Slashdot Mirror
'Free' H.264 a Precursor To WebM Patent War?
webmink writes "The MPEG LA seem unwilling to explain why they have extended their 'free' H.264 streaming video policy now. This article unpacks the history of MPEG LA and then suggests the obvious — it's all because of WebM — and the worrying — maybe it's preparing the ground for opening a third front in the patent war against Google."
It seems an obvious requirement now to me that any 'international standards', as H.264 is described in TFA, should not be written by a consortium that have a collection of patents on the only possible implementation of the standard!
I'm not sure how this would be ensured - maybe the same consortium that pool the defensive patent pool for Linux could start a standards body based around this simple idea.
If a man empties his purse into his head no man can take it from him. An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.
I'm still rooting for Google's format. I don't care about free as in money so much as free as in open source. I don't see how it could possibly be sustainable for every single company that makes a browser from here on out to have to pay a fee to use this codec. If they put H.264 into the HTML 5 spec, that is only going to make it a pain in the ass for browser developers and open source users. It's stupid. This isn't helpful...it's just slight of hand. "Look it's free!" Um no...it actually isn't free at all. I wish people writing all the other articles would acknowledge that a little better. This changes nothing.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Though this is still speculative, it wouldn't be surprising, as, like patents, lawsuits bring in the $$$.
Gah, software patents once again stifling innovation.
The third link has a good explanation of why h264 isn't really free.
First thing to be noted is that any deal they offer today can be withdrawn in five years anyway.
The free bit is only that they will not bill the end user.
the encoding is not free
the streaming is not free
and the decoding is absolutely not free.
The last one means any browser wishing to offer this functionality has to pay for it and unfortunatly it can't pass on the patent protection granted by paying for this so there is no way for firefox to offer this.
So really we should say no to h264 and hope google doesn't get creamed in its patent battles.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I don't care as much about the codecs being open source or closed source - I'm mainly interested in which format offers the higher quality at the same (or lower) bitrate.
As far as why MPEG LA did this now - probably because right now they've got the upper hand, and they want to be sure not to give their competitors ammunition.
#DeleteChrome
The natural party to sue would be Mozilla or Opera here, not Google I think. Google already pay the appropriate license fees for YouTube, so there seems to be very little of a legal case there.
(Patent) war! What is it good for!? Absolutely nothing.
H.264. What is it good for!? Absolutely nothing.
Sing it with me everybody!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
the encoding is not free
Unless you use x.264.
the streaming is not free
Only for commercial purposes. If it's not paid content, it's 100% free of charge by the MPEG-LA as far as streaming is concerned.
and the decoding is absolutely not free.
So all those open source projects like VLC, MPlayer, etc are paying through the nose to the MPEG-LA? That's news to me. And I may be wrong, but the reason Firefox would have to pay through the nose is because they like building everything into the browser (video decoding included) instead of just passing it to the OS, which means it would cost nothing if they were to do it like every other browser out there. I'm not entirely sure about that, but it's the impression I'm getting.
First, kill all the lawyers. Yeah, sure, we'll have some confusion, initially, but... Come on, really. You know it's definitely, at least, worth a try.
It seems an obvious requirement now to me that any 'international standards', as H.264 is described in TFA, should not be written by a consortium that have a collection of patents on the only possible implementation of the standard!
How does that make any sense?
In todays heavily legal world, the ONLY kinds of standards you can rely on are ones where members of the standards group hold patents and pledges the protected use of same to people following that standard.
Any other approach pretty much ensures that (1) no-one will take on the legal risk of using your standard, and (2) that you will be hit by patent trolls or even just random holders.
Frankly, I of the opinion that standards groups SHOULD be able to hold a patent hammer over implementations of said standard outside the group, because a standard means nothing without enforcement as Microsoft has taught us all too well. I want standards to be adhered to, not fragmented - and many standards bodies provide free licensing for open source implementations so it's not like it's really blocking that much work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Cases like this are ones where the US government (assuming these are US patents) should step up and use their powers of eminent domain to acquire these patents, declare H.264 a government standard (like AES and DES before it) and release the patents (or a perpetual license thereto) into the public domain.
The developers of H.264 and other codecs have certainly put in a lot of research and hard thinking. I believe their algorithms should be patentable (as opposed to "software" patents that are really on UI patterns and business methods), and I believe the inventors should be justly compensated. However, for maximal furtherance of the creative arts, information interchange formats need to be standardized and unencumbered. The visual entertainment industry contributes far, far more to the US economy than the codec-designing industry, and always will. An indirect subsidy like this would be an excellent stimulus.
If they had any sense, the MPAA would by lobbying the government to make this happen, rather than trying to shore up their old distribution models with copyright crackdowns. Getting free (gratis), standard, H.264 decoders into the hands of billions of people worldwide would give them a huge boost to their audience. Unfortunately, since they represent motion picture distributors, they're probably in favour of steep licensing fees to keep the barrier to entry high for content producers wishing to distribute independently.
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
When he says "free", he means "free of patents threats". Of course you can do it "for free", but they will eventually come after you.
Ah, and when you "pass it to the OS", you need to have paid for and OS from a vendor that has paid the licensing...
exp(i*pi)+1=0
First thing to be noted is that any deal they offer today can be withdrawn in five years anyway.
Nope. What part of "royalty free forever" did you not understand? If you read that third link again you'll find it USED TO BE five year periods but now lasts until the patents expire, which essentially means forever since it's all moot after the expiration.
That argument is dead now.
so there is no way for firefox to offer this.
They have more than enough money to pay for this and also could distribute a standalone player module for Linux - because after all, on other platforms they could simply use the native h.264 playback facilities that both Apple and Microsoft offer.
I understand philosophically where Firefox is coming from but it's not a practical fight and not one Firefox can do anything but be hurt by as more and more users switch to other browsers like Chrome that can play back h.264.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You can pirate everything and never be able to do proper commercial stuff with your computer. Or you can do it the right legal way and be able to make some money off of it. The problem is of a legal nature. It's not about what you can do at your home when nobody looks. It's more about what you can do in a firm or organization which is subject to some oversight. MPEG LA have said that they do not see a possibility that there is such a thing as a codec that does not violate their patents. And there are problems with getting for instance Full-HD recording equipment which is not subject to h264 patents.
First thing to be noted is that any deal they offer today can be withdrawn in five years anyway.
Yes, I can remember that only last year people saying that everybody using H.264 would pay when the MPEG LA jacks up their fees in 2011. That didn't happen of course, which isn't a surprise since the MPEG LA historically always offered the same or better terms when a new licensing period began. Turns out they have something to lose by alienating their customers, especially since they also want to sell future products to them which isn't that easy if people mistrust you.
the encoding is not free
Encoding is free, encoders aren't if you distribute more than 100.000 a year.
the streaming is not free
It isn't free if the streams are pay per view or part of a payed subscription provided that there are more than 100.000 sales or subscribers per year. If you have to pay it's either 2 cent or 2% of the price per sale (whichever is lower) and at worst 10 cent per year per subscriber.
and the decoding is absolutely not free.
Again, decoding is free, distributing more than a certain number of decoders isn't.
The last one means any browser wishing to offer this functionality has to pay for it and unfortunatly it can't pass on the patent protection granted by paying for this so there is no way for firefox to offer this.
Any browser can offer H.264 decoding for free by using the system provided codec framework. While Mozilla has been decrying that approach for their desktop browser it's exactly what they do in their mobile version (Fennec). Every modern operating system comes with a H.264 decoder anyway. For older Windows and MacOS systems there are free licensed downloads (Divx, Quicktime) and for Linux systems there is at least a cheap gstreamer plugin (ignoring the fact that almost anyone who uses Linux as a desktop operating system probably has some version of FFMpeg installed anyway).
Of course this is a problem, but it's a far cry from there being no way to offer such functionality.
So all those open source projects like VLC, MPlayer, etc...
Are in in breach of patent law in the US at the very least.....
Encoding is free,...
WRONG. If it was free they couldn't even suggest that i need a another license to put it on the internet or pay per view. I wouldn't an extra license for the *content* encoded when i use for commercial reasons. The *only* exemption is when its on a *free* website. Why do i need an exemption if its fee?
h.264 is not free in *any* sense of the word.
If you want a standard to be reliably implemented in a wide range of systems, you have to take out the "implementation" part of the equation.
That's why every single DVD player or network router or TV is exactly the same.
Oh wait.
Actually real standards are all about defining the STANDARD that implementations have to follow, sometimes providing a reference implementation to ensure a base level of quality but in no way forcing people to use that. Does the fact that SMTP is a standard mean that everyone uses the same mail server? Of course not!
A library is not a standard. A standard is what you can use to build a library.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
mpeg-la just wants to make money before google tries to make software patents invalid. Google has a lot to gain from patents going away. Take a google logo and paste it on tons of new apps they can't touch because someone owns a patent to an abstract idea that applies too broadly. Google can outpace any dev team. They only use patents for protection
Yes, I can remember that only last year people saying that everybody using H.264 would pay when the MPEG LA jacks up their fees in 2011. That didn't happen of course, which isn't a surprise since it's not 2011 yet you muppet.
The licensing fees for the period from 2011 to 2015 where announced last January. They will be the same as the fees in the current licensing period. There was even an article here on slashdot about it.
it can't pass on the patent protection granted by paying for this so there is no way for firefox to offer this.
Here I have the feeling I'm still missing something. Why can FF not offer H.264 video? I understand it can not be built in (though they could make two versions of it, with native H.264 for jurisdictions outside software patent land). It's something that comes up all the time.
Not so long ago I have been playing YouTube videos in H.264 right in FF using mplayer-plugin. There is some greasemonkey script for that, youtube without flash. Maybe not as technically charming as native but for the end user what counts is: it works.
And before anyone starts riling about plugins: why are plugins bad while add-ons are good? From a user pov they're the same. Just a different name. Both add functionality to a browser that it doesn't do natively.
Also what I do not understand, is why FF is singled out for this. Chrome is also given away for free, just like Opera and IE. There is also an OS version of Chrome. I never hear about problems of paying for license fees for those browsers. Or any other browsers - which may be because the rest is too small to count.
Well, I suppose if anyone has the money to fight a three-front patent war it's Google.
The government can take patents away for more or less any reason it likes, that congress has passed a law allowing it to. Reason is because patents are a power specifically granted to the government. Physical property ownership is considered more of a natural right. The government doesn't grant you ownership because they can't deny it either. Eminent Domain exists because they can take private property for public use, in certain circumstances, however there has to be compensation.
With patents that's not the case. The government doesn't have to grant patents at all. They have the power to do so, but it isn't required. What that means is the government owns all patents ultimately and can do as they want.
As such there are some peculiarities with patent law many don't know about. The NSA can fine secret patents. If a civilian files the same patent, the NSA patent is then revealed and granted at the time it is revealed. The government is allowed to make a law like that, since patents are one of their explicit powers.
Likewise they can take them for various reasons. Congress hasn't granted unlimited power in that regard, but there are a list of reasons for which they can say "That's ours now," and you get nothing. That was actually threatened in the NTP-RIM case and is probably part of the reason NTP took a settlement that didn't include future fees. NTP was requesting an injunction to shut down Blackberry service. The federal government wrote a brief to the court saying they believed that would have an impact on national security (the US government loves them some Blackberries, they are the biggest customer) and they'd prefer the court didn't grant it. They also noted that if it was, they might simply have to void the patent, which can be done on national security grounds. The judge then strongly suggested the two sides work their shit out now.
Google isn't stupid. They got to investigate the format and patents before they bought On2, and of course after once they owned everything. Also, this is precisely the kind of thing Google would be good at: Looking through large amounts of information and figuring out what is relevant. So My guess is that one of both of the following are true:
1) VP8 (WebM) does not infringe on any MPEG-LA patents, or at least not any real ones. They probably have some overly broad BS ones, but Google probably has examples of prior art. Google did an extensive review and found that there was no infringement, VP8 had been engineered to avoid MPEG-LA patents so that it could be sold without additional license.
2) On2, and therefor now Google, holds patents on critical technologies used in H.264. In the event of any infringement suit, they can pull those out and file countersuit. Having WebM stopped would not be a real big deal to Google. They aren't using it for anything important yet. Having H.264 stopped would be devastating for MPEG-LA. Google could thus force them to license all relevant patents, at not charge, in return for the licenses to the Google patents.
Those are my bets. One or both of those is the case and so Google is confident they can win a game of chicken. This also might explain the move by MPEG-LA to put a permanent licensing moratorium on free H.264 stuff, as well as the fact that there is no suit. They may have looked at things and said "Shit, we can't touch VP8. We could try but we'd almost certainly fail and just wind up with a bunch of legal bills, plug give Google an ironclad thing to point to showing WebM is ok." They may have decided it is better to make H.264 look more attractive and perhaps keep up some nebulous threats to make people think twice about implementing WebM.
Always remember that patent warfare is a dangerous game. The trolls can play it because they don't own anything or make anything losing patents means nothing. In MPEG-LA's case, there could be a lot to lose if things went wrong.
Also what I do not understand, is why FF is singled out for this. Chrome is also given away for free, just like Opera and IE. There is also an OS version of Chrome. I never hear about problems of paying for license fees for those browsers.
"Chrome" is a closed source browser distributed by Google that contains a binary H.264 codec with a license valid for that binary only. "Chromium" is open source but comes with no H.264 codeo, though it's been patched to use the system codecs if available.
Firefox can not use the same solution as Chrome. It could use the same solution as Chromium, but it means it would only work for some people so they won't do it. That is why FF is singling themselves out, they are the only ones where it simply will not work.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Windows doesn't come with H.264 codecs installed out of the box? I know in Linux you always have to go through some clicks to get it installed (non-free codecs or so it's called) but besides that minor inconvenience it just works.
How is Firefox "singled out"? Google pays for the Chrome h.264 license, and Microsoft pays for IE -- neither Google nor Microsoft want their browser to be open source so the limitations (like the browsers being non-redistributable) are fine for them. Chromium and Opera do not support h.264 so it's no surprise you've not heard of license fee problems for them...
Why then do MPEGLA not indemnify? Because there is NO WAY your license agreement with them can stop someone else with a patent being infringed from suing for use of their patent in H.264.
And so your "the ONLY kinds of standards" schtick goes "poof!".
Not legal in the US and when ACTA comes in, exporting the US patenting, then it won't be legal anywhere else.
(note, the patents may apply in other regions now as well, this is not a US-specific problem, but it IS a problem with x-264: IT IS NOT FREE). Unless they don't catch you and jail you for breaking patent law.
the encoding is not free
Unless you use x.264.
In which case, you still need a patent license from the MPEG-LA if you live in a country where any of their patents are valid.
So all those open source projects like VLC, MPlayer, etc are paying through the nose to the MPEG-LA?
Nope, they all use FFMPEG, which is based in France. France does not recognise software patents, so they are not required to pay anything. Using them in the USA without a patent license, however, is illegal.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"Sword of Damocles" you muppet. "Oh, there's no problem with my house on the edge of this cliff! You said it could collapse in 2011 five years ago, and look! you were wrong! So it's absolutely saaaaaaaaaahhhhh....." NO CARRIER
If it's not paid content, it's 100% free of charge by the MPEG-LA as far as streaming is concerned.
Unless you have more than 100,000 users. Don't know if it's simultaneous users or just per month, but this clause is definitely there.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
say no to h264? Do you have a better codec? H264 is a damn good codec.
I think H264 will be around a long time, just like jpg and mpeg. Because they're good. The people behind these projects have changed the world for the better.
The main problem caused by MPEG-LA is that people can't distribute video software. GNU/Linux distros have to worry about distributing software that supports H.264, and developers have to worry about adding support to their apps. Documenting this situation is my hobby horse but this "free" licence" is so limited, I can't find much to write about it. It won't make H.264 safe for standards like HTML5 either.
They promise not to sue non-commercial distributors of video (no ads allowed on the webpage). That means I'm safe to publish videos of me singing karaoke, but no one was going to sue me for that anyway. The only real case I can think of is public service television, which could put their shows online now without worry, but they'd have to be very careful about not having anything that could be called an ad on their webpage. Is that really the extent of this "free" licence that such a fuss is being made about?
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Why can FF not offer H.264 video?
They can. It's only their philosophy that prevents them from doing so. Neither the MPEG-LA, nor their own license, prevents them from supporting H.264. They could even distribute an H.264 plugin for Firefox on all supported platforms completely legally.
Yes, it IS illegal in the US. This is because it is using a method that is patented in the US and has no license for it.
If you can show that the US patent is not being used in x-264 then I will concede your point.
They use it everywhere.
Why must everything be a "war"?
The browser wars
The operating system wars
The friggin' video codec wars
Everyone wants to get into fights for some reason, when all that's really happening is competition.
Invention is not maths, though it uses maths. When you make a mousetrap (patent pending) you use maths to work out the size of the wire trap, the strength of the materials used and then patent the result.
So, not everything is maths.
Software, however, IS MATHS.
Now, a CPU or a design of a logic gate may be built using a software model, but that CPU or gate is patented, not the software for designing a CPU or a gate.
This demarcation only seems to be a problem for those who want to have maths patentable and therefore make money from it.
ARM and W-CDMA work in similar ways. ARM happens to own the patents and licenses them to whomever for a reasonable fee. W-CDMA works in much the same way as H.264. You have a bunch of companies that decide to share patents into one resource. It makes it easy for other companies to pay 1 fee and then use the technology. And H.264's licensing terms are reasonable. There is a cost of doing business. I know that is not popular around here, but it's the truth.
But for comparison here, if I own an ARM computer and make a video or some kind of word processing document on it, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from opening that video or that document on your computer with an x86 chip (at least nothing related to the origin of the file being an ARM-powered device).
If you create a video or audio file and encode it with codec XYZ, you can bet your sweet pile of software patents that when you send that file to me I'm going to have to use information about that codec to turn that file back into something my eyes and ears can understand. I have no choice.
Similarly, my phone doesn't have to support W-CDMA for me to be able to call you. I can just use a POTS line. Or use a GSM phone. Sure, I am more limited than I would be were there no software or hardware patents, but at least I have choices.
Unfortunately it's going to be harder for Free software going forward. Try writing an opensource point-of-sale or e-commerce program that can directly process credit cards. You can't without spending around $20,000 for PA-DSS auditing.
For those curious folk, here's the wikipaedia link for PA-DSS. It appears that people have discussed the PA-DSS + FOSS question before and it really sounds like it's just and issue of someone stepping up and taking control of the process.
Sure, you'll have to pay some money to have the software audited. Sure, you'll have to provide information about how the team audits and creates new releases of the software. Sure, you'll have to jump through certain hoops. But that's what it took when OpenSSL got FIPS 140-2 validation.
coding is life
Only free for streaming playback. When you transcode a DVD rip to .mp4 for your iCrap, if you're using something like handbrake you should be paying a fee and have a license from MPEG-LA. That's the problem!
Nope, you only have to file a complaint. Just like copyright complaints.
And if it's possible for x264 to avoid using MPEGLA patents, then the patents you're licensing are a gyp. Especially since x264 is getting to be a faster and more compliant program than licensed competitors.
So, go ahead, explain why people are paying for a license they don't have to because x264 does encoding/decoding and doesn't require a license.
My explanation is that x264 uses the patents but ignores them because
1) personal use only is not an infringement of patent (else how could you improve on the technology if you couldn't use it without a license?)
2) software patents are not universal (EPO specifically exclude software from patentability).
Forbid lawyers in the courtroom. The rationale being that if an average Joe is unable to understand the law, it is a problem with the law, not with Joe. Any law Joe can't understand should be immediately repealed. After all, you do want citizens to know if they are criminals or not, don't you?
Vista comes with H.263 to my knowledge. Seven comes with H.264.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
No. The person distributing the software you use should have paid for a license. You are not making an encoder, and you are not distributing encoded content, so you need no license.
No, he got it right the first time. There is a license for distributing, not for encoding.
Ah, and when you "pass it to the OS", you need to have paid for and OS from a vendor that has paid the licensing...
So you can support it only on OSes which have already done so. I've got Windows 7, which has done so. OS X has also done so. If you've got a recent nVidia card, chances are you've got a fully legal and paid-for hardware decoder which can be used just fine under Linux.
In fact, passing it to the OS, or to whatever local codec subsystem you've got, is a great way to ensure you can take advantage of hardware decoders. Insisting on implementing all this in the browser as a childish political move is a great way to ensure that Firefox will be the last to take advantage of hardware-accelerated WebM, if that ever surfaces.
Passing it to the OS pretty much ends the legal bullshit, and is the right choice technologically, also. It seems pretty clear that the only reason Firefox refuses to do so is because they don't want h.264 to win, even if it doesn't affect Firefox itself directly.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
almost anyone who uses Linux as a desktop operating system probably has some version of FFMpeg installed anyway
They probably also have an nVidia card, which offers hardware-accelerated h.264 decoding on Linux.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It could use the same solution as Chromium, but it means it would only work for some people so they won't do it.
Erm, WTF?
"Some people" is the vast, vast majority of the planet, and I'm not just talking about OS. And they're willing to do GPU-accelerated rendering, which also only works for "some people."
This is honestly the lamest excuse they've come up with so far.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
No, he got it right the first time. There is a license for distributing, not for encoding.
Have you ever read the license terms of an HD camera. Here's whats in the manual for Pansonic's AJ-HPX2700, a $40,000 "professional" camera:
This product is licensed under the AVC Patent Portfolio License for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (i) encode video in compliance with the AVC Standard (“AVC Video”) and/or (ii) decode AVC Video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a personal and non-commercial activity and/or obtained from a video provider licensed to provide AVC Video. No license is granted or shall be implied for any use. Additional information may be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC.
See http://www.mpegla-com
"personal and non-commercial use" - It's $40,000 camera, for crying out loud!
It saddens me that it takes an AC to point all this out. The linked article is utter garbage, and does more to cloud the issue than the MPEG-LA's original announcement...
Nope, they all use FFMPEG, which is based in France. France does not recognise software patents, so they are not required to pay anything. Using them in the USA without a patent license, however, is illegal.
Wow, learn something new everyday.
France doesn't recognize software patents? Man, I almost feel bad disliking the French for so long. I only wonder how much worse it might get in America before I decide to look into immigrating to France.
France doesn't recognize software patents?
A lot of the world doesn't recognise software patents, including most of the EU. You might be able to start hating them soon. Sarkozy is keen on introducing software patents, although the FFII has been quite successful in opposing this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Huh? DVD player and TV manufacturers normally buy hardware decoder chips
Yes, and what YOU are saying is that the standards body would make one chip that they all buy.
Of course that is nonsense, multiple chip makers make the chips that implement a STANDARD.
Do you start to see what a stanndard really means? It doesn't mean any one implementation, it's about how to make implementations. A standard is meta.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They choose not to.
They could just use the OS codec support which I feel is the correct way to go. That way if a new codec comes out or if a better hardware accelerated version is created you program uses it.
FF doesn't want to support h.264 because they feel it is wrong to support it.
Frankly I fear that will be the death of FF. When it doesn't work people will go to Chrome, Opera, Safari, or even stay with IE.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I bought the computer, I bought the software, I bought the camera, why the fuck should I have to pay to distribute videos made with said equipment?
(Note, I know 'why', but ITS FUCKING CRAZY.)
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Firefox is all about open standards. If Firefox implements H.264, then what's next? ActiveX? We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
The point is that Firefox doesn't need to implement any codec whatsoever. Just pass video decoding to the OS, and worry about whether the OS supports the codec in question, be it in hardware or software.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
They were interested in selling their own video technology, not casting under H.264. While I'm sure MPEG-La would have welcomed them with open arms, they can't force anything.
Have you ever read the license terms of an HD camera
No, and neither have you, you have just read what somebody on the internet claims it means.
That license agreement is there to cover the manufacturer's ass. They have paid their license to produce a device that encodes and decodes h.264. However, they have not paid for a license for you to distribute that content. They couldn't, because the cost of that license depends on how much you distribute. Non-commercial distribution is free, which is why they put that in the license agreement.
You do not need a license to encode on a licensed encoder, commercial or not. You do need one to distribute. If you are a filmmaker, you likely pay this license when you have discs pressed. This is nothing new, it's been this way for a long time. MPEG-2 on DVDs is the exact same.
While I'd be much happier if things didn't work this way, it's not entirely crazy. Parents exist to protect inventions, and the utility of the invention of h.264 is not solely contained in the encoding stage. The actual utility of the invention is that you can transmit video using very little bandwidth, so it makes sense that the patent should apply to the act of transmitting the content.
...Parents exist to protect inventions ...
Huh, all this time I thought my job as a parent was to protect, provide, and nurture my kids. Now I have to protect inventions too?
Damn, I knew there was a catch.
Nope, you show me the patent isn't being used and I'll concede the point.
This has naff all to do with legal requirements.
YOU (or some other h264 apologist) show me that x264 doesn't violate MPEGLA patents on the codec and then I'll concede the point.
But MPEGLA may still not consider your proofs adequate and sue x264 for patent violations anyway.
And "fair use" for patents is personal use only. As in you cannot sue someone for implementing your patent if they aren't selling it. It's not fair use or fair dealing, but if you had to buy a patent license before you could see how it works and how it could be improved, the license could tell you you cannot do this.
Personal use of a patent is not a liable action in patent protections.
It isn't an exception like fair use is, it plain is not a liable action.
So patent the trap, not the maths. Go and show me the number 2.56742 in the mousetrap patent.
It doesn't exist.
Since you can patent a moustrap, despite having maths underpinning it, you can patent your other hardware thingy despite "it all being based on math".
Just don't patent the maths.
This includes software.
Simples
Linus was pragmatic choosing BitKeeper. Look at how well that worked out for him.
Pragmatic is a sell-out's code word for "I want you to use this because it's on my Apple iPhone and don't give a shit if it's trouble for anyone else".
Why can FF not offer H.264 video?
They can. It's only their philosophy that prevents them from doing so.
Bullshit. The MPEG-LA's patent restrictions explicitly disallow redistribution by unlicensed third parties. The license under which Mozilla has been released explicitly allows redistribution by third parties.
That's kind of the point of Free Software.
Saying that 'it's only their philosophy' that prevents them from licensing H.264 is disingenuous at best, mendacious at worst. It's like saying it's only philosophy that prevents the US from moving to a Communist-style command economy; it's only philosophy that stops the Catholic church from performing abortions.
Yes, it's only philosophy that prevents Firefox from becoming its own antithesis and from eschewing the very operating principles that made it the success it is today.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
No, I'm saying if the standards body wants the world to use that standard widely and fully, then it would make a free chip that everyone can use as is.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR! Oh my god, you had that troll thing going along OK until you blew your cover there!
Oh man.
Because no standard is in wide use today without a "free chip", that the standards makers give away - wait for it - for free!! Ho Ha Ho He Ho Ho He HA HAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Bullshit. The MPEG-LA's patent restrictions explicitly disallow redistribution by unlicensed third parties.
Can you point out what, exactly, is being redistributed when a browser uses the OS codec for H.264, if one is available?
And why not also embed the IE engine for compatibility with IE-only sites? We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. You didn't address this point. If Firefox can't support H.264 on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
And why not also embed the IE engine for compatibility with IE-only sites? We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. You didn't address this point. If Firefox can't support H.264 on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
If Firefox implements H.264, then what's next? ActiveX?
You've gotta be joking. ActiveX isn't cross-platform.
Guess what is?
That's right, the netscape plugin API, which Firefox still supports, which enables them to run Flash, which is far worse than any codec which could conceivably be used for HTML5 video.
We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
The "correct" OS being Windows or OS X, or if you've got an nVidia card, Linux, Solaris, or FreeBSD, or Apple's iOS, or Android, or...
You're kind of losing the high ground if your complaint is really that you can't legally play HTML5 video on AmigaOS or BeOS.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
And why not also embed the IE engine for compatibility with IE-only sites?
Aside from the fact that this has happened and it wasn't the end of the world, there simply isn't an analogy here. There isn't a native HTML renderer API you can call out to on every platform, or a reason to do so.
However, on pretty much every platform Firefox supports, there is a native video API, and that native video API most likely supports h.264, not that it's any of Firefox's fucking business what codecs it supports. For all Firefox knows, I could have a Linux-only hardware-accelerated theora card -- why should Firefox get in the way by insisting it's all software-based, so Firefox can keep a stranglehold of control on it?
I've got h.264 in hardware and in two OSes on the same machine. I've also got Firefox on the same machine. And it's only fucking zealots like you that keep me from connecting the two together.
If Firefox can't support GPU rendering on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
Fixed that for you. Does it still make sense?
If so, why does Firefox currently support GPU rendering? It doesn't work on all OSes -- not all OSes have drivers for modern enough GPUs to make this work.
If not, what is your argument?
We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
Yeah, just keep repeating that as if it's an argument. I mostly agree with you, but I find your methods disgusting. You would restrict my freedom to ensure I have freedom. Do you realize how pathological that is?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
And why not also embed the IE engine for compatibility with IE-only sites?
Aside from the fact that this has happened
No, it didn't happen. I'm already aware of that addon, but it changes nothing. Firefox does not embed IE by default. The user has to install a third-party addon to embed IE, and hardly anyone does that. A website must (shock and horror!) code to open standards to support Firefox. They can't half-ass it by flipping on the IE-mode and screw over people that didn't pay a toll to a "rights holder" that didn't do any work to create the website in the first place.
and it wasn't the end of the world, there simply isn't an analogy here. There isn't a native HTML renderer API you can call out to on every platform, or a reason to do so.
No, it's a perfect analogy. There isn't a native and licensed H.264 renderer you can call out to on every platform, either. There is a reason to do so for both HTML and H.264, and it's the same bad reason in both cases: to support viewing of content that isn't in an open format or coded to open standards.
The reason that's bad is that it encourages the problem it's meant to deal with and does an incomplete job of dealing with it at that. That's a net negative.
However, on pretty much every platform Firefox supports, there is a native video API, and that native video API most likely supports h.264,
That's just a statement about today. Look at the qualifiers I italicized. They will change in the future. If Linux adoption grows, the "rely on the OS" approach will cover fewer people. By encouraging the widespread use of H.264 now, we'd just be handing over free leverage to the patent cartel that is MPEG LA, and they will use it against us later to get as much out of us as they think they can get away with.
not that it's any of Firefox's fucking business what codecs it supports.
Actually, it is, because security is Firefox's business. Giving untrusted websites free reign to load dozens of unknown external libraries and feed unchecked data to them is a very bad idea.
For all Firefox knows, I could have a Linux-only hardware-accelerated theora card -- why should Firefox get in the way by insisting it's all software-based, so Firefox can keep a stranglehold of control on it?
Firefox shouldn't get in the way and it wouldn't get in the way. Hardware accelerated decoding is a good thing. But it should actually be hardware accelerated decoding, not hardware enabled decoding. I don't want a dongle to be required for a fully functioning browser.
I've got h.264 in hardware and in two OSes on the same machine. I've also got Firefox on the same machine. And it's only fucking zealots like you that keep me from connecting the two together.
Nobody is stopping you. You even have access to the source code to make it happen. They're just not doing the job themselves, because it's a really bad idea to have that in the standard Firefox.
If Firefox can't support GPU rendering on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
Fixed that for you. Does it still make sense?
If so, why does Firefox currently support GPU rendering? It doesn't work on all OSes -- not all OSes have drivers for modern enough GPUs to make this work.
If not, what is your argument?
No, that version doesn't make sense. Firefox supports software rendering as a fallback when GPU rendering isn't available, and both rendering methods do the same thing. Your DOM gets rasterized whether you have GPU acceleration or not.
What I'm against is licensing tech from monopolies under restrictive terms where it can't be made available to everyone,
Firefox does not embed IE by default. The user has to install a third-party addon to embed IE, and hardly anyone does that.
Yet you seem to be against even allowing a common API for third parties to add on codecs.
There isn't a native and licensed H.264 renderer you can call out to on every platform, either.
IE's renderer exists on exactly one platform. H.264 exists on nearly every platform, and by "exists", I mean "already installed, or available at zero cost." Refusing to support native codecs is like refusing to support WebGL because the best GL implementations happen to be composed of both proprietary hardware and software.
to support viewing of content that isn't in an open format or coded to open standards.
Or to make it up to the user whether or not to support that. Or to use existing hardware renderers on a given platform. Or, yes, to support viewing of content that isn't in an open format or coded to open standards, but is significantly more open and useful than the same content in a less open format (Flash).
That's just a statement about today. Look at the qualifiers I italicized. They will change in the future.
How so?
If Linux adoption grows, the "rely on the OS" approach will cover fewer people.
So nVidia cards would become less popular among Linux users? Or is it that you don't think Linux will grow by vendor support, like Dell's Ubuntu, which includes codecs?
By encouraging the widespread use of H.264 now, we'd just be handing over free leverage to the patent cartel that is MPEG LA, and they will use it...
...for how long? Patents expire.
And just what is this nightmare scenario you're envisioning? It looks to me like they already have control. It looks to me like they have more control than they ever dreamed -- they can dictate which player you use (Flash, Silverlight, etc), because there isn't a common browser-based standard for people to use.
Actually, it is, because security is Firefox's business. Giving untrusted websites free reign to load dozens of unknown external libraries and feed unchecked data to them is a very bad idea.
Out of curiosity, do you roll your own IP stack, too?
Giving untrusted websites free reign to feed data to libraries provided by the OS seems like an inevitability, and a far safer prospect than providing a model in which any local program can install plugins or extensions which load into the browser process and arbitrarily muck with any arbitrary page.
Firefox shouldn't get in the way and it wouldn't get in the way. Hardware accelerated decoding is a good thing. But it should actually be hardware accelerated decoding, not hardware enabled decoding.
In other words, Firefox shouldn't support WebGL unless it ships MesaGL? Really?
I don't want a dongle to be required for a fully functioning browser.
Even one you already have? How many devices do you have which don't already have a decoder of some sort?
Nobody is stopping you. You even have access to the source code to make it happen.
The source code isn't all I'd require -- Mozilla owns the Firefox trademark, so whatever I created, the result wouldn't be Firefox. I may as well stick to Chromium.
It is MPEG LA that's trying to take away your right to use H.264 so they can sell it back to you.
Except they haven't. Right now, they have given me the right to use it -- at no cost, and with significant improvements over all other codecs, including but not limited to native hardware support.
And I do -- in Flash and in Chrome. But because of Mozilla's choices, I can't in Firefox.
In other words, you are taking away my ability to do something because the MPEG LA might take
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Firefox does not embed IE by default. The user has to install a third-party addon to embed IE, and hardly anyone does that.
Yet you seem to be against even allowing a common API for third parties to add on codecs.
I never said that. Also, I have no idea how this is a reply to what you quoted.
IE's renderer exists on exactly one platform.
So? It's a platform with enough market share that a person could say the solution works for nearly everyone and is therefore acceptable. I just threw your own argument back at you, and you respond with special pleading.
Refusing to support native codecs is like refusing to support WebGL because the best GL implementations happen to be composed of both proprietary hardware and software.
No it isn't. The reasons I gave for not supporting native codecs simply do not apply to WebGL.
Or to make it up to the user whether or not to support that.
It already is up to the user. You're free to install any third-party modifications you want.
That's just a statement about today. Look at the qualifiers I italicized. They will change in the future.
How so?
It should be obvious what I was saying. In the future the statement could become "on some platforms Firefox supports, there is a native video API, and that native video API occasionally supports h.264"
If Linux adoption grows, the "rely on the OS" approach will cover fewer people.
So nVidia cards would become less popular among Linux users?
Yeah, probably. That's actually pretty likely. In any case, a wise decision maker does not assume that they can reliably predict the future.
Or is it that you don't think Linux will grow by vendor support, like Dell's Ubuntu, which includes codecs?
Not all vendors are necessarily going to bundle licensed codecs.
By encouraging the widespread use of H.264 now, we'd just be handing over free leverage to the patent cartel that is MPEG LA, and they will use it...
...for how long? Patents expire.
For 20 years, minimum. Or never. It keeps getting extended because they're always adding newly filed patents that they claim are essential for decoding H.264. Their list of patents for H.264 was last revised a few weeks ago. None of their lists are older than July 1st of this year. Just about two months ago. Even MPEG2, first available in 1996, is having new patents added to the pool. So the MPEG2 pool so far has a total lifespan of 34 years, and counting. And H.264 is likely to have a longer lifespan than MPEG2.
It looks to me like they already have control.
Not over Firefox. And without Firefox, they can't monopolize HTML5 video.
Out of curiosity, do you roll your own IP stack, too?
No, and that can't be done by Firefox, and it's not needed. The IP stack is already a hardened subsystem designed to handle untrusted data. Also, you're invoking the all-or-nothing fallacy.
Giving untrusted websites free reign to feed data to libraries provided by the OS
These aren't all libraries provided by the OS. You advocated loading up any arbitrary codec that happens to be on the system. And it would be a security risk regardless. A default Firefox won't pass ANY untrusted data ANY external libraries, OS-provided or otherwise. This is a security feature. It also won't launch programs to view files without prompting first. It even has countermeasures against sites tricking a user into opening a file, such as by trying to get
I never said that. Also, I have no idea how this is a reply to what you quoted.
It would be hypocritical if you did, but I apologize. I don't mean to strawman, but this does seem to be the direction Mozilla is heading -- if they were to use the native video APIs, it'd be entirely up to the user which codecs are supported. If the native APIs aren't rich enough, how hard would it be to expose a rich enough API for others to hook into?
So? It's a platform with enough market share that a person could say the solution works for nearly everyone and is therefore acceptable. I just threw your own argument back at you, and you respond with special pleading [wikipedia.org].
Actually, no, it was an argument of degree -- it's a very different "nearly everyone" which only includes two OSes from a "nearly everyone" which only excludes (mabye) things like Haiku, and not necessarily.
I'm also not sure the "right OS" argument is ultimately valid, considering I don't think anyone has ever objected to people writing their own third-party drivers -- so if you've already got a decoder in hardware, why should it matter what OS you have? If you don't have a driver, that's a bit like decrying Ethernet because your OS doesn't support your network card.
No it isn't. The reasons I gave for not supporting native codecs simply do not apply to WebGL.
The security reasons absolutely do. Let me quote them:
Giving untrusted websites free reign to load dozens of unknown external libraries and feed unchecked data to them is a very bad idea.
I suppose it's different, but what is the important difference? Dozens of libraries, but I'll be the nVidia driver has more code than all of them put together. Unknown, certainly -- you have no idea what OpenGL renderer will be used, could be one backed by DirectX, could be ATI/AMD, nVidia, Intel, any software renderer, any intermediate layer, etc, etc.
Unchecked data, absolutely.
And this is the only way to implement it -- you cannot reasonably embed an OpenGL implementation; for many websites which will be implementing this, a hardware accelerator of some sort will be required. So this:
Hardware accelerated decoding is a good thing. But it should actually be hardware accelerated decoding, not hardware enabled decoding.
...effectively becomes a distinction without a difference in the case of WebGL.
I suppose I will have to concede that it would be a good thing if pages were viewable -- though as a slideshow rather than video -- on any device, anywhere, which chooses to implement it.
"on some platforms Firefox supports, there is a native video API, and that native video API occasionally supports h.264"
I don't see it. In particular, how would the "nearly every" become "some"? Do you see many platforms abandoning their video APIs in the near future? Or do you see a viable new video platform which would not expose such an API?
I don't see the second part changing soon, either. nVidia has a large investment in Linux, for one. I can find articles from 2008 talking about ATI's H.264 support on Linux, and ATI is also committed to solid open-source drivers -- meaning they should be portable to other GPL'd OSes -- though I don't know for a fact whether the open source drivers support it. ATI has also used open specs, suggesting it should be possible to write a clean-room implementation.
Yeah, probably. That's actually pretty likely.
Other than a shift towards ATI, which supports the same thing, what makes you say that?
In any case, a wise decision maker does not assume that they can reliably predict the future.
Yet it is exactly concerns about the future which bring this up in the first place. I'm curious what possible outcomes would vindicate Firefox here. It doesn't seem
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It's almost like they have a whit of common sense. I'm not surprised this is the case. One of the major schools of thought which developed the wavelet theory underlying MPEG and JPEG was based in France. Ingrid Daubechies, Stephane Mallat, and Yves Meyer were pioneers in this field. In the Preface to the 2nd Edition of Mallat's "A Wavelet Tour Of Signal Processing" he states very clearly that the ideas they were 'discovering' were not new ideas at all. He noted the prior art in the field, and then set to work presenting the new formalism which brought all these once disconnected ideas together into a single framework. With h.264, WebM, or any of the next-gen standards they're moving on to a multigrid formalism and include predictive filters to increase compression and efficiency. Because the basic idea behind these new codecs is pretty simple and is taught to tens of thousands of scientists who may not even be interested in streaming video, it's ridiculous to claim that any next-gen codec is deserving of a patent. It's funny. I might use an algorithm resembling WebM to solve the electronic structure of a small molecule, and yet these douches patenting codecs think they've really invented something?