The other month when I was spouting my opinions about DivXs place in
the future, devices and mp4 etc, I think I probably did underestimate
the number of alternative hardware devices that are emerging that will
support DivX. Ive really no idea how many 'media portals' of the
itunes and recently announced creative variety there will eventually
be, but if there are plenty then DIvX stands a better chance of
getting its foot in the door.

Maybe the format chaos will continue for a lot longer than Id
originally hoped. Oh well, the upside of this is that theres plenty of
choice and plenty of deals to be made, with different hardawre
manufacturers, codec reators and content providers coming together to
make deals.

On the MPEG-LA licensing front, when this videoblogging group had a
brief look at the mpeg4 & h264 licenses that cover content
creators/publishers some time ago, it seemed most videoblogs would be
safe and free from paying fee's on several levels, mostly audience
size and length of video material.

I dont think theres many people who want to be cynical about the DivX
content licensing stuff, they just want to know exactly where they
stand. Has it been clarified yet as per discussions months ago?

Cheers

Steve of Elbows
 
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "JV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All sorts of things play DivX. VLC, ffmpeg. Check out the cnet article
> and it might clarify what they are looking for. They want to be able
> to push google video onto the 50 million DivX certified devices out
there.
> 
> If you are charging through google, they would obviously manage all
> mpeg-la licenses. If you have any license questions, feel free to ask.
> A lot of cynical assumptions are out there. We will indemnify as many
> fees from mpeg-la as we are legally able to for video bloggers.
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "gmjoyce_y" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > Very interesting. But that means I'll have to pay for a Dixx license
> > if I'm charging for people to download my Google downloads,
doesn't it?
> > 
> > And if I endcode in Divx, does that mean I should make available two
> > versions of my video on Google, one for people with Divx, one for
> > people without?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "JV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > You can always www.divx.com
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
http://news.com.com/DivX+partners+with+Google+Video%2C+Pioneer/2100-1025_3-6022290.html
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:18:22 +0100, gmjoyce_y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Google video says they want submissions to be in MPEG-4 video
> > and MP3
> > > > > audio formats. Can anyone recommend cheap and easy software to
> > > > > compress .avi files into these formats?
> > > > 
> > > > Quicktime Pro - $30. <URL:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/upgrade/ >
> > > > 
> > > > - Andreas
> > > > -- 
> > > > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> > > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to