Know Your Rights: H.264, patent licensing, and you
By Nilay Patel 
posted May 4th 2010 4:33PM
posted May 4th 2010 4:33PM
Know Your Rights is Engadget's technology law series, written by our own totally punk ex-copyright attorney Nilay Patel. In it we'll try to answer some fundamental tech-law questions to help you stay out of trouble in this brave new world. This isn't legal advice or analysis, so don't get all donked in the head.
What on earth is going on with H.264, patents, and video encoding on the web? It seems like ever since Steve Jobs published his Thoughts on Flash the world has gone crazy.
We know what you mean! It's getting pretty silly out there. OSNews just declared that H.264 would be the death of video art and culture because professional video cameras are only licensed by AT&T for personal and non-commercial usage. Terrifying, although most of the creative people we know have continued working free of devastating laser attacks from space.
You're an ass. Really, what's the deal?
Okay, well, as you might know, H.264 is the codec used in everything from YouTube to Flip cams to HD-DSLRs to Blu-ray, and it's the standard Apple's backing over Flash for video on the web. Microsoft and Google are also backing H.264, but neither is being as militant about Flash. H.264 is thus a Big Deal -- it's very likely the future of video on the internet and beyond.
That's got people all hot and bothered, because depending on how you use H.264 you have to pay license fees to the MPEG-LA, which represents various patent-holders that came together to create the standard. We're talking some major industry heavyweights here: in addition to Apple and Microsoft, the H.264 patent roster includes Panasonic, Sony, Dolby, Thomson, and Toshiba -- in all there are 26 companies or organizations listed as holding H.264 patents. (As an aside, Apple has a single patent in the pool, while Microsoft has around 75, and Microsoft says it actually pays more in license fees than it collects in royalties.)
Oh, and AT&T also has some patents on MPEG-4 it wants license fees for, but it's not part of MPEG-LA, and those rates have to be negotiated separately.
That doesn't sound very open. Did Steve Jobs lie to me?
There's a crucial difference between "open" and "free" here. Although H.264 is an open standard, in that it was developed by a consortium of companies and anyone can make and sell an encoder or decoder, it's not free -- you've got to pay for a royalty fee to use it, and the rates are set by the MPEG-LA, which collects payments and distributes them to its members. The basic rate sheet and license terms are publicly available in summary form (PDF) on the MPEG-LA's website -- it's certainly possible for companies to strike custom deals, but for our purposes the public document offers a good baseline.
So what are the rates, and who has to pay?
An excellent question that cuts to the heart of the matter. Remember, patents cover making, using, and selling the patented technology, so the MPEG-LA actually offers two licenses: one for codec developers (who make and sell the patented H.264 technology) and one for video content and service providers (who use it to distribute H.264 encoded content). The rates vary significantly; the yearly royalties for distributing an encoder range from free to $5m, while the royalties for distributing for-pay content are subject to complex rules about distribution but also range from free to $5m. In any event, MPEG-LA has said to us that only the parties at the top and bottom of the H.264 tool chain are generally required to pay royalties; that is, the party who makes the encoder, and the party who distributes the encoded file to the end users. You can think of that as the first and last transaction, if you like -- the person who sells the encoder and the person who sells the content are the ones who have to pay.
That ultimately means products that come with an H.264 codec don't also come with a license to use the codec commercially -- in order to distribute H.264 content in a way that makes money, the distributor has to pay for a separate license. So products like Windows 7, Mac OS X, Final Cut Pro, Avid, and modern video cameras aren't licensed to distribute video for commercial use -- they all have fine print somewhere that says they're for personal and non-commercial use only. It's language that feels incredibly aggressive and broad, especially since it apparently conflicts with the MPEG-LA's general position that only the final link in the chain -- the party selling or distributing the video to the end user -- has to pay royalties for using the H.264 encoder.
Ouch. So people are mad because they have to pay to make and distribute videos for commercial use?
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. 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?
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.
Yeah yeah. Can they sue me or what?
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. Yes, if you're a pro and you somehow find yourself selling H.264 videos directly to end users you'll have to sign a license and potentially pay up, but hey -- if you're doing that you're running an actual business and you need to go talk to a real lawyer, not a disembodied third person Q&A on the internet.
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.
Okay, so why all the fuss? This seems pretty simple to me.
Well, not really. This is the internet, where people hate paying for things, and although end users won't have to directly pay for H.264 licenses, the very idea of anyone or any company having to pay a license for a video codec has sparked off a firestorm of controversy, most of which is centered around whether or not H.264 is "free" or "open," and whether or not alternative open-source and royalty-free codecs like Ogg Theora are better for technical, emotional, or moral reasons.
That's an extremely important and valid debate, but things get messy when you start throwing around terms like "free" and "open" without an understanding of what they specifically mean, and they get even messier when you don't look at the actual license terms. And on top of all of that, things get downright heated when you mix in the fact that Apple's making the biggest push for H.264, because, well, people get incredibly irrational when it comes to hating or loving Apple.
Damn straight. But wouldn't an open-source and royalty-free codec like Ogg Theora actually be better? And cheaper?
Sure it would, and we'd absolutely love for a free alternative to win out. But it's not that simple. First, many people believe that H.264 is superior to Theora, which is based on the VP3.2 codec released by a company called On2 in 2000. Second, it's also possible that Theora infringes patents held by MPEG-LA members and other codec developers, and that puts whoever uses it at risk of a patent lawsuit -- Larry Horn has flatly said Theora infringes MPEG-LA member patents in recent months. Nobody knows the answer to that question, since it's ultimately for the courts to decide, but it injects a healthy amount of fear and uncertainty to the mix, and most businesses tend to shy away from uncertainty -- especially when it's about potentially massive legal liability.
So the real choice for most companies is to sign up with H.264 and the MPEG-LA in return for a baseline level of legal protection and broad compatibility with a codec that's been widely adopted in the market, or to go with Theora, save the money upfront and risk a patent lawsuit down the road while shipping a potentially inferior product. Depending on your point of view, that's either quite a racket the MPEG-LA's got going or it's just ruthless tech industry business as usual, but there's the fundamental situation. To say that there are a great many smart people out there with passionate viewpoints on either side of this debate would be a tremendously hilarious understatement.
Now, Google actually bought On2 in February, and there's lots of chatter that it might open-source a codec related to Theora called VP8 at the I/O conference this month, but releasing the source to something doesn't erase any potential patent liability, and VP8 would be way behind H.264 in terms of market adoption. We're eager to find out what Google has planned, but let's be straight here: it's going to take a major, major move for VP8 to have any effect on the H.264 juggernaut. Let's agree to call VP8 a big question mark for right now, shall we?
So why does Firefox support Theora and not H.264?
It all goes back to the licensing terms we talked about above -- in order to ship an H.264 decoder with Firefox, Mozilla would have to pay the MPEG-LA something around $5 million a year.
That's not cheap.
Nope. What's more, Mozilla remains actively opposed to doing anything that would violate its free-software principles, and shipping code that comes with non-free, non-redistributable license obligations definitely goes against that spirit. We can totally respect that.
Yeah. So what to do?
That's a rock and a hard place for Mozilla. For example, Firefox could leverage the H.264 decoders built in to Windows and OS X to play H.264 content without paying the fees, but that gets right back to having content on the web that isn't "free," and that's not something Mozilla seems to be interested in supporting. If H.264 continues to evolve and gain widespread support in the market, Mozilla may eventually have to make an impossible decision between idealism and compatibility, and we're not even going to try and predict how that one will turn out -- remember, we're having this H.264 conversation right now because it's in line to replace Flash video, which is arguably even less free and open.
Okay, this all sounds super complicated again.
Well, it sort of is. But it's not so complicated that the market can't figure it out -- and since it's not end users who are directly paying here, the market is actually the companies and organizations that have to risk real money and real consequences on their decisions. And that market is pretty familiar with patent pools: MPEG-2 has been licensed by the MPEG-LA for 20 years now, while HDMI, WiFi, 2G and 3G cell services, USB, CDs, DVDs, and Blu-ray discs are all standards managed by similar licensing organizations. We would note at this time none of those arrangements have led to the death of any sort of creativity.
Ke$ha.
Excellent point.
More seriously, it's obvious the MPEG-LA and its licensees should be clearer with customers about what's up with commercial licensing and who needs to pay for what. That hidden personal use fine print feels really sneaky, and pro users need to get some clarity on what's required of them -- you don't mess around with people's livelihoods in the fine print, you know? A clarification from the MPEG-LA and some bigger notices at the front of the manuals are needed in short order.
But look, it's not often Apple, Microsoft, Google, DirecTV, Sony, Toshiba and some 810 other companies all back a standard together. Barring some insanity -- and we never bar any insanity -- we'd say H.264 has already won this year's version of the format war.
You talk a lot. So when is Engadget going to start offering HTML5 / H.264 videos instead of Flash?
2200 words later, and you still had to go there, didn't you?
We know what you mean! It's getting pretty silly out there. OSNews just declared that H.264 would be the death of video art and culture because professional video cameras are only licensed by AT&T for personal and non-commercial usage. Terrifying, although most of the creative people we know have continued working free of devastating laser attacks from space.
You're an ass. Really, what's the deal?
Okay, well, as you might know, H.264 is the codec used in everything from YouTube to Flip cams to HD-DSLRs to Blu-ray, and it's the standard Apple's backing over Flash for video on the web. Microsoft and Google are also backing H.264, but neither is being as militant about Flash. H.264 is thus a Big Deal -- it's very likely the future of video on the internet and beyond.
That's got people all hot and bothered, because depending on how you use H.264 you have to pay license fees to the MPEG-LA, which represents various patent-holders that came together to create the standard. We're talking some major industry heavyweights here: in addition to Apple and Microsoft, the H.264 patent roster includes Panasonic, Sony, Dolby, Thomson, and Toshiba -- in all there are 26 companies or organizations listed as holding H.264 patents. (As an aside, Apple has a single patent in the pool, while Microsoft has around 75, and Microsoft says it actually pays more in license fees than it collects in royalties.)
Oh, and AT&T also has some patents on MPEG-4 it wants license fees for, but it's not part of MPEG-LA, and those rates have to be negotiated separately.
That doesn't sound very open. Did Steve Jobs lie to me?
There's a crucial difference between "open" and "free" here. Although H.264 is an open standard, in that it was developed by a consortium of companies and anyone can make and sell an encoder or decoder, it's not free -- you've got to pay for a royalty fee to use it, and the rates are set by the MPEG-LA, which collects payments and distributes them to its members. The basic rate sheet and license terms are publicly available in summary form (PDF) on the MPEG-LA's website -- it's certainly possible for companies to strike custom deals, but for our purposes the public document offers a good baseline.
So what are the rates, and who has to pay?
An excellent question that cuts to the heart of the matter. Remember, patents cover making, using, and selling the patented technology, so the MPEG-LA actually offers two licenses: one for codec developers (who make and sell the patented H.264 technology) and one for video content and service providers (who use it to distribute H.264 encoded content). The rates vary significantly; the yearly royalties for distributing an encoder range from free to $5m, while the royalties for distributing for-pay content are subject to complex rules about distribution but also range from free to $5m. In any event, MPEG-LA has said to us that only the parties at the top and bottom of the H.264 tool chain are generally required to pay royalties; that is, the party who makes the encoder, and the party who distributes the encoded file to the end users. You can think of that as the first and last transaction, if you like -- the person who sells the encoder and the person who sells the content are the ones who have to pay.
That ultimately means products that come with an H.264 codec don't also come with a license to use the codec commercially -- in order to distribute H.264 content in a way that makes money, the distributor has to pay for a separate license. So products like Windows 7, Mac OS X, Final Cut Pro, Avid, and modern video cameras aren't licensed to distribute video for commercial use -- they all have fine print somewhere that says they're for personal and non-commercial use only. It's language that feels incredibly aggressive and broad, especially since it apparently conflicts with the MPEG-LA's general position that only the final link in the chain -- the party selling or distributing the video to the end user -- has to pay royalties for using the H.264 encoder.
Ouch. So people are mad because they have to pay to make and distribute videos for commercial use?
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. |
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. 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?
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.
Yeah yeah. Can they sue me or what?
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. Yes, if you're a pro and you somehow find yourself selling H.264 videos directly to end users you'll have to sign a license and potentially pay up, but hey -- if you're doing that you're running an actual business and you need to go talk to a real lawyer, not a disembodied third person Q&A on the internet.
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.
Okay, so why all the fuss? This seems pretty simple to me.
Well, not really. This is the internet, where people hate paying for things, and although end users won't have to directly pay for H.264 licenses, the very idea of anyone or any company having to pay a license for a video codec has sparked off a firestorm of controversy, most of which is centered around whether or not H.264 is "free" or "open," and whether or not alternative open-source and royalty-free codecs like Ogg Theora are better for technical, emotional, or moral reasons.
That's an extremely important and valid debate, but things get messy when you start throwing around terms like "free" and "open" without an understanding of what they specifically mean, and they get even messier when you don't look at the actual license terms. And on top of all of that, things get downright heated when you mix in the fact that Apple's making the biggest push for H.264, because, well, people get incredibly irrational when it comes to hating or loving Apple.
Damn straight. But wouldn't an open-source and royalty-free codec like Ogg Theora actually be better? And cheaper?
Sure it would, and we'd absolutely love for a free alternative to win out. But it's not that simple. First, many people believe that H.264 is superior to Theora, which is based on the VP3.2 codec released by a company called On2 in 2000. Second, it's also possible that Theora infringes patents held by MPEG-LA members and other codec developers, and that puts whoever uses it at risk of a patent lawsuit -- Larry Horn has flatly said Theora infringes MPEG-LA member patents in recent months. Nobody knows the answer to that question, since it's ultimately for the courts to decide, but it injects a healthy amount of fear and uncertainty to the mix, and most businesses tend to shy away from uncertainty -- especially when it's about potentially massive legal liability.
So the real choice for most companies is to sign up with H.264 and the MPEG-LA in return for a baseline level of legal protection and broad compatibility with a codec that's been widely adopted in the market, or to go with Theora, save the money upfront and risk a patent lawsuit down the road while shipping a potentially inferior product. Depending on your point of view, that's either quite a racket the MPEG-LA's got going or it's just ruthless tech industry business as usual, but there's the fundamental situation. To say that there are a great many smart people out there with passionate viewpoints on either side of this debate would be a tremendously hilarious understatement.
Now, Google actually bought On2 in February, and there's lots of chatter that it might open-source a codec related to Theora called VP8 at the I/O conference this month, but releasing the source to something doesn't erase any potential patent liability, and VP8 would be way behind H.264 in terms of market adoption. We're eager to find out what Google has planned, but let's be straight here: it's going to take a major, major move for VP8 to have any effect on the H.264 juggernaut. Let's agree to call VP8 a big question mark for right now, shall we?
So why does Firefox support Theora and not H.264?
It all goes back to the licensing terms we talked about above -- in order to ship an H.264 decoder with Firefox, Mozilla would have to pay the MPEG-LA something around $5 million a year.
That's not cheap.
Nope. What's more, Mozilla remains actively opposed to doing anything that would violate its free-software principles, and shipping code that comes with non-free, non-redistributable license obligations definitely goes against that spirit. We can totally respect that.
Yeah. So what to do?
That's a rock and a hard place for Mozilla. For example, Firefox could leverage the H.264 decoders built in to Windows and OS X to play H.264 content without paying the fees, but that gets right back to having content on the web that isn't "free," and that's not something Mozilla seems to be interested in supporting. If H.264 continues to evolve and gain widespread support in the market, Mozilla may eventually have to make an impossible decision between idealism and compatibility, and we're not even going to try and predict how that one will turn out -- remember, we're having this H.264 conversation right now because it's in line to replace Flash video, which is arguably even less free and open.
Okay, this all sounds super complicated again.
Well, it sort of is. But it's not so complicated that the market can't figure it out -- and since it's not end users who are directly paying here, the market is actually the companies and organizations that have to risk real money and real consequences on their decisions. And that market is pretty familiar with patent pools: MPEG-2 has been licensed by the MPEG-LA for 20 years now, while HDMI, WiFi, 2G and 3G cell services, USB, CDs, DVDs, and Blu-ray discs are all standards managed by similar licensing organizations. We would note at this time none of those arrangements have led to the death of any sort of creativity.
Ke$ha.
Excellent point.
More seriously, it's obvious the MPEG-LA and its licensees should be clearer with customers about what's up with commercial licensing and who needs to pay for what. That hidden personal use fine print feels really sneaky, and pro users need to get some clarity on what's required of them -- you don't mess around with people's livelihoods in the fine print, you know? A clarification from the MPEG-LA and some bigger notices at the front of the manuals are needed in short order.
But look, it's not often Apple, Microsoft, Google, DirecTV, Sony, Toshiba and some 810 other companies all back a standard together. Barring some insanity -- and we never bar any insanity -- we'd say H.264 has already won this year's version of the format war.
You talk a lot. So when is Engadget going to start offering HTML5 / H.264 videos instead of Flash?
2200 words later, and you still had to go there, didn't you?
Hey, I'm leaving the first comment on my own post. Awesome.
Here's the thing -- I know I left out a lot of angles here, and I know a lot of people are going to disagree with my general conclusions. That's great, and I'm all for the discussion. But a lot of people are still totally fuzzy on the basics of how this works, and especially how these issues will hit them as they run around living their actual lives. That's what I was trying to cover here, because I think a rational rundown of the main points has been sorely missing.
I'm totally open to your comments and questions, and MPEG-LA has agreed to field some user questions later this week, so hit me up.
@Nilay Patel
Typical Apple propaganda promoting its own products. If steve supports HTML5 then why he won't make HTML5 videos instead of quick time on Apple's website.
@Nilay Patel Would've been pretty funny if you failed at being first.
@Techno1q Can you divide by zero?
@jdm28690 Did you read the damn article? Already 10 minutes after he posted, one of Nilay's comments come true:
"things get downright heated when you mix in the fact that Apple's making the biggest push for H.264, because, well, people get incredibly irrational when it comes to hating or loving Apple."
@Techno1q He did, 4 times over...
@Nilay Patel:
Hey, what about Ogg Theora? Doesn't Mozilla support that? Isn't that both open *and* free?
@Nilay Patel But HTML5 can't be used to deploy DRM stuff, you have to use a player that can legally protect it, and the only alternative to flash (as netflicks found) is surprise surprise Cocoa. Jobs is just protecting his company. I hope flash dies a horrible death, but Apple only care about their money, not the freedom of the web.
@N900
It's not irrational, If he wants HTML5 then he should start with his website to play H.264 in HTML5. This also applies to microsoft, they should replace silver light with HTML5 if they are going to jump on the HTML5 bandwagon.
@Nilay Patel
Nilay, before all this thread fills up with some "heated comments" I just want to say - THANK YOU!
I was as fuzzy on this as they come! This is a great start for further reading.
speaking of quicktime... it is just about the most miserable excuse for a video player in existence.. apple has a lot of damn nerve complaining about flash when they put their name on that piece of crap
@Nilay Patel
I'm glad you included the extremely important issue of... Ke$ha.
Honestly good stuff. Looks like Mozilla may be screwed, unfortunately.
@jdm28690 Dude, that is completely irrational. Why would MS or Apple throw out their own codecs and standards just to avoid being called a hypocrite? The whole theory of hypocrisy is without merit anyway. You're forgetting they put in work and features that outmatch the features provided by HTML5. Ditching that would be....irrational.
@Nilay Patel Awww...I wanted to uprank your comment. *pout*
@obobo
ugh i know, every few weeks i get an update for it...
every time i wonder why the heck i still have it installed...
@Nilay Patel What annoys me about this whole debate: I can create an implementation of HTML, CSS and Javascript on my own in my own rendering engine, if I so please. I can also create a web server, compiler or interpreter for PHP if I want to without signing up to anything. Anyone can. Similarly, jpeg and png are open and free image formats that I can create encoders/decoders for without worry, fuss or care. Why should it be any different with video?
@Nilay Patel Nilay, please ask MPEG-LA about the recording issue. Your article only touched the "exporting a finalized, edited video in h.264 and selling it" issue, while my problem is the fact that from the moment you use one of these h.264 cameras to RECORD, you already owe them royalties, EVEN if you encoded the video in OGG Theora to sell it (because the license of these professional cameras don't allow commercial usage). I must know if I can use my h.264 camera to record, and not pay them royalties if I'm encoding my final videos in OGG Theora instead. This is one issue that must be truly clarified.
@N900
Yeah so it's okay to ditch Flash but it's not okay to ditch Quicktime and Silverlight despite saying "HTML5 is the future" BS when none of them want to adopt HTML5. Stop being loyal to corporations or else you will lose at the end. As much as i like MS, i talk straight and forward, MS simply support its own products by default, same goes for Apple.
@Eugenia I did ask them -- it's in the piece! :)
"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."
Only the people who sell the encoder and the people who sell the video to the end user have to pay, and there's no royalty for free video on the Internet until 2015.
@Nilay Patel
The actual licensing language is the only thing that matters.
Verbal reassurances from the potential plaintiff don't mean squat.Stuff has to be in writing or it's meaningless. What's currently in writing is rightfully disturbing to a lot of people.
Depending on the MPEG-LA to exercise restraint is put mildly foolish. There are recent examples of that kind of thinking having disasterous results. If I mention it by name then we will have an entirely separate flamefest.
@Nilay Patel
One thing you didn't mention... _When_ will these H.264 patents expire?
@Nilay Patel Thank you for the reply. But why the anonymous quote? Who at MPEG-LA replied that? And why the license says otherwise then?
@Nilay Patel
If I want to upload videos to my website, to make money through advertising on my website, do I have to pay MPEG-LA?
I've been using Flash video to do this in the past. Is there a compelling reason I should change?
Does Flash video come with any of the legal snafus that H.264 presents?
@Nilay Patel
Great post. One of my favorites of all time on Engadget.
Ogg has the potential to really take off. The difference in quality is nill for internet videos. When you throw around big hitters like Google and Firefox in the webspace they can certainly help change the course. I don't think it will happen overnight but I'm not sold that H.264 will be the standard in 3 years.
@obobo
I wish I would have said this.
@Nilay Patel So, I'm the web developer for a small business. We produce training videos.
Currently, i'm using flash to play H.264 encoded videos. Presumably flash has paid the licensing fees required here?
But also in the short term, we're going to support HTML5's video tag. Is that up to the browser to pay the H.264 licensing fees and not us, even though we serve the H.264 encoded videos ourselves?
@Kirtay
Did you not read the article!?, dear God, seriously.
@jedi That's a great question, and I pushed them a little on it. The bottom line is that MPEG-LA doesn't even offer a license that would cover recording at the camera level, so it would be hard for them to claim patent infringement when they're licensing every other part of the chain and reassuring customers they don't need a license to record.
I'll push them a little harder in the followup, but I think a good defense lawyer could bake a cake out of that argument and serve it to the judge with a glass of champagne.
@Nilay Patel
It's very informative. The standards war is something I don't really care to argue about,but I will say that flash games are here for a while yet.
@liam You, my friend, need a lawyer.
I can give you a high five, though.
@jdm28690 That's what I too was wondering!
@jdm28690 of course they support their own products! They would be idiots if they didn't, or what do you want? Did you want them to support THEIR COMPETITION'S products? now that would be silly. Better to support something free than something that customers pay someone else for ;)
@Kirtay
You didn't finish reading the article.
@David Bailey
Netflix uses Silverlight...
@Nilay Patel
Nilay, I just wanted to say thanks for this fascinating read. I'd heard all sorts of things about Flash vs HTML5 and how one was more "open" than the other and this just provided a lot of context to help understand what's going on with it all.
@Nilay Patel
Ever get that feeling you're talking to a brick wall?
@collindow For mobile devices I mean.
@Nilay Patel In this article clearly showed the easiest and best solution: reform patent law so we don't have to deal with crap like this.
@Nilay Patel
"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."
Isn't this what coke-dealers do to get people hooked and then turn around and hold a gun over their heads in the end?? Ask them to contrast and compare THAT!
This whole "not until 2015" deal is a sham! Don't take the bait or you'll get hooked!!!
@Nilay Patel
Great article. Very informative but can someone please write about pros and cons to HTML5 and Flash. it seems like this is going to be the format war for 2010 and beyond. Big companies have chosen sides but nobody really has a non biased reason for choosing either one.
We all know jobs reason for backing HTML5 (some are legit some really aren't) but as much as i know (which isn't a lot) HTML5 cant fully replace "flash" Doesn't it only replace FLV? Can HTML5 really do everything flash can and more? Nothing changes over night but people seem to think that since Apples screaming from rooftops praising HTML5 that the world should just flip the switch.
I am def not all PRO Adobe. They have been sloppy in some cases with Flash and maybe a little competition will spark some innovation.
i just think the average person is ignorant to the facts about H.264, Flash and HTML5. A simple Pro and cons like this article would be great.
@drkztan
Yeah and the irony is there's nothing free
@jdm28690 The Quicktime videos that Apple has on it's website use the h.264 codec for encoding. The Quicktime format is just a container file
@petey
That's what i am talking about.
@wicketr totally agree. I have zero faith in the huge corporations doing the right thing in 2015.
@Nilay Patel
Very interesting and helpful post. I've been wondering about this stuff for a while. Thanks!
@jdm28690 H.264 is a codec... Do you understand what that means?
@iLoveApple If you use L'Hospital rule you can
@Nilay Patel
Hey, I just wanted to say that this is a well worded, extremely helpful article. I get questions about this stuff a lot and from now on I'm sending people to your article first. Well done!
the following remarks :
- isn't it true MPEG-LA is actively investigating the open source Theora codec for violating their license ?In other words : how credible is their stance about openess if they go after the one open source video codec? This was in a leaked Steve Jobs email in fact....
- isn't it true they are - maybe- renewing their license 5 years from now but we do not know yet if they will charge royalties ( it's free for them to do so ) and doesn't that very fact mean their credibility regarding "free use " is at odds with that? Even a Microsoft spokesman couldn't guarantee that which is the basis for all the unrest in the first place.
If they were truly sincere about it remaining free they should do away with the entire 5 year license thing and include that clause in their patent or license text . The fact they don't is suggesting they will charge royalties down the line and not just from commercial users.
The article is a good start but I sugegst all folks to thoroughly read articles on other sites as well. OSnews isn't just basing their article on their own personal opinion, the net is full of concerned designers/video producers and normal users blogging about this or writing articles.You're acting like the OSnews article is baseless. That's my only complaint about your summary.
@Nilay Patel If anyone who develops an H.264 encoder has to pay license fees, how do you explain the existence of the open-source x264 encoder? They appear to be based in the Netherlands, so is this entire pallava to do with the fact that software patents still exist in the US?