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 411722
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Greed
by deathshadow on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 08:33 UTC in reply to "Greed"
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Oh yes, greed. God forbid anyone get paid for any of this...

Rah rah, fight the power.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Greed
by r_a_trip on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 10:09 in reply to "RE: Greed"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh yes, greed. God forbid anyone get paid for any of this...

Well, if it is offered at inequitable terms this is exactly what should happen. The product should just wither away; unused and unpaid.

You are free to manufacture something and try to sell it at whatever terms you set to the market, but that is where it ends. If the market balks at your terms, you should not have the "right" to force a sale to someone who doesn't want it.

H.264 may be the best video codec in existence in the universe right now, but technical aspects aside, the licensing aspect makes a contract with the devil seem like a picnic. At least the devil does it on a per soul basis and keeps his sales voluntary. MPEG-LA owns (or tries to own) everybodies hide who has watched an H.264 encoded video.

The most funny thing about H.264 is that it is akin to a tin can. It is a container, not the stuff that people really want. We want to watch the video, not marvel in what tin can it is wrapped. I'd rather pay in time or bandwith or even in lower quality, before I'm criminalized by a fancy tin can.

MPEG-LA should choke in their codec. This is not about "fighting the power". This is telling an overbearing, soulless entity to just shove it.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Greed
by nt_jerkface on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 18:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Greed"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26



The most funny thing about H.264 is that it is akin to a tin can. It is a container, not the stuff that people really want. We want to watch the video, not marvel in what tin can it is wrapped. I'd rather pay in time or bandwith or even in lower quality, before I'm criminalized by a fancy tin can.


It's a highly complex algorithm that saves companies money, period. If it were as simple to create as a tin can it would have died on the market years ago.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Greed
by Anonymous Coward on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 11:07 in reply to "RE: Greed"
Anonymous Coward Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh yes, greed. God forbid anyone get paid for any of this...

Rah rah, fight the power.


No problem with them getting paid for their codec, greed, etc. I'll just use a competing free product, and someone else can pay them. Fortunately, I don't have any need for h264.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Greed
by lemur2 on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 11:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Greed"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Oh yes, greed. God forbid anyone get paid for any of this...

Rah rah, fight the power.


No problem with them getting paid for their codec, greed, etc. I'll just use a competing free product, and someone else can pay them. Fortunately, I don't have any need for h264.
"

It is already paid for. Mozilla gave just $100,000 to Xiph.org to fund the Thusnelda project that achieved considerable improvements in Theora:

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/mozilla-contributes...

and x264 implements h.264 as a non-funded free software project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264

... so even with the most outlandish inefficiencies and incompetence the original development costs for h.264 couldn't be more than a few tens of millions.

Just a few licenses from large users (digital TV broadcast, for example) would have paid that back years ago.

http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-what...
Under the terms of the agreement, you have two options: a one-time payment of $2,500 “per AVC transmission encoder” or an annual fee starting at “$2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least 100,000 but no more than 499,999 television households, $5,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at least 500,000 but no more than 999,999 television households, and $10,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at 1,000,000 or more television households.”


$10,000 per year from 10,000 digital TV stations (worldwide there would be far more than that) is $100,000 million per year right there. From just one market.

As the OP said ... greed. Pure greed.

Edited 2010-03-02 11:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2