I didn't think OSNews story was "hysterical", I thought it brought up some valid points and after reading the Endgaget article there are still very valid concerns.
"To repeat the point: as an end user, you'll never have to think about your legal liability over H.264, because there's no need for you to be licensed unless you're distributing commercial content to other end users or building an H.264 encoder. We'd venture a guess and say you're probably using a licensed camera and software and uploading to services like YouTube or Vimeo or Viddler, and that means you're totally in the clear." So what if you self host your videos and have ads on your site, is that commercial use? What if you create a DVD of your independent movie and use the codec and then sell the DVD? Have I just distrubuted commercial content? ( yeah, I know like the article said, get a lawyer) "On top of that, there's a gigantic exception to the license rules that should put any lingering fears to rest: using H.264 to distribute free internet video to end users doesn't cost a thing, and won't cost anything until at least 2015. After that, it's up in the air, and that's a bridge we'll have to cross when we come to it -- there's a chance the MPEG-LA could start charging a royalty for free video in five years. But for right now MPEG-LA president Larry Horn says the group doesn't want to "plug a royalty into a business model that's still unsettled." It's also important to note that the MPEG-LA can't just run off and do whatever it wants; its decisions are made by the various patent holders it represents, many of whom are also still trying to figure out the economics of video on the web themselves." 5 years seems like a long time, but trust me, it will be here before we know it and more and more videos get created and uploaded daily...And if there is one thing I have learned in my short 40 plus years on this planet, its this...nothing is ever "free" and with the amount of money we are talking about here you better believe they are activly looking for ways to get even more money...Just becasuse the guy or guys in charge now say they arn't going to charge, doesn't mean they can't or won't change their mind... "Even if a license fee for free internet video is required after 2015, it's still the apparent provider of the video that's on the hook for the license, not the content owner or end user -- Google would have to pay the royalty for the YouTube videos it hosts, just Apple now has to pay the fee for the movies it sells through iTunes and DirecTV has to pay for the content it broadcasts. That's a huge distinction, and it's one that all of these companies seem comfortable with -- they signed the contracts, after all." So what happens when companies like Blip, Google, Vimo, etc all start getting charged? I mean Firefox won't pay the like 5 million a year it takes to licence the thing now, what will happen when it's double that or more? Will Google or Blip have to start charging people to upload video's? to help cover their costs? If that happens then what happens to user created content? Most people or corporations don't create things for free, they are in the business of making money and they want to make as much of it as they can. Because of shareholders, greed or just good ole fashined for the love of money. Look, I don't pretend to be a smart man, and most of this stuff is over my head and to be honest if making video's start costing me money, I can leave it behind, no issues...it's just a hobby But for some people it's not a hobby, some people, people here on this list are trying to use the web to make money (some are making money now) What happens to them if they don't pay attention to this stuff? Heath http://heathparks.com/blog --- In [email protected], "elbowsofdeath" <st...@...> wrote: > > 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 [email protected], Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@> 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 <steve@> 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 [email protected] <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 [email protected] <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 [email protected] > > > > > <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] > > >
