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 422807
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thank goodness for Engadget sanity!
by Smeagol on Wed 5th May 2010 13:26 UTC
Smeagol
Member since:
2006-01-16

At least someone asked some questions before extolling the end of the human race! Whew! I can sleep better tonight...this was a close one!

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-li...

Reply Score: 1

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Engadget agreed that the language of the license is not right. And I find funny the fact that the mpeg-la lawyers told engadget that they will do the opposite of what their license requires people to do.

Reply Parent Score: 1

indiworks Member since:
2010-05-03

From the engadget article:

"...the person who sells the content are the ones who have to pay.”

So you are forced to pass *licensing fees* on to *your clients* - guess where the bill for that might land in the end if this is your video business...?!

This is *still* not ok. *H.264* is the *appropriation of a film/video maker's work* from the moment you press that record button on your H.264 camera.

And what will hold up in court: the written manual/EULA from your camera or what someone on the internet said in article that starts of with "This isn't legal advice or analysis"...?!

It's still a trap!!!

Here my "for dummies" explanation:

H.264 licensing explained: it’s like “Schwarzer Peter” (“Old Maid”)

http://indiworks.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/h-264-licensing-explained...

Reply Parent Score: 1