H.264 = last one pays (= gets the looser card)
As explained on engadget:
“…the person who sells the encoder and the person who sells the content are the ones who have to pay.”
So this here (also quoted from engadget) is *not* good:
“Yes, but it’s not as bad as it seems. First off, we’ve directly asked MPEG-LA whether or not using an H.264 camera simply to shoot video for a commercial purpose requires a license, and the answer is no.”
They are lawyers! R-e-f-r-a-s-e your question…!!!
“We’ve also asked whether an end user watching H.264 videos would ever have to pay or be licensed, and the answer to that question is also no. Yes, the license terms are worded poorly, but those are the answers straight from the patent horse’s mouth. Everyone can breathe again, ‘kay?”
Someone down the line will have to pay: “…the person who sells the content are the ones who have to pay”.
And what do you think will hold up in court? The written agreement you bought with the camera or what a clever lawyer says who obviously was sent to this H.264 PR event…? Those a l-a-w-y-e-r-s!!! Make them sign their own statements and be very careful with your wording…!!!
H.264 based video business = lock-in as soon as you push that record button
So if you are having a video business licensing fees for your H.264 recorded footage will be due down the line!
Basically your business will be *disadvantaged* over the business that avoids the H.264 lock-in!
H.264 licensing = the last one in the distribution chain pays, he gets the “Schwarzer Peter” (= the looser card – an old children’s card game here in Europe).
So what are my clients going to say when I sell them footage that they will need to pay licensing fees for…?! My guess is the bill will land on my table, at least it will weaken my position when it comes to selling/licensing my own video clip/3D footage!
I’m not so stupid and will build my business upon that model, pass on the “Schwarzer Peter” card (= looser card) to my clients!
As a film and video maker I like to 100% own my work.
What a lock-in business model it is that Apple, MS, the MPEG LA and all those companies that hold H.264 patents have built!
H.264 is the appropriation of your work from the moment you press that record button on your H.264 camera.
Why on earth is this legal? I can see the word m-o-n-o-p-o-l-y written all over this, specially when thinking of Steve Jobs/Apple (quoted from Open Letter to Steve Jobs): “All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other “open source” codecs now.”
I guess it comes down to this:
All video codecs are equal, but some codecs are more equal than others.
Hello FCC…, hello EU commission…, hello consumer rights advocates…, hello film and video makers of this world:
This is our wake-up call…!!!