On 01/14/2011 03:11 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
H.264 may not be free to distribute if you have a blog that contains
some ads, even if you're only earning pennies a day.
Things are even more complex. While most (product) consumers are merely
video consumers, some (product) consumers can be video producers. For
instance, if you buy a video-camera or a photo-camera with video
capabilities, you might have problems. The Nikon D7000 that I've just
bought is able to produce videos at 1080p - but with the MPEG-LA
licensing issues. The manual clearly says that you are only able to
produce non-commercial video contents with it.
I don't think people are getting how crazy this is. We're buying a tool
and we're being put limitations in what we can do with it. Even worse,
the licensing terms are not clear; MPEG-LA spokesmen just say that
producing video contents and publishing them on the web with a camera
involved with the technology is "cool" at the moment. Right, the moment.
As I read in a smart comment, using GIFs was cool until it wasn't any
longer.
So, my point is that encumbered video (but any other document) formats
are a problem waiting to happen.
Given that, I'm not sure that Google move can improve things. While I
understand that a rationale might be to persuade people not to use
H.264, I think Google is probably overestimating itself in the
capability of persuading people. Given that it's mainly a public
relation thing, the adverse reactions, even by reputable sources as Ars
Technica, are not good.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
