Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Thread beginning with comment 556694
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: Here we go again
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: Here we go again"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

If the majority of people can use flash or h264 to view video content, then surely that is open enough?


It isn't. The MPEG-LA has made it VERY clear they will NOT shy away from suing individuals if they violate the H.264 licenses. Considering anybody who makes money off an encoded video violates said license (since even professional cameras and software do not allow for commercial usage of H.264 content), this is far less unlikely than you think.

The web should not move from one crippling and shackling technology - Flash - to another - H.264. That's moving sideways, not forwards.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[14]: Here we go again
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:01 in reply to "RE[13]: Here we go again"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It isn't. The MPEG-LA has made it VERY clear they will NOT shy away from suing individuals if they violate the H.264 licenses.


That last part — about the fee structure for internet broadcasts — has already been amended. The MPEG-LA recently announced that internet streaming would not be charged.


http://diveintohtml5.info/video.html

What MPEG-LA announced is that their current moratorium on charging fees for the transmission of H.264 content, previously extended through 2015 for uses that don’t charge users, is now permanent. You still have to pay for a license for H.264 if you want to make things that create it, consume it, or your business model for distributing it is direct rather than indirect.


http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/08/27/free-as-in-smokescreen/

Distributing the content via streaming isn't a problem it is creating devices or software that consume it.

This cost is usually either part of the hardware or the software. This does not affect those that are streaming it or where it is streamed from.

Considering anybody who makes money off an encoded video violates said license (since even professional cameras and software do not allow for commercial usage of H.264 content), this is far less unlikely than you think.


Then they probably can afford to pay the license, so what is the problem?

VP8 is about decreasing the money Google have to pay for encoding videos on youtube and including codecs in Android. Not about a "free and open web".

The web should not move from one crippling and shackling technology - Flash - to another - H.264. That's moving sideways, not forwards.


It isn't crippling, at no point have I felt crippled when I have seen a flash video, or by watching h264 video.

At the end of the day it doesn't change the openness of the web as much as it matters and that is what is really important.

If everything supported VP8 tomorrow then great I would be all for it.

Edited 2013-03-26 15:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[15]: Here we go again
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:31 in reply to "RE[14]: Here we go again"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Then they probably can afford to pay the license, so what is the problem?
The problem is your "probably".

VP8 is about decreasing the money Google have to pay for encoding videos on youtube and including codecs in Android. Not about a "free and open web".

VP8 is about decreasing the money anybody has to pay for encoding videos and sharing them.

Reply Parent Score: 1