The MPEG-LA's Lock On Culture

jrepin writes in to recommend a piece by Eugenia from OSNews, which explores the depths of the MPEG-LA's lock on video. One part of the problem is that almost all video cameras, including ones that cost more than $12,000, declare in their manuals that they are for "personal use and non-commercial" purposes only. "We've all heard how the h.264 is rolled over on patents and royalties. Even with these facts, I kept supporting the best-performing 'delivery' codec in the market, which is h.264. 'Let the best win,' I kept thinking. But it wasn't until very recently when I was made aware that the problem is way deeper. No, my friends. It's not just a matter of just 'picking Theora' to export a video to Youtube and be clear of any litigation. MPEG-LA's trick runs way deeper!""

Comments

Re:h.264

[drinkypoo]

Now, I don't necessarily believe it should be moved to the public domain due to the fact that it has author and ownership, but having that much power of what is a standard is just wrong. Especially when the owner is trying to use it to dictate and harm competition the way they are.

You say "the owner" like there's one, like MPEG-LA is real. It is not. MPEG-LA is a group of administrators and lawyers, and the power comes from the licensors. If you go to the MPEG-LA site you can look at current patent pools and see the lists of licensors. Apple and Microsoft are two of the biggest licensors of H.264. It's companies like Apple and Microsoft who are behind the draconian licensing of H.264. MPEG-LA is just a mask. The patents are actually held by the licensors, and MPEG-LA only handles litigation.