Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 1st May 2010 22:17 UTC
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 422123
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2007-03-20
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