Yay here is a very sensible article that is the perfect antidote to the hysterical OSNews story:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/?s=t5 Cheers Steve --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sullivan <sullele...@...> wrote: > > Their should just be a formal written statement of exclusion. maybe content > creators and consumers are excluded while manufacturers of hardware and > software are not. Then content creators would know that this will not and > does not effect them. Maybe the fight should be for exemption policy and > then rightly let the owners of the technology pursue their monetization in > the right direction. Is this the elephant in the room? Do they even care > about content creators? How much money is there? Not much. And even if > they think their is, publishers will surely switch to other formats and it > will be cat and mouse. Ridiculous to even conjure up. Some idiotic > unlikely future scenario when the content police pounce. > > I like so-called Open technology. But I am not going to be concerned about > my dinky little camera that outputs h.264. > > So if their should be a focus moving forward, I do believe that it should be > in the form of formalized statement of exemption by MPEG-LA. Put the > ongoing concerns to rest. In 5 years, it might not even matter. H.264 > could be obsolete... or have modified license terms that clearly allow free > use etc etc. > > How I feel at this particular moment in time and space under current normal > brain function. > > Sull > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM, elbowsofdeath <st...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > Oh I dont know. Considering that the companies who hold the patents for > > things like H.264 are also companies that need us to both consume and create > > media in order to make a profit from us via sales of hardware, software & > > services, I dont really think it is in their interests to try to extract > > more money from everyone in silly ways that would cause a massive backlash, > > especially those who cannot afford to pay. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > > > I agree about the worst case scenarios usually, however, given the state > > of on line media and given the very real and intense battle going on over > > copyrights, copyright protections, the RIAA suing everyone, the big media > > corporations working harder than ever to buy legsislation, the inability of > > our elected leaders to actually look at an issue, the outdated laws, the > > judges who have no idea about new media, etc...and it's kinda hard NOT to go > > worst case.... > > > > > > Heath > > > http://heathparks.com/blog > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "elbowsofdeath" <steve@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well I think that article raises some important issues. Its more than a > > tad hysterical in some respects though. > > > > > > > > Lets face it, there is no end of legal smallprint issues, if we paid > > attention to every last one and assumed worst case scenarios as that article > > does, I could hardly get out of bed without infringing. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "tom_a_sparks" <tom_a_sparks@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA > > > > > > > > > > it looking more and more like GIF/LZW/Unisys, but it called > > Microsoft/apple/MPEG-LA/etc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
