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 411717
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Really?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 07:18 UTC 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[3]: Really?
by r_a_trip on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 10:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Really?"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Ooh, how nice and gracious. Only a lemon with juice will get squeezed.

I don't get it. The license conditions are murky and draconian. We know the licensing company is out to get their pound of flesh one way or the other. Yet we are all tied up in pro and contra blah blah over the use of H.264 on the web, over commercial and non-commercial use.

Shouldn't we just choose for our own safety and simply reject the H.264 codec together with the monster called H.264 licensing?

I can do without 5 pixels per kilobyte more (figuratively speaking) if I know that it will stop a juggernaut from legally mauling unsuspecting violators.

Probably not the viewpoint of a "modern capitalist". These days making something and getting rights to it also means the right to do anything and everything to force it down everybodies throat and fleece everybody for what they're worth. Preferably on a perpetual basis. "NO" is not an option.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Really?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 18:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Really?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I've stated numerous times that I don't think h.264 is a good choice for HTML5 Video. It's simply too inflexible.

MPEG-LA wants revenue from companies like Apple that continually benefit from h.264 through HD distribution. They don't care about Final Cut sales or even HTML5 Video.

It's Google and Apple that have been pushing h.264 to be the default codec. I still don't see how Google especially has gotten a break from the FOSS crowd in all this. They have the cash reserves to fund Theora or another alternative and yet they have been pushing h.264.

Reply Parent Score: 2