the decoders, plus the possibility that you may have to pay $2,500 directly to the MPEG-LA for each copy you use for distributing video). Or worse - royalty payments for streaming video. Unless the MPEG-LA are willing to forgo those royalty payments until 2015, they'll start charging those royalties in 2011.

Basically, using h.264 prices everyone except the really big players right out of the market.

Safari or Google could build a browser that supports h.264, because they have lots of money to spend on it, and can control the distribution of their browser. Nobody else can. Worse - you wouldn't even be able to build one of these web browsers into another application, or into some piece of hardware, without paying royalties to the MPEG-LA.

The likes of YouTube can afford the royalty payments on video encoders, and on the videos themselves, but could a smaller site? Could YouTube itself have been able to afford it before they were bought by Google? Would YouTube have even existed if they had to pay those royalties back when it was three guys in a garage?

How about the current trend to try to use video content to generate ad revenue? Remember that ads are typically pay-per-click, while those royalties on the video are payable for each view. What's the chance that the ad revenue would even come close to covering the royalties?

For that matter, what about all the other uses for web video that nobody's thought of yet?

That guy from Mozilla was right - the web grew up on, and thrives on, royalty free.

The technical problems with Theora are solvable. The licensing problems with h.264 are not solvable. Seems like a simple choice to me.


You make a false argument to support your desire and demand that the Web use something not patented for Video.

The Content Producers decide, not the free consumer.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Correction
by _txf_ on Mon 1st Feb 2010 01:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Sure they decide, but end users also have to use a licensed product. You'd start to see websites stating that they only worked with safari or chrome. It is possible...but so very silly, it would be the second coming of "site designed for internet explorer"

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Correction
by lemur2 on Mon 1st Feb 2010 01:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Correction"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Sure they decide, but end users also have to use a licensed product. You'd start to see websites stating that they only worked with safari or chrome. It is possible...but so very silly, it would be the second coming of "site designed for internet explorer"


At this time, Vimeo have started an experiment to supply video via html5, but only using h264 decoder. This will ONLY work in Safari and Chrome, not Firefox.

Despite the fact that Firefox is a few times more prevalent that Chrome and Safari combined, in a recent announcement Vimeo still somehow made the obviously-incorrect claim that using h264 lets them get video to more clients.

Clearly, in order to get open video on the web, users simply cannot leave this decision up to providers who are so obviously willing to lie.

Clearly users will have to start demanding open web video (HTML5/Theora) before we get anywhere with this.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Correction
by r_a_trip on Mon 1st Feb 2010 11:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

The Content Producers decide, not the free consumer.

No dear, they don't. At least theoretically, the consumer is the one who pays for all this.

If we all decide not to use H264 content, we will have an awful lot of sellers with no buyers.

Of course the mass of consumers at large hasn't exercised voting with their wallets for a long, long time. So naturally it seems that Corporations run the show and for now they do.

The question her is: How much pressure do you need to apply to a frog before he croaks?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Correction
by tyrione on Mon 1st Feb 2010 18:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Correction"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

The Content Producers decide, not the free consumer.

No dear, they don't. At least theoretically, the consumer is the one who pays for all this.

If we all decide not to use H264 content, we will have an awful lot of sellers with no buyers.

Of course the mass of consumers at large hasn't exercised voting with their wallets for a long, long time. So naturally it seems that Corporations run the show and for now they do.

The question her is: How much pressure do you need to apply to a frog before he croaks?


When pigs fly will this fantasy of boycott occur.

This isn't the Beta vs. VHS debacle.

The Appliance is open for all platforms. The HTML5 standard is open. Today's web browser is open all working to use the same standard.

The standard is so open it doesn't declare any one specific codec for the standard.

Content Producers [Those who make the streaming media] can choose to rip in any codec they choose and provide a variety of options for the client [free consumer] to use.

Linux, Windows and OS X all have the necessary tools to process a large set of video/audio codecs without the W3C demanding the HTML 5 compliance mean this video codec must be the One.

Reply Parent Score: 3