Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 1st May 2010 22:17 UTC
Legal We've all heard how the h.264 is rolled over on patents and royalties. Even with these facts, I kept supporting the best-performing "delivery" codec in the market, which is h.264. "Let the best win", I kept thinking. But it wasn't until very recently when I was made aware that the problem is way deeper. No, my friends. It's not just a matter of just "picking Theora" to export a video to Youtube and be clear of any litigation. MPEG-LA's trick runs way deeper! The [street-smart] people at MPEG-LA have made sure that from the moment we use a camera or camcorder to shoot an mpeg2 (e.g. HDV cams) or h.264 video (e.g. digicams, HD dSLRs, AVCHD cams), we owe them royalties, even if the final video distributed was not encoded using their codecs! Let me show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

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.

Thread beginning with comment 422095
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: There is another way around it
by Eugenia on Sat 1st May 2010 23:17 UTC in reply to "There is another way around it"
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

This is doable (which means that you can't even upload to youtube, you have to really keep your videos for yourself and your family only). However, as I explained in the article, art is only useful when it's shared.

If you're only interested in family videos, that's cool. But don't destroy it for the rest of us who want to reach others. Just because you don't care about sharing video, doesn't mean you should not care about the larger picture and what that entails for our culture. Basically, Youtube would not exist in that culture. And I'm sorry to say, that Youtube/Vimeo are important to the modern culture. A lot of us can express through them.

Reply Parent Score: 4

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

This is doable (which means that you can't even upload to youtube, you have to really keep your videos for yourself and your family only).


Doesn't codec licensing become the responsibility of Google after you've uploaded it?

EDIT: nevermind, probably not. The video is contaminate at the time you film it. Caveat consumer.

Basically, Youtube would not exist in that culture. And I'm sorry to say, that Youtube/Vimeo are important to the modern culture.


Culture or "culture"...

Edited 2010-05-02 06:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

"mrhasbean" is a cronic Apple apologist. And since Apple is a member of MPEG-LA and Apple has come out in favor of this mess, you get the diatribe that mrhasbean spewed above. Not worthy of a response really.

Reply Parent Score: 1