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 422181
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: But why should I care?
by darknexus on Sun 2nd May 2010 11:23
in reply to "But why should I care?"
RE[2]: But why should I care?
by Auxx on Wed 5th May 2010 16:57
in reply to "RE: But why should I care?"





Member since:
2007-04-05
I live in Latvia, EU. Software patents do not exist here and EULAs don't have any legal power here unless signed by BOTH parties on PAPER. Oh, and it must be in Latvian language. So, why should I care? I'm full protected here from MPEG LA.