Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Mar 2010 21:59 UTC
Multimedia, AV "A lot of commercial software comes with H.264 encoders and decoders, and some computers arrive with this software preinstalled. This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like. Unfortunately for them, it ain't so."
Thread beginning with comment 411696
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Really?
by sigzero on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 03:13 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

"This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like."

I have never heard that argument before. Everyone that deals with it in a technical sense *knows* it ain't free.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Really?
by AlexandreAM on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 03:18 in reply to "Really?"
AlexandreAM Member since:
2006-02-06

Even when they do it from a product called "Final Cut Pro"?

I'm not on this field of work, so I'm really just blowing my opinion here but, it seems to me that if I buy a tool to make videos, I should be given the right to do as I see fit with my videos. I mean, I already paid for "the right to make them" once, having to pay for the right to distribute something I made is odd.

Edit: Just to make sure, I'm not saying the license for H.264 is wrong nor anything, but I'd be very annoyed at the publisher of Final Cut Pro (or the Adobe Premiere thing) if I bought their products only to figure out that I can't do as I please with the videos I make.

Edited 2010-03-02 03:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Really?
by WorknMan on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 03:56 in reply to "RE: Really?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Edit: Just to make sure, I'm not saying the license for H.264 is wrong nor anything, but I'd be very annoyed at the publisher of Final Cut Pro (or the Adobe Premiere thing) if I bought their products only to figure out that I can't do as I please with the videos I make.


Yeah, that's like if I bought a copy of Microsoft Office, and then found out I had to pay a license fee to use some of the fonts that came with it if I were going to use it for commercial purposes. I would assume that any related license fees would be included with the purchase price of the product.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Really?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 07:18 in reply to "RE: Really?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I'm not on this field of work, so I'm really just blowing my opinion here but, it seems to me that if I buy a tool to make videos, I should be given the right to do as I see fit with my videos. I mean, I already paid for "the right to make them" once, having to pay for the right to distribute something I made is odd.


The revenue they make from software like Final Cut Pro is peanuts compared to what they make from large companies that sell millions of videos. They're just allowing you to use h.264 in Final Cut Pro for non-commercial use.

If you want to sell video that is encoded with h.264 then you need to pay a license fee. You're making commercial use of the patent.

But the other side of this is that you'll only be sued if you are making a decent amount of money. They'd also send you a warning letter first and request that you purchase a license.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Really?
by andydread on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 16:32 in reply to "Really?"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

"This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like."

I have never heard that argument before. Everyone that deals with it in a technical sense *knows* it ain't free.


So are you saying that those who use Final Cut Pro and Premiere for commercial purposes all have separate licenses with the MPEG-LA? for using MPEG2-4 and H264 commercially? Really?

Reply Parent Score: 1