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 422111
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Good article
by bhtooefr on Sun 2nd May 2010 00:02 UTC in reply to "Good article"
bhtooefr
Member since:
2009-02-19

The other thing is, Streisand it. Make it so that there's too many targets for MPEG LA to take down.

If they sue, just don't pay. Worst they can do is garnish your wages. Debtor's prison doesn't exist any more.

Better yet, GET them to sue. It would be GOOD if a large percentage of the general public were sued. This would cause massive riots, and people would be voted into office against the MPEG LA menace, and patent reform would happen damn quickly.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Good article
by nt_jerkface on Sun 2nd May 2010 03:54 in reply to "RE: Good article"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

They wouldn't sue unless you were making a lot of money, and if you're making a lot of money then you can probably afford the 2 cents per disc royalty fee.

They would likely send you a letter first asking for any back dues that they could show you clearly didn't pay.

Reply Parent Score: 2