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 411730
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Greed
by Soulbender on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Greed"
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

However for something like h.264 once it is created it can be duplicated at zero cost.


Right but the thing is that it is not a codec that is being duplicated. It is the work created with help of the codec.
The codec in this case is a tool and perhaps a more fitting analogy is with a hammer.
If I buy a hammer from a store the hammer manufacturer does not get any proceedings from any work I create or any work derived from my work. I think most people would find it absurd if the manufacturer would insist on me paying them a certain amount for all my creatons that I sell.
It is almost funny what incredibly draconian terms the IT industry gets away with, all in the name of copyright and IP. Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: Greed
by nt_jerkface on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 17:54 in reply to "RE[4]: Greed"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

If you sell HD video over the internet with h.264 you're incorporating that patent into your product. You're saving money through lower bandwidth costs. The MPEG-LA group wants to be compensated for this use.

MPEG-LA creates technology for media companies to use. They can't grant an unlimited license to Final Cut users since that would mean that movie companies who used it would have an unlimited license as well. Pay per blu-ray? No we edited our movie in Final Cut Pro so we don't owe you anything.

As I stated before the return they get from software is peanuts. They're in the movie business. They just allow h.264 use in Final Cut Pro for non-commercial use.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Greed
by lemur2 on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 22:26 in reply to "RE[5]: Greed"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you sell HD video over the internet with h.264 you're incorporating that patent into your product. You're saving money through lower bandwidth costs. The MPEG-LA group wants to be compensated for this use.


My but you are a gullible one, aren't you?

MPEG LA have already seen a ROI of hundreds of times over their initial investment on h.264. They probably earned 200% markup profit in the first year alone. What they want is that income to continue for many, many years into the future, without them having to invest any more. What they want is to impose an un-earned ongoing tax on the rest of the economy.

BTW, no longer is anyone saving bandwidth costs by using h.264 over the internet. An alternative has recently caught up, hadn't you heard?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Greed
by Soulbender on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 09:11 in reply to "RE[5]: Greed"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

If you sell HD video over the internet with h.264 you're incorporating that patent into your product.


Questionable at best. What I am selling is data encoded in a certain way. It is not really that different from the hammer that allows me to create things in a certain way. What is patented, I would hope, is the algorithm used and that is not included in the encoded data created by Final Cut Pro.
You want to charge for your codec? Fine, I have no problem with that but charge the company making Final Cut Pro for every copy they sell since that actually include the codec. That would be reasonable. Expecting to get a cut of the price for the work created by the end user is not.
The software industry has been incredibly successful in making the world think that their products are special and need special protection and rules. That is nonsense. It's a product, no different from products in other industries. No, it really isn't.
The only way I can think of that software is special is in how incredibly low the general standard of the products is and how companies are completely without any responsibility for the quality and proper functioning of their products.

Edited 2010-03-03 09:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2