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 411808
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Greed
by nt_jerkface on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Greed"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

This is the precise logical disconnect with IP laws. How exactly does artificially restricting and penalising users create value or reward anyone?


The value is in the intellectual property and through limited reproduction and usage you reward the creator. It's a working system that the vast majority of economists support it. For many types of intellectual property there is no natural incentive to create it if unlimited duplication is allowed. Capital will go elsewhere.


Once the initial investment in research effort has been paid for, under what perverse moral code is it still valid to fleece users thereafter?

It's not a non-profit system. They want more than an equal return on their investment. You can't have intellectual property development be less profitable than a CD or money market account.


h.264 no longer provides said tangible benefits. It is only that this changed fact seems to be very hard to get across to people in the face of many powerful vested interests telling them otherwise.


It does provide tangible benefits, namely bandwidth and storage savings which is why companies pay to use it. Also note that h.264 was completed in 2003 which is well before Theora became a competitive alternative.

I don't think the benefits of h.264 outweigh its costs in the area of HTML5 video however. I think this is a situation where "good enough tech" should be chosen for its flexibility.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Greed
by lemur2 on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 22:41 in reply to "RE[5]: Greed"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" This is the precise logical disconnect with IP laws. How exactly does artificially restricting and penalising users create value or reward anyone?
The value is in the intellectual property and through limited reproduction and usage you reward the creator. "

Its pure greed.

It's a working system that the vast majority of economists support it.


Pfft. I've never heard any economist supporting the idea that large software companies should get paid a 500% ROI ongoing year-over-year ... for essentially doing nothing.

Any economist who does support such a notion is probably being paid by the people who are perpetrating the rip-off.

For many types of intellectual property there is no natural incentive to create it if unlimited duplication is allowed. Capital will go elsewhere.


Good. h.264 has made its money a thousand times over by now. It is about time now that the money was invested elsewhere in the economy, where it might do some good.

" Once the initial investment in research effort has been paid for, under what perverse moral code is it still valid to fleece users thereafter?
It's not a non-profit system. They want more than an equal return on their investment. You can't have intellectual property development be less profitable than a CD or money market account. "

Geeting more back than you paid out is reasonable, it is called ROI. One might reasonably hope for a 20%, 30%, 40% ROI.

MPEG ROI for h.264 in their first years was probably in the region of 1000%. Now they want an ongoing take of hundreds of millions per year for no ongoing outlay at all.

" h.264 no longer provides said tangible benefits. It is only that this changed fact seems to be very hard to get across to people in the face of many powerful vested interests telling them otherwise.
It does provide tangible benefits, namely bandwidth and storage savings which is why companies pay to use it. Also note that h.264 was completed in 2003 which is well before Theora became a competitive alternative. I don't think the benefits of h.264 outweigh its costs in the area of HTML5 video however. I think this is a situation where "good enough tech" should be chosen for its flexibility. "

It NO LONGER provides any benefit at all. It is merely an ongiong cost, a pure drain on the economy, and an unearned tax-like income for MPEG LA.

Edited 2010-03-02 22:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2