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 422214
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Impartial Jury Impossible
by npa202reboot on Sun 2nd May 2010 13:44 UTC
Member since:

At the risk of introducing class warfare into the argument, here goes. Let us consider who could be selected for jury service arising from these cases. Unless there were installed a system like in Logan's Run of eliminating people at retirement age (like people in power DO NOT ALREADY have this idea), people will need retirement income. Retirement income is derived from investments. Investments will invariable involve entities that create intellectual property, because currently that is 'where the money is'. The nexus between a perspective juror and intellectual property has been established and therefore the perception and/or presumption of conflict of interest. I would like to see among the questions asked at voir dire: Do you derive wage income from the creation and/or development of intellectual property? Do you have investments and/or a retirement plan? If so, do you realize that those investments may be in companies that create and/or develop intellectual property? Would it not be reasonable to believe that you have a personal interest that the defendant be found guilty/liable? Would it not be reasonable to believe that your presence on the jury would be seen as contaminating due process should the defendant be found guilty/liable and thus risk such finding to reversal on appeal?

Reply Score: 1