It is the only sane stance

Post #324,028 by scoenye 4/4/10 10:08:43 PM Reply	It is the only sane stance http://www.betanews....treams/1265237599 The implied danger here is that a producer of video who did not use a licensed codec (whether or not he owed anything for it) could be exposing the viewer of that video to liability. Or as Mozilla contributor Robert O'Callahan described it in a blog post last Friday, "In other words, if you're an end user in a country where software patents (or method patents) are enforceable, and you're using software that encodes or decodes H.264 and the vendor is not on the list of licensees, the MPEG LA reserves the right to sue you, the end user, as well as the software vendor or distributor." The others have (or think they have) deep enough pockets that they can put their end users out of the wind, then all the best to them. And then there is still the spectre that even free streams will need to pay royalties at the whim of MPEG-LA.
Post #324,036 by SpiceWare 4/5/10 10:33:39 AM Reply	Their end users are "out of the wind" Apple, Google and Microsoft already have licenses for H.264. All Mozilla would need to do is have Firefox call the OS' built in video playback (Apple's QuickTime API, Microsoft's Windows Media Player API, etc). Yes, that spectre does exist, but I would expect the same response that caused PNG to be created for lossless image compression would happen for video.
Post #324,040 by drook 4/5/10 11:48:04 AM Reply	Other players learned their lesson There already is been a PNG-like replacement: Ogg Theora -- http://techcrunch.co...b-video-standard/ That's exactly what Firefox uses, and the other players learned from the GIF->PNG experience that if they support the new standard they lose control of the old one. So they aren't supporting it. -- Drew
Post #324,102 by pwhysall 4/6/10 2:00:39 AM Reply	Re: Other players learned their lesson Theora has its own patent woes. Gruber: http://daringfirebal...submarine_patents Rebuttal: http://www.osnews.co...n_H264_Wait_What_
Post #324,113 by drook 4/6/10 8:45:03 AM Reply	That's really interesting I just followed a link in the one I posted pointing to this ArsTechnica article -- http://arstechnica.c...-codec-debate.ars What do you notice in this passage: Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora. Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs, which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg. In discussing the positions of browsers and their vendors, what do they not even bother mentioning? -- Drew
Post #324,159 by scoenye 4/6/10 9:08:52 PM Reply	Who is the licensed supplier on Linux? And where after 2015? MPEG-LA can stop extending the free content royalty policy once world+dog is locked to H.264. Then who will absorb the cost?
Post #324,591 by SpiceWare 4/13/10 3:00:50 PM Reply	Re: Who is the licensed supplier on Linux? And where after 2 apparently Adobe is as all the info I've seen is that sites plan to fall back to Flash for browsers that don't directly support H.264. As for after 2015, dunno but H.264 will most likely be outdated by then - Google to Open-source VP8 for HTML5 Video http://newteevee.com...-for-html5-video/ On2 went so far as to claim that it could provide Â50 percent bandwidth savings compared to leading H.264 implementations.Â

Welcome to IWETHEY!