“Prior to Google’s announcement of its open sourcing the VP8 video codec, a spokesperson for MPEG LA – the licensing agent that manages the patent portfolio for multimedia technologies relating to the H.264 codec, among others – agreed to answer ten questions submitted to the agency in advance. Those questions regard how it licenses the codec that Microsoft and Apple consider the best solution for HTML 5, the next markup language for the Web.” Ten questions, ten answers, and the H264 licensing and royalties mess has managed to become even less clear. Let’s compare this to WebM: “You can do whatever you want with the WebM code without owing money to anybody.” Now you again, MPEG-LA.
Those answers were ‘clear as mud’ and I’m quite sure the MPEG-LA LA monkey spent quite some time making sure of that.
What do I miss?
There are three types of h264 users:
1) manufacturers of hard- or software using h264.
2) distributors of content encoded with h264
3) consumers (aka end-users)
Of these three types only type 1) must always pay license fees. Type 2) may have to pay license fees depending on their distribution model. There are four models:
2.1) h264 encoded content is offered on a pay-per-view (title-by-title) basis
2.2) h264 encoded content is provided to subscribers of a service only
2.3) h264 encoded content broadcasted over TV
2.4) h264 encoded content broadcasted over the internet
Only models 2.1 to 2.3 require license fees.
Therefore you must pay license fees if you produce a soft- or hardware that uses the h264 codec OR if you distribute h264 encoded content under one of the models 2.1), 2.2) or 2.3)
This might change 2015.
Why do you think this is unclear?
Well the “this might change” bit certainly makes things unclear, but at last we’re clear that it’s not clear, it’s a known unknown, you might say.
Thanks, we must attach different meanings to “unclear” then.
Nothing the MPEG-LA can write into their license will allow them to retroactively charge anybody. Therefore the terms of use today are perfectly clear. Obviously the MPEG-LA (if it still exists) can change the terms of use in 2015, or really anytime they like, but this is also perfectly clear.
I agree that the future changes to the license will probably for the worse if h264 gains a stranglehold on content encoding, but angsting about the future actions of the MPEG-LA is not making anything they said unclear. It’s just another reason to not use h264.
Edited 2010-05-22 10:13 UTC
Why can’t the legal mouth pieces at MPEG-LA find a normal human being to actual write their answers in you know, english? This kind of constant legal mumbo-jumbo every single time they answer a questions is _really_ hurting them in the long run. Not that I care much, but they really should get someone on their payroll who knows even a tiny bit about public relations.
consumers always win when there is competition at a market place. Google opening up VP8 and its (hopefully) mass adoption will force MPEG-LA to relax their terms and not to squeeze too tight if they will squeeze in 2015 when the terms are renewed.
I am starting to think that MPAG-LA is from the La La land … sorry couldn’t resist being cheesy. I do believe that the lack of clarity is due to it being an umbrella for a number of different companies and organizations (a mangled umbrella, that is)
reading the h.264 license, understanding its implications and legal conditions, then reading this:
ahhhhh…
Edited 2010-05-21 00:44 UTC
Answer to question 4:
MPEG LA: Yes, since the Web site is receiving remuneration for the AVC video content it makes available on a subscription basis, it would benefit from the coverage our AVC License provides……
Answer to question 10:
MPEG LA: Google is responsible for the use of patents in connection with any distribution of AVC video content that occurs on its Web site because its Web site is where the transaction took place with the end user, regardless of who supplied the video or whether the video infringed anyone’s copyright.
This means:
If you have a subscription system on your website (for a fee or free or whatever) and you have more than 100000 subscribers you must pay between $25K and $100K per year to distribute H.264 encoded content.
The subscription system makes it “commercial content” per default.
I think the biggest problem I have with the replies were, as one already noted, they were as clear as mud. The second problem I find is in regards to the non-commercial side after 2015:
So basically it is a gamble whether or not they decide to ping end users – or are they going to go after those who are ‘distributing’ via the internet the content free of charge? or will they go after both? Why don’t they sign an agreement that all non-commercial use of encoders and decoders will be free of charge until the end of the patent life? which raises questions – if they’re not willing to sign such a reasonable expectation of stability it sounds like they’re sucking in people then jacking up the price once they’re completely dependent.
What they need to is simplify the requirements so that people know where they stand because right now as an end user I ask myself, what happens after 2015? I’m I screwed? why can’t they just make it easy or is this another example of lawyers making work for themselves.
Let’s not forget what happened with MP3, it was exactly the same as H264, it was adopted by the masses and then the prices were hiked up.
Google and VP8 has done the internet a great service, im not worried about companies such as Apple not adopting VP8, as when everyone starts using VP8 then apple will have no choice but to start supporting it.