Linked by Brooss on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 23:14 UTC
Benchmarks A new set of x264 and vpxenc encoder benchmarks have been published. The new benchmarks address many of the concerns raised in the comments about the methodology used in the previous article, such as using SSIM for quality measurement. Theora is also included in these tests.
Thread beginning with comment 467631
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Too little too late
by mym6 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
mym6
Member since:
2005-08-26

So long as you are offering the h264 video for free there are no license fees

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[5]: Too little too late
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 03:54 in reply to "RE[4]: Too little too late"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So long as you are offering the h264 video for free there are no license fees


I believe that even if you let people look at your video for free, if it is a commercial video (e.g. advertising) then you must pay a license if you use h264.

Ergo, videos such as those I linked to:
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0/whatsnew/
which can be thought of as advertising, are thus cheaper to encode as WebM, since you face no risk of being sued for hosting them.

Mozilla face no such legal risk for the perfectly fine quality WebM videos they are showing to advertise Firefox 4 on their "Whats New" blog page.

All it took to avoid any risks was for Mozilla to take just a couple of extra minutes to encode the videos in WebM. That is an absolute pittance cost compared with the cost of making the videos in the first place, or the cost to Mozilla blog of getting a license for h264, or defending a lawsuit for not having such a license.

Edited 2011-03-24 04:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Too little too late
by robots on Thu 24th Mar 2011 05:14 in reply to "RE[5]: Too little too late"
robots Member since:
2011-02-15

I believe that even if you let people look at your video for free, if it is a commercial video (e.g. advertising) then you must pay a license if you use h264


Can you provide a source for this?

I can't find any relevant articles via Google search.

Edited 2011-03-24 05:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Too little too late
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 24th Mar 2011 09:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Too little too late"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So long as you are offering the h264 video for free there are no license fees


You wish.

Only 'non-commercial web video' is free. What, exactly, 'non-commercial' means is a mystery to everyone - which is exactly what the MPG-LA wants. At OSNews, we have ads. As such, when we upload a video using HTML5, are we non-commercial or commercial? We're not going to take the risk.

Using YouTube embeds is fine, since the burden is then on YouTube. However, with HTML5 video, WE are the video provide - not YouTube or Vimeo. As such, the rules suddenly apply to us, and the rules state that we need to pay up.

We're not going to.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Too little too late
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 09:31 in reply to "RE[5]: Too little too late"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"So long as you are offering the h264 video for free there are no license fees


You wish.

Only 'non-commercial web video' is free. What, exactly, 'non-commercial' means is a mystery to everyone - which is exactly what the MPG-LA wants. At OSNews, we have ads. As such, when we upload a video using HTML5, are we non-commercial or commercial? We're not going to take the risk.

Using YouTube embeds is fine, since the burden is then on YouTube. However, with HTML5 video, WE are the video provide - not YouTube or Vimeo. As such, the rules suddenly apply to us, and the rules state that we need to pay up.

We're not going to.
"

Actually, according to the licenses of effectively every h264 product available for people to use, only "non-commercial AND personal" use is licensed.

Submitting even a non-commercial video to YouTube would be a public use, surely. Reading the licenses, it would seem to me that one would need a separate license from MPEG LA to cover a public (non-personal) use such as that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Too little too late
by anda_skoa on Thu 24th Mar 2011 14:23 in reply to "RE[5]: Too little too late"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Only 'non-commercial web video' is free. What, exactly, 'non-commercial' means is a mystery to everyone - which is exactly what the MPG-LA wants.


And not to forget that even if "non-commercial" would be clearly defined, this still does only cover "web" distribution, not distributing on DVDs or on non-commercial TV (e.g. university campus TV).

And not to forget (do we see a pattern here) it only covers distribution, not creation or consumption.

But maybe those non-commercial web videos appear out of thin air and are purely consumed on bitstream level.

Reply Parent Score: 2