backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by fcx56.. on Aug 30 at 1:27 AM


Those who plan on charging for content -- such as the upcoming Hulu subscription service -- will be charged licensing fees if they use h.264. Free services -- like the current version of Hulu -- will now permanently be able to license h.264 for free.  (Source: Hulu)
MPEG LA still plans to charge licensing fees for paid video, such as subscription services

The MPEG LA organization, owners of the h.26x video codecs have announced that licensing of the h.264 video codec will remain permanently royalty free for those who provide free internet video to end users.  Previously the moratorium on licensing fees was set to expire in 2016, at which point the plan was to begin charging sites like YouTube fees.

The announcement adds an interesting twist to the contentious recent issue of video codecs and HTML5.  Currently the prevailing codec appears to be the proprietary lossy H.264 (MPEG AVC) codec.  It is used in the HTML 5 video implementations for Internet Explorer 9, Safari, and Google Chrome.  Google Chrome also supports Ogg Theora, along with Firefox and Opera.  Opera, Firefox, and Chrome's Developer version all support Google's open-source royalty-free WebM video as well.

The issue is that using three formats -- Ogg Theora, WebM, and h.264 makes coding a bit of a headache as you need to upload all three formats and include source tags for all three formats if you want to be sure to support all users.

Now that h.264 licensing is free forever for free internet video, that should help Apple (whose CEO Steve Jobs is a major MPEG LA shareholder) and Microsoft push the format.  However, it must be remembered that unlike Ogg Theora and WebM, MPEG LA 
does still plan to charge for paid video.  This means that if sites like Hulu implement subscription services, they will likely have to pay for license.  As will companies that deploy h.264 on their internal websites or use the format for offline purposes.

WebM and Ogg Theora, on the other hand are both free.  And while h.264 is proprietary and closed source, both WebM and Ogg Theora are open-source community efforts.

On the other hand, MPEG LA contends that WebM likely violates its patents.  The makers of h.264 are rumored to be preparing a suit against Google over the claims.

And one must also consider that "free" "forever" is somewhat of a misnomer, as h.264 won't be used "forever".  It'll be only a matter of time before a superior codec will come along proprietary -- or not -- and these questions will be asked anew.  Perhaps MPEG LA should say its "free for as long as it's in use".

Thus, while the h.264 announcement lets (some) video providers like YouTube to breathe a sigh of relief, it by no means has laid to rest the question of what formats browsers makers should support and endorse.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Article confusion
By Spoelie on 8/27/2010 10:17:08 AM , Rating: 4
Open & closed formats do not necessarily pertain to the source code of their implementations, as stated in the article.

x264 is arguably the best h.264 implementation around, free (as long as the licensing terms of MPEG LA are followed) and open source, licensed under GPL.

As such, the following statement: "WebM and Ogg Theora, on the other hand are both free. And while h.264 is proprietary and closed source, both WebM and Ogg Theora are open-source community efforts." is entirely incorrect.




RE: Article confusion
By Spoelie on 8/27/2010 10:22:37 AM , Rating: 5
Also, what's up with this philosophical blabbering at the end? As long as someone uses the codec, it is free, period.

quote:
And one must also consider that "free" "forever" is somewhat of a misnomer, as h.264 won't be used "forever".


If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?


RE: Article confusion
By Taft12 on 8/27/2010 11:38:52 AM , Rating: 3
Mick's comment doesn't make any sense at all. Just because technology will advance, any user is free to use h.264 even if it is obsolete.

I'd also argue that the usage stipulations don't quite make h.264 "free" when compared to always-royalty-free options.


RE: Article confusion
By MozeeToby on 8/27/2010 10:34:03 AM , Rating: 5
Software or hardware that decodes h.264 must pay patent license fees in countries that uphold software patents. That makes it impossible to release an implementation under the GPL in those countries (including the US), since GPL requires granting the end user the right to distribute while the patent license requires fees to be paid per copy of the implementation. Even if they had the money, there's no way for an open source project to know how many copies of the implementation the user might make and distribute.

What it boils down to is that no software that supports h.264 can be freely (as in freedom) distributed, h.264 is not safe to use in a GPL (or other copyleft licensed) application. Among other things, that means that the codec will never have native support in a certain popular open source web browser.


RE: Article confusion
By stmok on 8/27/2010 12:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
From the MPEG-LA announcement...

quote:
Products and services other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video continue to be royalty-bearing.


RE: Article confusion
By sprockkets on 8/27/2010 7:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
IANAL, but according to the license, if you sell an encoder or decoder, then after 100k units you are responsible for royalties.

But since x264 is not sold, but given away for free, it MIGHT mean they don't need to worry.

I'm sure real lawyers will think otherwise though.


How licensing should be.
By Spivonious on 8/27/2010 9:54:40 AM , Rating: 1
I wish all licensing was like this. Free licensing for free distribution. Someday I hope the copyright laws change to provide for free copying as long no one is profiting from the act.




RE: How licensing should be.
By theapparition on 8/27/2010 11:46:02 AM , Rating: 4
While I agree in principle, this will never happen.

You copy a CD and give it to your friend. No one profited from the exchange, but the band was denied a potential sale. So a party was potentially damaged by your non-profit exchange.

I've set my sights lower. I hope some bright mind finally get's it though thier head that 1million coppies doesn't mean that 1million people would have actually bought that if they had to pay for it.


RE: How licensing should be.
By Spivonious on 8/27/2010 4:31:19 PM , Rating: 3
No, your friend profited because he has something he didn't have before.

I just want to be able to take my purchased blu-ray, make a copy of it for backup, rip it to all of my computers, copy it to my portable media player, etc. If I do any of that today, I am violating copyright law.


RE: How licensing should be.
By Taft12 on 8/27/2010 4:46:16 PM , Rating: 4
The band profited too in the sense that if they have made a new fan there are potential T-shirt and concert ticket sales in it for them.

I don't condone illegal copying, but you can see just how harmful the RIAA's heavy-handed tactics have been.


Google wins!
By nafhan on 8/27/2010 9:19:55 AM , Rating: 2
So, it's pretty likely that this is just as desirable an outcome for Google as the widespread adoption of WebM would have been. Either way, they've got a high quality codec with which they can deliver their web video to people and they've kept it free.
The interesting thing about Google, even if you don't believe their "do no evil" thing (I don't), is that their interests lay a lot closer to having a free and open internet than just about any other large company. So, for now, go Google!




RE: Google wins!
By MDGeek on 8/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Google wins!
By MozeeToby on 8/27/2010 12:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
They kept it gratis, but they didn't keep it libre. It's gratis to use the codec to distribute free content, it's not gratis or libre to implement the codec in your software or device (at least not in nations that allow software patents). Since it's not free (in either sense) to distribute an implementation of the codec, it cannot be safely used in GPL'd (or similarly copyleft) software.


RE: Google wins!
By Alexvrb on 8/27/2010 10:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, heaven forbid a company want to profit from their hard work. If it wasn't for H.264 (AVC), we'd probably still be using ASP (MPEG-4 part 2) or similar codecs.


RE: Google wins!
By sprockkets on 8/28/2010 8:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, if it wasn't for the MPEG, we'd have nothing, or perhaps something quite poor.

MPEG4-ASP was just the precursor to what MPEG4-AVC is now.


Mozilla Firefox
By Titanius on 8/27/2010 10:18:36 AM , Rating: 1
Now there is no way Firefox developers can refuse to put H.264 support in their browser, the major factor that stopped them as been eradicated.




RE: Mozilla Firefox
By futrtrubl on 8/27/2010 11:42:36 AM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately not. Sites providing free video do not need to pay a license to ENcode that video. DEcoding hardware and software (software like Firefox if it were to have native decoding capability) still must pay fees.


RE: Mozilla Firefox
By kmmatney on 8/27/2010 2:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
The original article says it applies to both program that encode and decode, so freeware programs that decode will still get it for free.


Apple, Google, and Microsoft Who is Worst
By MDGeek on 8/27/10, Rating: -1
By ResStellarum on 8/29/2010 7:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, do you even have to ask that question? M$ duh. They're the lucifer of the software industry.


RE: Apple, Google, and Microsoft Who is Worst
By ResStellarum on 8/29/2010 7:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding the article, I think it's pretty clear by now that software patents impede innovation, and are mostly a tool for the rich and monopolistic companies to exert their control, and to lock out any semblance of competition.


By fcx56 on 8/30/2010 1:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
Regarding the article, I think it's pretty clear by now that software patents impede innovation, and are mostly a tool for unknown software comapnies which haven't made any marketable product in the last decade to sue the rich and monopolistic companies to exert their control (read: profit through patent squatting) and to lock out any semblance of competition.

Ahh much better


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki