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 422538
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:
2007-02-17
MPEG LA charge "per transmission" of a digital video file (primarily, they mean when a digital TV transimission is made, or when a Bluray disk is stamped). In addition, they have put a temporary hold on charging for transmission over the web ... for the time being, this is not charged.
At the moment, x264 is actually helping MPEG LA to get their H.264 codec entrenched for use on the web.
Why (for the moment) would MPEG LA want x264 to stop?