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 422124
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Let's put it out there
by bhtooefr on Sun 2nd May 2010 11:35
in reply to "Let's put it out there"




Member since:
2008-05-26
We really need to start trying to push people to stop using H.264. Tell them that if they want to be assured of not getting a 'knock on the door', that they need to use Motion JPEG which is archaic and inefficient, or Theora which is modern and fairly good.