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! There are no bullets in that gun!
I don't think people fully understand the difference between a player, wrapper and a codec. It isn't as simple as saying "Flash or Quicktime or h.264". I can make a Flash AND a Quicktime video using the h.264 codec, but the audio and video is wrapped together in slightly different methods, as well as other subtle differences. Both will (Probably) play back in a html5 optimized video player, and if it won't, the concept being worked on is that the video player will fall back to a player the user's system can use. But the Quicktime player will have serious issues playing back the Flash wrapped video, and vice versa.
@Nilay, don't you think the consortium's market projections will look pretty out of date by 2015 on the peer to peer Internet?
Flash is not a codec, it's a container and vector rending engine that *uses* H.264, On2, or Sorenson Spark. No one really uses Sorenson Spark anymore though. Mostly it's all H.264.
I can't help but be disappointed in another engadget article with the author proclaiming how insightful his analysis is while missing half of the facts. All that hubris and you don't even understand what you're talking about. One of the reasons Flash was so widely adopted was that it stopped shoving these stupid codec wars into users' faces. I'm all for Ogg Theora, but before you go off killing Flash (with a codec it uses incidentally), ask youself what a user would want. Would you want to sit and decide between R%306 and ERG FEMRET? Because that's what it sounds like to an end user.
I know it's fun for you guys to be on the Flash hating bandwagon, but at least have the sense to understand what you're trying to "kill" and what it is you're trying to replace it with. (Quicktime anyone?). Maybe consider too that if something better than Flash comes along, it will replace flash naturally, there shouldn't need to be a reason to "kill" anything.
Also, MPEG-LA always threatens patent suits and never follows through. A lot don't think they could ever win such suits and just do it to scare people and get ill-informed tech blog writers to perpetuate the FUD, which it seems, you have dutifully done.
Anyways, here's hoping you do your research a bit better next time instead of tossing around a bunch more FUD on the fire.
Who knows though, maybe that's how Adobe can make a decent dent in the argument: Adopt Ogg Theora.
@alostpacket the mere fact they are threatening to sue-regardless of following through on that threat- is telling in itself. They say ( they meaning Microft,Apple et al. ) they created this patent pool for the purpose of avoiding patent battles and ensuring availability of the various formats for users . However:
- the license EULA is deliberately extremely vague
- the license is limited in time
- a spokesman for a major licensor ( Microsoft ) couldn't tell if it would remain free after 2015
- the mere fact they can decide down the road to charge royalties is worrisome especially given the vagueness of the EULA ( basically a smartphone with which you shoot and upload video to youtube would be covered by that license ) .
That leaves ordinary users and professionals with very little solid information. Just to be clear: the only way to avoid this codec in its entirety - and to be 100% sure there will be no charging of royalties - is to use one which was in existence prior to the advent of MPEG-LA and its patent pool.
If I charge for my videos, it consistutes my being in business. Not sure if that's true on the net. Plenty of online sources charge very simple fees as a hobby and make almost no living or even can subsidise their income with it. I forsee a whole lot of issues popping up over this.
Free - 5 million per year isn't exactly very clear. Would hundreds of millions of people have to file with the consortium for waivers and such? Seems to be a red tape nightmare in the making.
And while it is alarmist to say so, if I do a wedding video on commission, put it up on client's wedding site, would I then have to pay the fees? Because I don't know if some of us can afford to pay a potential $5 million to do a one-time $1500 job.
Or a designer who makes 30k-50k a year... wonder how that's going to work out. Pro-rated fee? It would have to be damn low otherwise this system pretty much puts whole industries out of business.
Very informative article, and funny to boot. Good job, Nilay.
"...when is Engadget going to start offering HTML5 / H.264 videos instead of Flash?"
This bunch of Penguin Lovers and Fruit Cakes never roam far from the FireGerbil's lead. If the Flaming-Fox supports H.264 they will. But as this article points out, the Burning-Tiny-Dog-Like-Animal browser probably never will because it ain't free.
I dont think that this is a good idea...will be free untill 2015...Sounds like MP3 all over again
This whole thing is beginning to sound extremely dubious and so wrong in so many ways. Something evil and corrupt is happening, just can't put my finger on it.
@ounkeo
Yes I felt that tremor in the force also, Like a million voices cried out for the ipad, and where suddenly silenced.
@Nilay Patel
Maybe in another post it would be interesting to see the differences between h.264 vs Flash licenses and rates.
Also as you pointed out, "H.264 is used by cable and satellite companies, by Blu-ray players, and by all kinds of other video equipment." wich is not the case I think of Flash or Theora as far as I know.
Nice and informative article.
It would so be wonderful if Google made the decision to abandon H.264 all together for a free, open-source codec. Not supporting H.264 on YouTube or Google Video would be a pretty good start for their own codec.
"free, open-source codec. Not supporting H.264 on You Tube or Goggle Video would be a pretty good start for their (own codec)"
I don't know much about this but I get the feeling open-source gets confused with free, I think there is some doubt that these other codec's will always be free, like what happened to MP3. Once enough people adopt it these things can change.
Basically, in 5 years, people who run blogs with ads and put H.264 videos on them might be screwed. We didn't accept this when it happened with GIF, and I don't think it's a good place to be in for video content.
After reading this article, I am a little worried. It seems like this patent can give the ability for these large companies to control the media on the internet. If certain videos are posted that a politician may not like on a certain website, some strings can be pulled and the website owner may be forced to pay for each viewing. It this scary to anyone else? It can shut down the little guys and there is no actual price. Can they jack the price up for certain companies? Everything is in the air! Scary stuff!
@lutedogg this is a classic example of FUD.
@MySchizoBuddy
Yeah, and the people that predicted the .com bubble and crash were also accused of FUD, but they were right. Most people are afraid of the fees in the future and many people have commented on how they don't TRUST these companies. Since when does Microsoft, Google, and Apple actually agree on something? Oh, trust us....were not going to regulate and force websites to pay fees. We don't care about the power and money aspect of this patent. What a bunch of crap!
Something is going down and when it happens, you can remember that I told you so... Standards are a good thing, but when standards get involved with patents, you have a problem.
@MySchizoBuddy patents are time-limited monopolies. Their whole purpose of existence is to allow a single corporation to restrict free market forces, to exert maximum profit for itself for their 'invention'. And there is nothing anyone else can do about it, except if you have an example of prior art and deep enough pockets to sue to overturn that patent. The average cost of a patent lawsuit in USA is 3 million $ and it lasts 2-3 years on average. Good luck with that.
I won't read all those comments - only add one thing:
thx nilay for some de-fuzz!
Thank you for this great post, Nilay -- it has been the most sane article I've read on the internet on H.264 and its licensing for quite some time now.
But then a question mark appears over internet video in my mind, as a video stream usually has to be encapsulated in some kind of a container, and usually has a matching audio track: Is the MPEG-4 Part 14 MP4 container -- which is based on Apple's MOV container -- patented and/or under similar licensing? What about the currently mostly used audio codec MPEG-4 Part 3, also called AAC?
Now, as far as I know, at least AAC currently needs licensing, and I have no idea if they have this "use-for-free (as in beer)-on-the-interwebs" kind of honeymoon for all of us who put video up on the internets. Going by what an x264 developer says ( http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=170.msg1442#msg1442 ), it might even be a worse problem for those uploading their videos onto their blogs at the moment than, for example, H.264 itself -- which is in clear water at least for the moment. As for the container part's usage, I certainly have no idea it makes you pay something or not.
Why do I bring these two on the table then? Because looking at these two, there seems to be a clear distortion in support for different formats. The browsers from companies that can pay the royalties usually support H.264/AAC in MP4, and that's it. They might also support Theora/Vorbis in the OGG container, but have no way of mixing the "best of both worlds" should I wish to go for it. Now, why would I want to do such a thing?
This is because at least for these two we have alternatives that are capable of working well within the size limits we've gotten used to. Such as, say, the OGG Vorbis audio codec, and the Matroska container (There's the OGG container and the NUT container for those who swing that way, too -- although the other still tries to determine what it wants to be, while the other one is pretty much still without support or even tools to properly mux/parse it).
Not to mention that it'd clear a lot of confusion in my head at the moment related to AAC and the MP4 container as well.
Of course, I don't want to undermine the fact that the Theora project _has_ done progress quality-wise from the VP3 it used to be, but these two already deliver today what we've gotten used to otherwise (even more should we look at how powerful the Matroska container is overall), while at least for now being free, no-royalties-needed components of digital media (writing it like this because of hurr durr possible submarine patents hurr durr). Not to mention that Vorbis has much more support on devices than Theora (as far as I know -- and supporting another container wouldn't be as cpu-intensive as decoding unsupported audio or video via some non-optimized routine), while the Matroska container is being supported by some companies, such as DivX as well as being playback'able on a quite large amount of standalone video playback solutions.
Thus, I would like to ask if it would be possible to get more checkup done on the container and audio aspects of digital media inside the MPEG-4 standards while wishing for more support for the Matroska container -- even if it is a big of a spec (it is). As long as the user gets told how many of its features are supported in an application, it should be fine. It would also enable the users to at least hear media with a free-oriented browser (or both see and hear it, if Theora/Dirac happened to get used), while giving those people who wish and can use H.264 a chance to use it for free while still possible.
@jeebjp Just to be absolutely clear on this. According to various knowledgable people the only way to completely avoid any sort of licensed product and be 100% sure you wont have to pay royalties is to use a standard which predates the existence of the MPEG-La and for which the patent is either expired or which patent isn't covered by the ones MPEG La owns . According to Eugenia of OSnews that means using MJPEG,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_JPEG
dude, AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME article, It explains pretty much every question I could think of. And I love the dig at Kesha at the end :P
Nilay:
Obvious omission here:
What's the to cost to license Flash?
So for example, a person, who makes videos with h.264, puts their video on youtube first, but later on, wants to sell all the videos in a collection on DVD through Amazon will have to pay some licensing or royalty fee(s).
This goes for mp3 as well, i think. That is why at first the Nintendo did not use a mp3 player in the Wii machines
Right?
The plot thickens: apparently the CEO of MPEG-LA doesn't shy away from patent lawsuits . It sure looks decidedly messy .The conflict of interests is apparent for all to see.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23258/MPEG-LA-owned_Patent_Troll_Sues_Smartphone_Makers
Doesn't bode well at all for the future.