It seems that Google's purchase of On2 already has effect because MPEG is seeking to develop a royalty free video codec.<p><i>Given that there is a desire for using royalty free video coding technologies for some applications such as video distribution over the Internet, MPEG wishes to enquire of National Bodies about their willingness to commit to active participation (as defined by Section 6.2.1.4 of the JTC1 directives) in developing a Type-1 video coding standard.</i>
(Source: <a href="http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-royalty-free-standardization/" rel="nofollow">http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-royalty...</a> )<p>Notice that they mention distribution over the Internet. MPEG has less potential competition in the broadcast sector.
I think I remember this before, back when it was called "Why Our Civilization's Image Art and Culture is Threatened by the Graphics Interchange Format (GIF)".
I love living in Germany where this kind of EULA clause is completely void.<p><a href="http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bgb/__307.html" rel="nofollow">http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bgb/__307.html</a>
"Civilization" is putting it a little strongly. Patents have 18-year lifetimes, and the mpeg4 patent clocks have all been ticking for at least a few years now. In a historical perspective, this too shall pass.
> <i>However, what's "free to stream"? According to the interpretation of the U.S. law, if you stream your video with ads (e.g. Youtube, Vimeo), then that's a non-free usage. It's commercial video, even if you, the producer, makes no dime out of it (and that's a definition and interpretation of the US law that even Creative Commons believes so, if I am to judge from their last year's "what's a commercial video" survey)</i><p>This is a pretty common error of legal reasoning. For one thing, the definition of "commercial video" that Creative Commons asserts is just a definition it made up; only a court can actually determine what the term means. (I am unaware of any cases deciding this; if they exist, please let me know of them.)<p>And at any rate, the definition of "commercial video" in a CC license has no necessary bearing on the definition of "free to stream" in the MPEG-LA license. They are not the same document, and the same term in two different contracts can have entirely different meanings.
So everyone should use only MJPEG or worse end-to-end because he says so — obviously the only path to freedom is <i>Bondage and Discipline</i><p>Somehow it's only the freetards that respect Patent law to the letter — they may be campaigning to dismantle it, but in the process they've been consistently acting as it's biggest cheerleader by licking its boot heel in toadyish submission.<p>It's just like how the hackers that campaigned to dismantle the export restrictions on crypto in the 90s are the exact same people currently shouting down the ability to use crypto for practical purposes: they want hardware key escrow, DRM, and signed firmware to all be effectively illegal. I don't think ideologues are capable of understanding irony.<p><i>Freedom is rigorous self-enslavement to other peoples' patents. Ignorance of the state of the art is strength!</i>
Interesting article. Although I think it is an overreaction. Obviously MPEG-LA could be trying to enforce their patents against everyone, but they aren't. Given the level of adoption of H.264 if they started to do so they would quickly kill their potential income stream.<p>The answer isn't for everyone to go back to the dark ages of mjpeg, it is to convince MPEG-LA to be reasonable.
He's a short version: AAPL and MSFT have a stake in MPEG-LA owner of the proprietary H.264, for now they lets us use it without paying royalties, Mozilla and other smaller players can't support because it's proprietary. One day MPEG-LA will ask for it’s money and we’ll all be royally fucked, it happen before with GIF, so please support any existing or to introduced open source alternatives.