Seriously, how many people do you think are doing man in the middle attacks to find what you are searching for on Google? This is nothing important or major that you are searching encrypted vs. unencrypted.
Not necessarily "attacks" but a lot of parties could be interested:
- ISP(s) tracking and storing data - hotspot provider tracking, storing, reselling data - dictatorship tracking "suspicious" searches by citizens and foreigners - employer tracking
Just because you are giving the data to Google, doesn't mean you need to give it to everybody else as well. It can be important.
Wrong. Patents are NOT for monopoly on ideas. They are for specific implementations.
Implementations are covered by copyrights if the implementation has substantial amount of non-functional uniqueness.
In general "implementations" for patented physical inventions are not covered by copyrights. That's why patents exist.
The source code can be copyrighted, but there's no point since you can easily change the for loops to while loops, rename variables, move functions around to create the same program with different source code.
Changing variable names and moving functions around does not avoid copyright issues.
There's no such thing as "exactly" with software patents. Most of them are so broad and hopeless, they claim ideas, not specific implementations. Most software patents do not state and present any actual software that is being patented - i.e. no code, and no algorithm. In fact, it wouldn't make sense for them to list any actual code to patent because copyright already gives them a far greater protection than patents would.
And all that doesn't apply to h.264, because you get the spec which tells you _exactly_ to the most excruciatingly tiny detail everything you need to know to implement it
Sorry, but the spec is not what's patented. The patents in the H.264 patent pool are much broader than the H.264 spec.
If you don't do things exactly like the patent papers say and make non-trivial modifications, you should be able to use it. That is the only way in this day and age that patents can "promote the sciences and the useful arts"
There's no such thing as "exactly" with software patents. Most of them are so broad and hopeless, they claim ideas, not specific implementations. Most software patents do not state and present any actual software that is being patented - i.e. no code, and no algorithm. In fact, it wouldn't make sense for them to list any actual code to patent because copyright already gives them a far greater protection than patents would.
Sure, you can say whatever you want (e.g. how "open" OSX is); it doesn't make it so. Especially since there is no definition of "open" so the flaming can go on forever.
OSX is the most open platform that runs Microsoft Windows. I could make up about 100 other items.
For arbitrary values of "open" and "runs."
How about these:
OSX is the most closed desktop OS platform Steam currently delivers software for. OSX is the most closed of the operating systems with a measurable desktop market share. OSX is the most closed platform that runs Microsoft Windows. I could make 100 other items too; including this one:
OSX is the most closed desktop platform any commercial software companies are writing consumer applications for.
The images in the x264 dev's comparison were cherry-picked by him too. Neither are objective 3rd parties. Yet, x264 dev's semi-technical post is being taken at its face value.
That was exactly my point - there needs to be an unbiased comparison by a knowledgeable party without "a dog in the fight."
Too many posters jump to conclusions because a developer of some software wrote a semi-technical post about a competing product. It's like asking Microsoft why Bing is better than Google search.
Yet, there is no W3C endorsed/created video standard.
Claiming HTML5 video tag is "just like" the img tag is deceiving at best:
with images: - W3C provides standards for some useful formats - virtually all other generally useful formats are free/unrestricted - all generally useful formats are supported by virtually all browsers "out of the box" (no plug-ins, no 3rd party software)
with video: - W3C provides no standards whatsoever - virtually all other generally useful formats are patent-encumbered* - the only consensus between major players (minus Mozilla) so far is to support the patent-encumbered H.264 format*
* unless you think VP8 will change this landscape, which is why this is a very important announcement
The HTML standard just says "play video here" just like the image tag just says "show picture here"
That's just not true - try here and here. While W3C doesn't mandate certain formats, they give everyone specs for some. Besides, all generally useful image compression formats are freely available to anyone without any restrictions (as "freely" as it can be with any software these days).
Google says it holds certain patents on the VP8 video codec that is part of WebM but there's no assurance that Google's patents are the only patents required.
True, but can't the same be said about any software open or closed source? In fact, has anyone done reverse analysis of H.264 implementations (including x264) and made sure they do not infringe any of the On2's patents Google now holds?
I can't find any promise on the WebM website that Google would come to the aid of third parties adopting the technology
If you are a small company developing a webcam, or a portable video computing device and purchase an H.264 license from MPEG-LA, this will not guarantee that MPEG-LA will come to your "rescue" when your implementation of H.264 is found to infringe on someone else's patents that are NOT part of H.264 patent pool.
Having said that, Google did assemble an impressive list of supporters, including hardware and software companies (minus Apple) that are key players in the industry today. In fact, from just glancing over, TI, ARM, Broadcom, and Sorenson already have or will shortly offer hardware/software support for the codec. Microsoft also went back on their H.264-only statement they had made earlier.
Sure, to have more patent assurances would be nice, but this should at least put small/upstart companies at the same "protection" level as any software out there, open or closed. Think of companies who can purchase "off-the-shelf" hardware components and offer video in their innovative low-cost, low-power devices bypassing the video protection cartel. This can bring back real competition in the market.
Also, this in-depth analysis by an X.264 developer shows that VP8 and H.264 are so similar that the risk of patent infringement could be substantial.
It's not really so "in-depth" if they fail to mention any single case where infringement is likely. Vague words like "in-depth" and "substantial" sound like FUD, nothing else.
I don't think this is the type of freedom our founding father's had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I think the type of freedom they had in mind would be Apple having the freedom to not support Flash on their device and consumers having the freedom to not buy an Apple product if this design decision is not to their liking.
Exactly. However, while we are on the subject, there would also be the freedom to modify and use the device/item you legally own without the fear of legal repercussion from the government, even if your tinkering doesn't align with the interests of corporate cartels. DMCA outlaws such tinkering because corporate cartels purchased the law, and both Apple and Adobe have been more than happy to pull out that card without hesitation.
I know it's off tangent, but when you talk about freedom, let's talk about some of the stuff that's at the root of this in the first place.
The judge essentially said you ought to have some minimum level of security, elst you're liable for damages, much like everything else (e.g. if you don't put the brakes on in your car and it starts to roll and crashes into something).
Sorry, wrong car analogy. How about this one:
If your router is sitting loose at the edge of an open window, then wind blows and causes the curtain to move and drop the router through the window 10 stories falling on someone's head or car, you could be liable for damages, just like if the car didn't have brakes set in your analogy.
On the other hand, leaving your wifi access open is like leaving you car unlocked. So, now you are liable if your car is unlocked, someone gets in your car and starts copying your CDs, or recording off of your FM radio.
You can code an iApp in HTML5 using CSS and javascript and it will work on iPhones and anything else.
Sure, try "coding" a 3D game in CSS and Javascript and see how that works out for you.
They don't have access to all the same APIs, but they do have access to many. Web apps certainly are up and coming and WebOS based phones run entirely using them.
HTML5 does not specify any device-specific APIs - you have no clue what you are talking about. WebOS? What? Did Apple somehow allow WebOS to be installed in iPhone?
Claiming that because Apple does not allow native apps to be distributed by other companies, is not an argument that they will prevent third parties from implementing it in the future
Uhhh... what? Also, Apple may just open source the iPhone OS at some point in the future - so there's nothing preventing us from calling it open source right now then. I like this logic!
Wow, talk about missing a point on all of the above. There's nothing contradicting or arguing against the actual point I was making.
Adobe could very easily make their own "app store" where they can sell cross-platform apps that work on iPhone, Nokia Symbian and MeeGo/Maemo, Android and Blackberry phones, as well as netbooks, tablets, computers, etc.. If that were to happen, Apple would lose control, and potentially their competitive advantage.
That depends upon what you think their competitive advantage is. Companies can code HTML5 apps right now and put together their own store, offering the same app in both Apple's store, their own store, and as a regular Web app. Apple isn't doing anything to stop them.
Competitive advantage is that "iApps" work only on iPhones and iPods and iPads. Flash apps would work on any device with the flash support.
It would create incentives for developers to create Flash apps to cover more devices and avoid Apple's "walled garden" ecosystem.
HTML5 "apps" are not really in the same ballpark. They don't get things like push notifications and cannot take advantage of the SDK APIs Apple provides for their devices. They are basically glorified mobile web pages, nothing else. Adobe's Flash would be able to expose device APIs and act as a runtime layer for Flash apps.
However, Apple likes control. They want to make sure that doesn't happen.
Do you have an evidence to back up that statement?
Sure - can an average iPhone owner install 3rd party apps that have not been pre-approved by Apple on their iPhones/iPods/iPads?
Apple is NOT just a hardware company - it never was, and there are no indications it aims to be in the future.
Apple is a device company for the most part.
You can label it as you like and we can discuss the philosophical meanings of labels all week. But the fact remains that they want to make devices, and have full control of the software on those devices. Adobe Flash would open a possible door of jeopardizing that level of control.
This argument would hold some weight if Apple were not pushing HTML5 applications as a viable and free way to host Web applications
With HTML5 Apple ultimately controls the browser and how it works.
With Flash Adobe controls the application. Adobe could very easily make their own "app store" where they can sell cross-platform apps that work on iPhone, Nokia Symbian and MeeGo/Maemo, Android and Blackberry phones, as well as netbooks, tablets, computers, etc.. If that were to happen, Apple would lose control, and potentially their competitive advantage.
However, Apple likes control. They want to make sure that doesn't happen. Apple is NOT just a hardware company - it never was, and there are no indications it aims to be in the future. They are "pushing" HTML5 in part so they can ditch Adobe.
I don't know what definition of "open source" you are using or what you think it means in your mind, but that's not a generally accepted definition.
I'm not going to cite hardline FSF views. Instead have a look at generally considered "pragmatic" OSI:
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
So, yes - open source does mean you need to be able to freely redistribute the source, otherwise what's the point?
If you go down that road, you'd be able to convince yourself that MS Windows is "open source" too since MS has given the Windows source code to some governments and biggest customers. They just can't redistribute it or make it public.
Everybody's been saying it's legally impossible for Mozilla to license H.264 for Firefox, because MPEG LA requires a limit on the number of installs or something.
Wrong.
Mozilla wants their source code and binaries to be openly available, allowing their users to freely use, modify, and redistribute per Mozilla Public License. Including native H.264 (or any patent-encumbered software) support in their browser would not be compatible with their goals of openness and freedom, and would not be compatible with MPL.
I would ask such people to step back and reconsider the big picture:
a) Proprietary plugins running in your browser, interpreting proprietary blobs downloaded from websites, to play videos from websites using whatever format (be it patent encumbered or not)
versus
b) Your browser, potentially (likely?) free software, using openly specified standards to interpret video-player controls, to play videos from websites using whatever format (be it patent encumbered or not)
The 2nd option is a major step forward.
I guess brainwashing is working on many levels then. If someone comes to you and says I'll either (a) punch you in your face, or (b) kick you in your groin which one would you pick?
You seem to be making an argument how great it is to be kicked in the groin and how much better it would be rather than getting punched in the face. That's silly if nothing else.
When img tag fails to specify anything standard, others stepped in and we have patent-free common standards across all browsers so you, I and anyone who wants to share images can do so without paying licensing fees to MPEG-LA.
When video tag fails to define standards, corporate cartel steps in and says everyone needs to pay them or else. This is clearly NOT similar to the img tag as it exists today (unless you are comparing it to the GIF fiasco). Even with the GIF case, there was a huge public outcry against it - at least nobody as I remember called it a "step forward."
This is NOT what web standards are for. If you believe <video>[patented content]</video> is the wave of the future, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind:
IANAL, but I believe you can use the actual, physical device to record any kind of movie but then if you distribute it commercially you become liable for patent infringement, as the camera maker only paid for a non-commercial h.264 license rather than the 'full' one.
Distributing a clip of patented stream is the same as distributing any content. By simply putting up an H264 file on your website or sending via e-mail you in no way use the patented methods in question. This is like saying you have to pay patent license fees every time you transport a patented blender in your car because you don't own a blender distribution license - well, you don't need to because by transporting a blender you are not violating any patents.
The only way they could get you for it would be for you to enter into a contract with the blender manufacturer or retailer during purchase saying you will not transport the blender in your car. That would then be a contractual dispute, not a patent violation.
If that's the case, then in theory it'd be possible to record the movie, transcode it to a Free format such as Theora or a closed one you *do* own a commercial license for, redistribute *that* file instead, and be legally in the clear. But as I said, IANAL, this is not legal advice and all that crap.
This, on the other hand, they can get you on. Did you remember to pay for the transcoding license? I'm sure it would be very reasonable, only if it was available at all.
Technically the PS3 still does everything it could do before the update, just not at the same time.
Here's a car analogy for you:
You buy a new car. Time comes for the service which only the authorized dealer can provide. You take the car to the dealer. Prior to performing the service the dealer informs you that they have to remove one of the following items from your car: the entertainment system (satellite radio, navigation, DVD, etc.), or the air conditioner. You say - hey, you can't do that, I bought this car because it had these features. To which they reply - well, technically this car can still have both of these features, just not at the same time.You get to pick.
I can't believe there are some people that believe this is even remotely legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, how many people do you think are doing man in the middle attacks to find what you are searching for on Google? This is nothing important or major that you are searching encrypted vs. unencrypted.
Not necessarily "attacks" but a lot of parties could be interested:
- ISP(s) tracking and storing data
- hotspot provider tracking, storing, reselling data
- dictatorship tracking "suspicious" searches by citizens and foreigners
- employer tracking
Just because you are giving the data to Google, doesn't mean you need to give it to everybody else as well. It can be important.
Patents are made for protecting new ideas.
Wrong. Patents are NOT for monopoly on ideas. They are for specific implementations.
Implementations are covered by copyrights if the implementation has substantial amount of non-functional uniqueness.
In general "implementations" for patented physical inventions are not covered by copyrights. That's why patents exist.
The source code can be copyrighted, but there's no point since you can easily change the for loops to while loops, rename variables, move functions around to create the same program with different source code.
Changing variable names and moving functions around does not avoid copyright issues.
There's no such thing as "exactly" with software patents. Most of them are so broad and hopeless, they claim ideas, not specific implementations. Most software patents do not state and present any actual software that is being patented - i.e. no code, and no algorithm. In fact, it wouldn't make sense for them to list any actual code to patent because copyright already gives them a far greater protection than patents would.
And all that doesn't apply to h.264, because you get the spec which tells you _exactly_ to the most excruciatingly tiny detail everything you need to know to implement it
Sorry, but the spec is not what's patented. The patents in the H.264 patent pool are much broader than the H.264 spec.
If you don't do things exactly like the patent papers say and make non-trivial modifications, you should be able to use it. That is the only way in this day and age that patents can "promote the sciences and the useful arts"
There's no such thing as "exactly" with software patents. Most of them are so broad and hopeless, they claim ideas, not specific implementations. Most software patents do not state and present any actual software that is being patented - i.e. no code, and no algorithm. In fact, it wouldn't make sense for them to list any actual code to patent because copyright already gives them a far greater protection than patents would.
Software patents don't make sense.
How do you get to this? How conceivably is OSX more closed then Windows?
Not at all. I was simply trying to illustrate how futile the original statements were.
If you want to do a commercial application development for Mac OSX or Microsoft Windows, one is just as "open" as the other.
What does "open" mean anyway? It's open (no pun intended) to interpretation. It can be whatever suits your argument the best, I guess.
Except you are a liar and I am not.
Sure, you can say whatever you want (e.g. how "open" OSX is); it doesn't make it so. Especially since there is no definition of "open" so the flaming can go on forever.
Feel free to link a page similar to this: http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1063/ for any OS that meets the criteria I mentioned.
Well, if you define criteria narrowly enough you can easily use "most" and "least" in your sentences.
But here you go anyway.
I suspect we will not hear from you again :)
Enjoy!
OSX is the most open platform that runs Microsoft Windows. I could make up about 100 other items.
For arbitrary values of "open" and "runs."
How about these:
OSX is the most closed desktop OS platform Steam currently delivers software for. OSX is the most closed of the operating systems with a measurable desktop market share. OSX is the most closed platform that runs Microsoft Windows. I could make 100 other items too; including this one:
OSX is the most closed desktop platform any commercial software companies are writing consumer applications for.
The argument was not about the history of the specs or of the formats.
The discussion was about the current state of img tag vs the video tag. Feel free to read the thread over.
That's just it.
The images in the x264 dev's comparison were cherry-picked by him too. Neither are objective 3rd parties. Yet, x264 dev's semi-technical post is being taken at its face value.
I said nothing about the "history." I was replying to the claim that img tag is similar to the video tag. It's not.
That was exactly my point - there needs to be an unbiased comparison by a knowledgeable party without "a dog in the fight."
Too many posters jump to conclusions because a developer of some software wrote a semi-technical post about a competing product. It's like asking Microsoft why Bing is better than Google search.
Yet, there is no W3C endorsed/created video standard.
Claiming HTML5 video tag is "just like" the img tag is deceiving at best:
with images:
- W3C provides standards for some useful formats
- virtually all other generally useful formats are free/unrestricted
- all generally useful formats are supported by virtually all browsers "out of the box" (no plug-ins, no 3rd party software)
with video:
- W3C provides no standards whatsoever
- virtually all other generally useful formats are patent-encumbered*
- the only consensus between major players (minus Mozilla) so far is to support the patent-encumbered H.264 format*
* unless you think VP8 will change this landscape, which is why this is a very important announcement
How will be the HTML5 standards organised
The HTML standard just says "play video here" just like the image tag just says "show picture here"
That's just not true - try here and here. While W3C doesn't mandate certain formats, they give everyone specs for some. Besides, all generally useful image compression formats are freely available to anyone without any restrictions (as "freely" as it can be with any software these days).
None of the above is true with video.
While an excellent analysis, it unfortunately confirms all the worst fears I've had about VP8: The quality doesn't match up to H.264
Really? Because they don't have any bias? How about this? VP8 looks significantly better in that video compared to x264.
Google says it holds certain patents on the VP8 video codec that is part of WebM but there's no assurance that Google's patents are the only patents required.
True, but can't the same be said about any software open or closed source? In fact, has anyone done reverse analysis of H.264 implementations (including x264) and made sure they do not infringe any of the On2's patents Google now holds?
I can't find any promise on the WebM website that Google would come to the aid of third parties adopting the technology
If you are a small company developing a webcam, or a portable video computing device and purchase an H.264 license from MPEG-LA, this will not guarantee that MPEG-LA will come to your "rescue" when your implementation of H.264 is found to infringe on someone else's patents that are NOT part of H.264 patent pool.
Having said that, Google did assemble an impressive list of supporters, including hardware and software companies (minus Apple) that are key players in the industry today. In fact, from just glancing over, TI, ARM, Broadcom, and Sorenson already have or will shortly offer hardware/software support for the codec. Microsoft also went back on their H.264-only statement they had made earlier.
Sure, to have more patent assurances would be nice, but this should at least put small/upstart companies at the same "protection" level as any software out there, open or closed. Think of companies who can purchase "off-the-shelf" hardware components and offer video in their innovative low-cost, low-power devices bypassing the video protection cartel. This can bring back real competition in the market.
Also, this in-depth analysis by an X.264 developer shows that VP8 and H.264 are so similar that the risk of patent infringement could be substantial.
It's not really so "in-depth" if they fail to mention any single case where infringement is likely. Vague words like "in-depth" and "substantial" sound like FUD, nothing else.
I don't think this is the type of freedom our founding father's had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I think the type of freedom they had in mind would be Apple having the freedom to not support Flash on their device and consumers having the freedom to not buy an Apple product if this design decision is not to their liking.
Exactly. However, while we are on the subject, there would also be the freedom to modify and use the device/item you legally own without the fear of legal repercussion from the government, even if your tinkering doesn't align with the interests of corporate cartels. DMCA outlaws such tinkering because corporate cartels purchased the law, and both Apple and Adobe have been more than happy to pull out that card without hesitation.
I know it's off tangent, but when you talk about freedom, let's talk about some of the stuff that's at the root of this in the first place.
The judge essentially said you ought to have some minimum level of security, elst you're liable for damages, much like everything else (e.g. if you don't put the brakes on in your car and it starts to roll and crashes into something).
Sorry, wrong car analogy. How about this one:
If your router is sitting loose at the edge of an open window, then wind blows and causes the curtain to move and drop the router through the window 10 stories falling on someone's head or car, you could be liable for damages, just like if the car didn't have brakes set in your analogy.
On the other hand, leaving your wifi access open is like leaving you car unlocked. So, now you are liable if your car is unlocked, someone gets in your car and starts copying your CDs, or recording off of your FM radio.
You can code an iApp in HTML5 using CSS and javascript and it will work on iPhones and anything else.
Sure, try "coding" a 3D game in CSS and Javascript and see how that works out for you.
They don't have access to all the same APIs, but they do have access to many. Web apps certainly are up and coming and WebOS based phones run entirely using them.
HTML5 does not specify any device-specific APIs - you have no clue what you are talking about. WebOS? What? Did Apple somehow allow WebOS to be installed in iPhone?
Claiming that because Apple does not allow native apps to be distributed by other companies, is not an argument that they will prevent third parties from implementing it in the future
Uhhh... what? Also, Apple may just open source the iPhone OS at some point in the future - so there's nothing preventing us from calling it open source right now then. I like this logic!
Wow, talk about missing a point on all of the above. There's nothing contradicting or arguing against the actual point I was making.
Adobe could very easily make their own "app store" where they can sell cross-platform apps that work on iPhone, Nokia Symbian and MeeGo/Maemo, Android and Blackberry phones, as well as netbooks, tablets, computers, etc.. If that were to happen, Apple would lose control, and potentially their competitive advantage.
That depends upon what you think their competitive advantage is. Companies can code HTML5 apps right now and put together their own store, offering the same app in both Apple's store, their own store, and as a regular Web app. Apple isn't doing anything to stop them.
Competitive advantage is that "iApps" work only on iPhones and iPods and iPads. Flash apps would work on any device with the flash support.
It would create incentives for developers to create Flash apps to cover more devices and avoid Apple's "walled garden" ecosystem.
HTML5 "apps" are not really in the same ballpark. They don't get things like push notifications and cannot take advantage of the SDK APIs Apple provides for their devices. They are basically glorified mobile web pages, nothing else. Adobe's Flash would be able to expose device APIs and act as a runtime layer for Flash apps.
However, Apple likes control. They want to make sure that doesn't happen.
Do you have an evidence to back up that statement?
Sure - can an average iPhone owner install 3rd party apps that have not been pre-approved by Apple on their iPhones/iPods/iPads?
Apple is NOT just a hardware company - it never was, and there are no indications it aims to be in the future.
Apple is a device company for the most part.
You can label it as you like and we can discuss the philosophical meanings of labels all week. But the fact remains that they want to make devices, and have full control of the software on those devices. Adobe Flash would open a possible door of jeopardizing that level of control.
This argument would hold some weight if Apple were not pushing HTML5 applications as a viable and free way to host Web applications
With HTML5 Apple ultimately controls the browser and how it works.
With Flash Adobe controls the application. Adobe could very easily make their own "app store" where they can sell cross-platform apps that work on iPhone, Nokia Symbian and MeeGo/Maemo, Android and Blackberry phones, as well as netbooks, tablets, computers, etc.. If that were to happen, Apple would lose control, and potentially their competitive advantage.
However, Apple likes control. They want to make sure that doesn't happen. Apple is NOT just a hardware company - it never was, and there are no indications it aims to be in the future. They are "pushing" HTML5 in part so they can ditch Adobe.
it's an open standard with open source encoders
I don't know what definition of "open source" you are using or what you think it means in your mind, but that's not a generally accepted definition.
I'm not going to cite hardline FSF views. Instead have a look at generally considered "pragmatic" OSI:
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
So, yes - open source does mean you need to be able to freely redistribute the source, otherwise what's the point?
If you go down that road, you'd be able to convince yourself that MS Windows is "open source" too since MS has given the Windows source code to some governments and biggest customers. They just can't redistribute it or make it public.
Everybody's been saying it's legally impossible for Mozilla to license H.264 for Firefox, because MPEG LA requires a limit on the number of installs or something.
Wrong.
Mozilla wants their source code and binaries to be openly available, allowing their users to freely use, modify, and redistribute per Mozilla Public License. Including native H.264 (or any patent-encumbered software) support in their browser would not be compatible with their goals of openness and freedom, and would not be compatible with MPL.
I would ask such people to step back and reconsider the big picture:
a) Proprietary plugins running in your browser, interpreting proprietary blobs downloaded from websites, to play videos from websites using whatever format (be it patent encumbered or not)
versus
b) Your browser, potentially (likely?) free software, using openly specified standards to interpret video-player controls, to play videos from websites using whatever format (be it patent encumbered or not)
The 2nd option is a major step forward.
I guess brainwashing is working on many levels then. If someone comes to you and says I'll either (a) punch you in your face, or (b) kick you in your groin which one would you pick?
You seem to be making an argument how great it is to be kicked in the groin and how much better it would be rather than getting punched in the face. That's silly if nothing else.
When img tag fails to specify anything standard, others stepped in and we have patent-free common standards across all browsers so you, I and anyone who wants to share images can do so without paying licensing fees to MPEG-LA.
When video tag fails to define standards, corporate cartel steps in and says everyone needs to pay them or else. This is clearly NOT similar to the img tag as it exists today (unless you are comparing it to the GIF fiasco). Even with the GIF case, there was a huge public outcry against it - at least nobody as I remember called it a "step forward."
This is NOT what web standards are for. If you believe <video>[patented content]</video> is the wave of the future, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind:
<html>[patented content]</html>
as the end case of that game either.
IANAL, but I believe you can use the actual, physical device to record any kind of movie but then if you distribute it commercially you become liable for patent infringement, as the camera maker only paid for a non-commercial h.264 license rather than the 'full' one.
Distributing a clip of patented stream is the same as distributing any content. By simply putting up an H264 file on your website or sending via e-mail you in no way use the patented methods in question. This is like saying you have to pay patent license fees every time you transport a patented blender in your car because you don't own a blender distribution license - well, you don't need to because by transporting a blender you are not violating any patents.
The only way they could get you for it would be for you to enter into a contract with the blender manufacturer or retailer during purchase saying you will not transport the blender in your car. That would then be a contractual dispute, not a patent violation.
If that's the case, then in theory it'd be possible to record the movie, transcode it to a Free format such as Theora or a closed one you *do* own a commercial license for, redistribute *that* file instead, and be legally in the clear. But as I said, IANAL, this is not legal advice and all that crap.
This, on the other hand, they can get you on. Did you remember to pay for the transcoding license? I'm sure it would be very reasonable, only if it was available at all.
Technically the PS3 still does everything it could do before the update, just not at the same time.
Here's a car analogy for you:
You buy a new car. Time comes for the service which only the authorized dealer can provide. You take the car to the dealer. Prior to performing the service the dealer informs you that they have to remove one of the following items from your car: the entertainment system (satellite radio, navigation, DVD, etc.), or the air conditioner. You say - hey, you can't do that, I bought this car because it had these features. To which they reply - well, technically this car can still have both of these features, just not at the same time.You get to pick.
I can't believe there are some people that believe this is even remotely legal.