UPDATE: Engadget just wrote a reply to this article. The article says that you don't need an extra license to shoot commercial video with h.264 cameras, but I wonder why the license says otherwise, and Engadget's "quotes" of user/filmmaker indemnification by MPEG-LA are anonymous...
UPDATE 2: Engadget's editor replied to me. So according to him, the quotes are not anonymous, but organization-wide on purpose. If that's the case, I guess this concludes that. And I can take them on their word from now on.
UPDATE 3: And regarding royalties (as opposed to just licensing), one more reply by Engadget's editor.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Great find and great article, Eugenia.
Now it is clear why Google want to establish a free codec for Youtube. Without a free codec there could be a situation where they have to pay for every video they stream. (Not likely, but still possible and businesses have to ensure those situations are handled.)
Now I am sure that they will open source VP8 and Firefox, Opera and Chrome will ship it in 2011.
And I think that MPEG-LA knows that if they start an open war, it will end in the invalidation of all these patents (simply because they can't have the monopoly on codec design as they pretend to have).
I'm sure that they won't start a war, and I'm sure that if they start it they'll lose. And I think they know it.
So what can they do? Spread FUD. Scare everyone but without ever actually starting a war. Just threatening with it again and again.
And what can WE do? Use Free codecs and believe that they are really Free. If we start to get scared that they might not be Free after all, they win. If they think that those codecs are not Free, let them take that to court. We'll see what happens.
But yes, for the cameras it's a problem. For now use MJPEG and for the future, hope for Theora ones.
I think, the problem isn't that they will "declare war on the rest of the world" - but rather, that anyone can be blamed for using codec. That anyone - "in case of need" - can be sued.
The other thing is, it's in Google's interest to see all these patents get destroyed, at least right now.
And Google owns VP3, which predates H.264, and which Apple is possibly assembling a patent pool to combat.
Time for a pre-emptive strike against H.264. Google, sue the hell out of the MPEG LA for infringing on On2's patents.
And what can WE do? Use Free codecs and believe that they are really Free. If we start to get scared that they might not be Free after all, they win. If they think that those codecs are not Free, let them take that to court. We'll see what happens.
What can we do?
Spread FUD regarding h.264. So far h.264 has had such an easy ride from people who merely look at it from the technical point of view. Yes, it's probably a better codec than the alternatives - but if it's close to impossible to use a product which uses h.264 for business use without another license then it becomes a useless format.
Remind businesses that any h.264 camera they've got is potentially illegal usage. Remind people who export h.264 video that they can't use it in any slightly commercial way.
It's amazing how some people are getting slightly scared of the potential Ogg Theora minefield when h.264 is a confirmed legal minefield.
Edited 2010-05-02 01:11 UTC
I just checked my lowly Nikon Coolpix L12 and it shoots in 640x480 30fps MJPEG with PCM Wave audio, in an AVI container. Obviously I'm not going to be making any epic movies with this format, but it's nice to know I'm relatively safe from litigation should I upload family movies to America's Funniest Home Videos.
The solution is to completely dissolve, or invalidate, MPEG-LA as an organization, and its patents. There's no way going around it. They have created such an extreme situation (as explained in the article), that only an extreme solution would fix the problem.
Would love to have some links or follow up articles on legal analysis on all this...
IANAL The problem for MPEG-LA to go after Theora is that the makers of Theora have done their due diligence to try to NOT infringe. This ways heavily in court. So MPEG-LA may not be able to do as much as they would like, even to Theora.
Dissolving MPEG-LA won't do any good. The companies will just reform under a new entity. The ONLY solution is to invalidate the patents MPEG-LA holds - ALL of them. The removal of Software Patents would pretty much solve the issue.
I don't quite get to know why recording to Theora is encumbered by patents, but maybe that's because I'm just an amateur.
However, I thin http://www3.elphel.com/files/Elphel_Brochure.pdf fits your needs better than other cameras, here is an excerpt from their spec pages:
"Recording formats: Quicktime, OGM, JPEG Image Sequence, JP4 RAW Image Sequence, RAW sensor data, HDR (experimental)"
- I suppose MJPEG is the same as JPEG Image Sequence and if that doesn't fit I'm sure the RAW sensor data does so.
Here's another excerpt, this time from their website home page:
"Elphel, Inc. was started in 2001 to provide high performance cameras based on free software and hardware designs. Freedom of the users of Elphel products is our top priority - we value and protect it with the GNU General Public License that covers all the Elphel software and hardware designs."
As for the moment I don't have the money to buy any camera, including Elphel's, I can't try their products myself.
Your assumption that theora is unfit revolves around breaking patents. But if a big company with its own patents would throw its weight behind it (or VP8) it could just counter-sue the MPEG alliance.
And that might be another reason why Google bought On2: The MPEG alliance won’t dare sue them when in the same instance they would also lose their right to license h.264 (which surely breaks some On2 patents, too).





Member since:
2005-06-28
As I explained in the article, even if there was such a Theora camera, MPEG-LA would probably still sue them for patent infringement (if one fine day they decided to become patent trolls). And MPEG-LA are the kind of organization (judging from their current licensing agreements) that could go against the consumers who purchased and used such a camera too -- not just the manufacturer.
The solution is to completely dissolve, or invalidate, MPEG-LA as an organization, and its patents. There's no way going around it. They have created such an extreme situation (as explained in the article), that only an extreme solution would fix the problem.
Edited 2010-05-01 22:46 UTC