HTML5 video does a lot more than the object tag. It specifies a model for controlling the playing of the video, and other features in HTML5 allow the UI for those controls to be specified with the video. Further features allow all manner of transformations on the video.
Basically, it's wrong to say HTML5 video is like the object tag.
This may come as a surprise to you, but this has been known to polygraph operators for roughly forever.
Let me guess, you're are such an operator, or you're affiliated to the polygraph industry in some other way. And you're here shilling. Not that it's surprising, for the polygraph requires the public to *believe* it works for it to have any use. As you don't have any actual science to convince people with, you instead have to bluster and dissemble about it being effective in public, to help reinforce the myth.
Uh, you know there's no evidence that lie detectors can tell anything about what a subject believes? Show me a properly peer-reviewed scientific paper with evidence that backs up your claim. I don't believe any such paper exists, TTBOMK.
Basically, the lie-detector is an *interrogation* tool at best, which makes use of the fact that the subject *believes* the lie-detector has some efficacy. It doesn't really though, which is why such tools of themselves do not produce results that could be considered evidence.
I wonder is it just the higher resolutions that are unavailable? I can download 640x373 (default and --mode flashhigh) and also 832x468 (flashvhigh mode). I can't get the flashhd mode though.
Hmm, around the time of the change I definitely found old stuff still worked with flvstreamer, but new stuff needed rtmpdump + some hacking as described.
Your findings are very interesting and I can confirm the same thing (flvstreamer 1.8, Dr Who). Have the BBC rolled back on SWF Verification or is something else going on?
No I mean free. See for example FFmpeg, which is LGPL licensed while implementing a variety of patented codecs - their FAQ is interesting. Some people disagree with them, but it's interesting that Google are an MPEG-LA licensee AND distribute FFmpeg with Chromium/Chrome.
Note that patents need not be universally valid. E.g. a specific patent may be recognised only in limited jurisdictions, or software patents may not be recognised generally in some. The GPLv2 specifically allows for free software that is covered by patents to still be distributed, see clause 8.
The GPLv3 is even more specific in that it seems to require only the onward transmission of any relevant patent licence rights that the distributor/contributor holds - that is it requires any rights that are held to be passed on, it does NOT require that a free software work be free of patent claims. See clause 11.
I personally don't know exactly what the legalities tbh, particularly not for the case where the creator and distributor of the code never held a patent licence. Both versions of the GPL seem to be drafted with the case of patent owners/licensees in mind, and it's not obvious what they say about the non-licensee case.
I presume however that Googles' lawyers do know though. So it does not seem to me that patent issues automatically mean software can not be considered free.
No it isn't. There are still shows on iPlayer that are not protected (e.g. things like repeats) but newer stuff needs RTMP. To work around that you need to obtain rtmpdump, then you need to hack get_iplayer to either add a pass-through commandline argument to hand the magic SWF verification number to rtmpdump, or you need to hack rtmpdump to hard-code that number. If you find an easier way, do let me know.
I think XBMC's iPlayer plugin has been updated to support iPlayer SWF verification.
Me, I've just switched to using dvb-daemon to record stuff off the air. If I miss a show it'll be easier to download it via Bittorrent than bother with iPlayer (not watching much TV last while, so havn't had to yet).
They can install the shitty Flash plugin which the majority of web video today uses and they'll be safe.
You mean they can install the *proprietary* flash plugin, which Adobe have paid patent licensing fees for, including to MPEG-LA. That's no different from buying proprietary video codecs for Linux, e.g. from Fluendo.
If you were to ship a full, free implementation of Flash, you would run into the exact same patent risks as shipping a free implementation of H.264.
Further, the core Flash platform does not support ANY royalty free codecs. HTML5 DOES allow for Ogg/Theora. Plus there's the small matter that we don't have any free Flash implementations (we have semi-complete ones, which work with Youtube but not generally), but we do have HTML5 video.
If you want Ogg/Theora to be a viable option for web video, please explain how advocating against HTML5 video helps.
If your argument is about merits of different societal structures, then why do you keep comparing the US and UK to Persia in terms of intellectual accomplishments? The Arab and Persian worlds were intellectually way advanced of the western world for a very long time. Much of that ingenuity you are so proud of in extracting oil from the ground rests on great advancements in math and science made in India, the Middle East and Persia. If your argument really is about societal structures, then that would be fine - but you keep dragging in what are innate human characteristics, which smacks of some kind of prejudiced tribalism.
The west, the US particularly, may have some dominance at this time, but history tells us that great societies wax to shine brightly, only eventually to wane and dim, often because of their own hubris. You may be committing the sin of sitting in judgement from your tiny little corner of time, failing to place it in its proper larger context (never mind unable to see what's ahead)...
I think you have an extremely narrow world-view. You should get out more. From my experience of such people and given you're reasonably mature, I doubt you have any intention of allowing your views to be swayed (e.g. you've completely ignored the points about contracts being made undemocratically, about the US defaulting on its contracts too, rule of law, and you ignore the decades of brutal Western sponsored repressed that unquestionably setback those nations generation or more thereafter). No doubt you're proud of that. So I'll leave this be.
So because Apple and Microsoft refuse to support Ogg/Theora we should refuse to have/any/ video standard, and so ensure web video remains in the hands of proprietary blobs that can only usefully play patent encumbered video, thus ensuring Ogg/Theora can never see any significant use for web video?
That's snatching defeat from the jaws of partial victory, I have to say.
Further, the way I read the blog article, Microsoft most definitely do NOT rule out other codec support. Indeed, there's a suggestion that perhaps additional IE9 HTML5 video codec support is just a matter of installing WMP codecs...
Read the blog - Microsoft have *not* ruled out IE9 supporting other codecs via plugins and what not. Indeed there's a suggestion (though unclear) that IE9 may support whatever codecs are installed with WMP:
We’ve read some follow up discussion about support for more than the H.264 codec in IE9’s HTML5 video tag. To be clear, users can install other codecs for use in Windows Media Player and Windows Media Center.
Further, IE9 is not the only browser. Chromium supports a wealth of formats by dint of FFMpeg; WebKitGTK+ browsers support a wealth of formats thanks to GStreamer support (or will do soon); Firefox only supports Ogg/Theora at the moment - hopefully though it will gain access to system media APIs in time (gstreamer, etc).
I am baffled at how anyone can think that finally having an open delivery system, that can work with a range of formats, is *worse* than a proprietary system that only supports encumbered codecs (H.263+/VP3, VP6, H.264, MPEG-4p2), at least OOB and accelerated.
Again, I'm curious if you're using that proprietary video delivery plugin on your system?
It's not myopic. The web video problem has 2 dimensions:
1. The embedding/delivery dimension
2. The codec patent encumbrance problem
HTML5 video fixes the first and gives us a chance to wean the web off its addiction to a certain closed, proprietary plugin. With HTML5 the web can at least be accessible to free software (there are free implementations of H.264, even if there are patent issues).
It doesn't fix the 2nd problem. However it doesn't make it worse, indeed it probably it makes it/easier/ to start tackling this issue. The major HTML5 video browsers *already* support Ogg/Theora - unlike Flash!
I agree software patent issues are indeed a huge problem, but you can't always fix all problems in one go.
Oh, actually, option 'a' is not "whatever format video", rather it will be "video in H.263 or H.264 format (patent encumbered)". Other formats won't have accelerated support from the Flash plugin.
This is not insightful. HTML5 is a multi-vendor standard from the W3. The W3 only publish standards that are free of royalty standards (thanks to a big debate and campaign around the turn of the millenium).
HTML5 video is a major leap forward. Previously video was usually locked away behind proprietary Flash delivery interfaces. Already I am finding I can browse Youtube via my web browser and see videos (before I had to use totem's plugin or youtube-dl) because of HTML5 support. The same applies with other video sites, such as Vimeo and dailymotion that have (beta) HTML5 video players. Further, thanks to HTML5 browser support, extensions now exist which can take embedded flash video players of certain sites and transform them in place into HTML5 video.
HTML5 video is agnostic of codec - it does not specify what format video will be in, nor does it specify what formats browser must support. Just as the old IMG tag doesn't specify GIF, BMP, etc. The supported formats are whatever formats systems and browsers support. It would have been nice if W3 had been able to specify Ogg/Theora as a "must support" common-denominator format, but agreement could not be reached on that. That does NOT take away from the importance of HTML5 video.
I strongly suspect many of the people who argue against HTML5 video are people who are running proprietary video-delivery plugins in their browser.. 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 despair of anyone who argues that we should stick with option a because of the patent issues with/some/ video formats.
Next step: If you're in the UK, we need to lobby the BBC Trust and OfCom to get them to require the BBC to deliver its internet TV services in an open format - rather than via Adobe Flash.
The Iranians democratically elected a parliament that had a mandate to address the long-standing inequity of the oil revenues. After nationalisation, the International Court of Justice even found *in favour* of Iran and *upheld* the legality of Iran's nationalisation. Thereafter the Iranians were subjected to blockades, sanctions and CIA/MI6 plots. Eventually leading to the overthrow of the democratic government and the installation of the last Shah who, with the help of the CIA, turned into a rather brutal dictator. The Iranian people eventually overthrowing him in a popular uprising.
To this *day* Iran is owed large amounts of money by the UK and the USA on things like arms and oil contracts which the *UK and USA* defaulted on after the overthrow of the Shah, and which both US and international court in The Hague have ruled on in favour of Iran.
Re racism, perhaps I misunderstood you and your comment does discriminate by race. In which case I am not quite sure on what basis you discriminate between westerners and those foreign knuckle-draggers who can't think for themselves. Regardless of what basis you use, I am still pretty certain you suffer from a very misplaced sense of intellectual superiority over your fellow man.
Well, you're basically taking the attitude that it is entirely right that powerful nations go into less powerful ones and plunder their mineral wealth. "They're paying for the equipment and people plunder those minerals, so it's theirs" is your attitude essentially.
E.g. with respect to Iran, the UK government was earning more money in tax from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company than the Iranian government were earning on the concession! Never mind the private AOIC were generating. The Iranians then *democratically* elected politicians in an election in which the issue of oil revenue (the lack of it) was a major issue. After the nationalisation.
Basically, in your opinion it is right that contracts made with unelected, undemocratic kings in naive times, that essentially plunder a country of mineral wealth, should be enforced against the democratic expressed will of a people - and that these contracts should be enforced by powerful western nations. Enforced to the extent that those western nations overthrow the democratic governments and replace them with dictators (of the same family as the king who signed those early oil concessions in the case of Iran), who then must resort to rather brutal suppression to remain in power.
I thoroughly disagree with your hypocritical world view, where democracy, the consent of the people and the rule of law is good for your country but denied to other countries, solely to allow your countrymen to rob the natural resources of those other countries.
Worse, given your UID, I doubt I am talking to a young twenty-something who has the excuse of youthful immaturity and inexperience for their less reasonable views. Instead I likely am talking to a grown, mature and middle-aged person who has managed to attain age without wisdom or human compassion.
And yes your "knuckle-dragging" comment was racist. You made it in the context of Persians and Venezuelans, but I would imagine there are many other people you would apply that term to.
Slashdot Mirror
HTML5 video does a lot more than the object tag. It specifies a model for controlling the playing of the video, and other features in HTML5 allow the UI for those controls to be specified with the video. Further features allow all manner of transformations on the video.
Basically, it's wrong to say HTML5 video is like the object tag.
Ah, me too on this. Though, I might go buy the book as a result of this /. post.
This may come as a surprise to you, but this has been known to polygraph operators for roughly forever.
Let me guess, you're are such an operator, or you're affiliated to the polygraph industry in some other way. And you're here shilling. Not that it's surprising, for the polygraph requires the public to *believe* it works for it to have any use. As you don't have any actual science to convince people with, you instead have to bluster and dissemble about it being effective in public, to help reinforce the myth.
Uh, you know there's no evidence that lie detectors can tell anything about what a subject believes? Show me a properly peer-reviewed scientific paper with evidence that backs up your claim. I don't believe any such paper exists, TTBOMK.
Basically, the lie-detector is an *interrogation* tool at best, which makes use of the fact that the subject *believes* the lie-detector has some efficacy. It doesn't really though, which is why such tools of themselves do not produce results that could be considered evidence.
I wonder is it just the higher resolutions that are unavailable? I can download 640x373 (default and --mode flashhigh) and also 832x468 (flashvhigh mode). I can't get the flashhd mode though.
Hmm, around the time of the change I definitely found old stuff still worked with flvstreamer, but new stuff needed rtmpdump + some hacking as described.
Your findings are very interesting and I can confirm the same thing (flvstreamer 1.8, Dr Who). Have the BBC rolled back on SWF Verification or is something else going on?
See Chris Dibona's explanation.
No I mean free. See for example FFmpeg, which is LGPL licensed while implementing a variety of patented codecs - their FAQ is interesting. Some people disagree with them, but it's interesting that Google are an MPEG-LA licensee AND distribute FFmpeg with Chromium/Chrome.
Note that patents need not be universally valid. E.g. a specific patent may be recognised only in limited jurisdictions, or software patents may not be recognised generally in some. The GPLv2 specifically allows for free software that is covered by patents to still be distributed, see clause 8.
The GPLv3 is even more specific in that it seems to require only the onward transmission of any relevant patent licence rights that the distributor/contributor holds - that is it requires any rights that are held to be passed on, it does NOT require that a free software work be free of patent claims. See clause 11.
I personally don't know exactly what the legalities tbh, particularly not for the case where the creator and distributor of the code never held a patent licence. Both versions of the GPL seem to be drafted with the case of patent owners/licensees in mind, and it's not obvious what they say about the non-licensee case.
I presume however that Googles' lawyers do know though. So it does not seem to me that patent issues automatically mean software can not be considered free.
No it isn't. There are still shows on iPlayer that are not protected (e.g. things like repeats) but newer stuff needs RTMP. To work around that you need to obtain rtmpdump, then you need to hack get_iplayer to either add a pass-through commandline argument to hand the magic SWF verification number to rtmpdump, or you need to hack rtmpdump to hard-code that number. If you find an easier way, do let me know.
I think XBMC's iPlayer plugin has been updated to support iPlayer SWF verification.
Me, I've just switched to using dvb-daemon to record stuff off the air. If I miss a show it'll be easier to download it via Bittorrent than bother with iPlayer (not watching much TV last while, so havn't had to yet).
They can install the shitty Flash plugin which the majority of web video today uses and they'll be safe.
You mean they can install the *proprietary* flash plugin, which Adobe have paid patent licensing fees for, including to MPEG-LA. That's no different from buying proprietary video codecs for Linux, e.g. from Fluendo.
If you were to ship a full, free implementation of Flash, you would run into the exact same patent risks as shipping a free implementation of H.264.
Further, the core Flash platform does not support ANY royalty free codecs. HTML5 DOES allow for Ogg/Theora. Plus there's the small matter that we don't have any free Flash implementations (we have semi-complete ones, which work with Youtube but not generally), but we do have HTML5 video.
If you want Ogg/Theora to be a viable option for web video, please explain how advocating against HTML5 video helps.
Ok, never mind. I've prejudged you and clearly failed to properly read your comment. Scratch that.
If your argument is about merits of different societal structures, then why do you keep comparing the US and UK to Persia in terms of intellectual accomplishments? The Arab and Persian worlds were intellectually way advanced of the western world for a very long time. Much of that ingenuity you are so proud of in extracting oil from the ground rests on great advancements in math and science made in India, the Middle East and Persia. If your argument really is about societal structures, then that would be fine - but you keep dragging in what are innate human characteristics, which smacks of some kind of prejudiced tribalism.
The west, the US particularly, may have some dominance at this time, but history tells us that great societies wax to shine brightly, only eventually to wane and dim, often because of their own hubris. You may be committing the sin of sitting in judgement from your tiny little corner of time, failing to place it in its proper larger context (never mind unable to see what's ahead)...
I think you have an extremely narrow world-view. You should get out more. From my experience of such people and given you're reasonably mature, I doubt you have any intention of allowing your views to be swayed (e.g. you've completely ignored the points about contracts being made undemocratically, about the US defaulting on its contracts too, rule of law, and you ignore the decades of brutal Western sponsored repressed that unquestionably setback those nations generation or more thereafter). No doubt you're proud of that. So I'll leave this be.
HTML5 specifies a model for applying controls and transformations on the video.
Sigh.. Edit: "handed off to an external player".
So because Apple and Microsoft refuse to support Ogg/Theora we should refuse to have /any/ video standard, and so ensure web video remains in the hands of proprietary blobs that can only usefully play patent encumbered video, thus ensuring Ogg/Theora can never see any significant use for web video?
That's snatching defeat from the jaws of partial victory, I have to say.
Further, the way I read the blog article, Microsoft most definitely do NOT rule out other codec support. Indeed, there's a suggestion that perhaps additional IE9 HTML5 video codec support is just a matter of installing WMP codecs...
Well there's a philosophical question here of whether it's better to have video embedded or handed off to a plugin.
I actually agree with you. I prefer to watch video in an external, system specific player. And HTML5 makes that *much* /easier/ to implement.
Read the blog - Microsoft have *not* ruled out IE9 supporting other codecs via plugins and what not. Indeed there's a suggestion (though unclear) that IE9 may support whatever codecs are installed with WMP:
We’ve read some follow up discussion about support for more than the H.264 codec in IE9’s HTML5 video tag. To be clear, users can install other codecs for use in Windows Media Player and Windows Media Center.
Further, IE9 is not the only browser. Chromium supports a wealth of formats by dint of FFMpeg; WebKitGTK+ browsers support a wealth of formats thanks to GStreamer support (or will do soon); Firefox only supports Ogg/Theora at the moment - hopefully though it will gain access to system media APIs in time (gstreamer, etc).
I am baffled at how anyone can think that finally having an open delivery system, that can work with a range of formats, is *worse* than a proprietary system that only supports encumbered codecs (H.263+/VP3, VP6, H.264, MPEG-4p2), at least OOB and accelerated.
Again, I'm curious if you're using that proprietary video delivery plugin on your system?
PS: Pray tell, do you run a certain proprietary video delivery plugin in your browser?
It's not myopic. The web video problem has 2 dimensions:
1. The embedding/delivery dimension
2. The codec patent encumbrance problem
HTML5 video fixes the first and gives us a chance to wean the web off its addiction to a certain closed, proprietary plugin. With HTML5 the web can at least be accessible to free software (there are free implementations of H.264, even if there are patent issues).
It doesn't fix the 2nd problem. However it doesn't make it worse, indeed it probably it makes it /easier/ to start tackling this issue. The major HTML5 video browsers *already* support Ogg/Theora - unlike Flash!
I agree software patent issues are indeed a huge problem, but you can't always fix all problems in one go.
Oh, actually, option 'a' is not "whatever format video", rather it will be "video in H.263 or H.264 format (patent encumbered)". Other formats won't have accelerated support from the Flash plugin.
Sigh.. Edits:
"free of royalty requirements".
"interpret video-player controls downloaded from websites"
This is not insightful. HTML5 is a multi-vendor standard from the W3. The W3 only publish standards that are free of royalty standards (thanks to a big debate and campaign around the turn of the millenium).
HTML5 video is a major leap forward. Previously video was usually locked away behind proprietary Flash delivery interfaces. Already I am finding I can browse Youtube via my web browser and see videos (before I had to use totem's plugin or youtube-dl) because of HTML5 support. The same applies with other video sites, such as Vimeo and dailymotion that have (beta) HTML5 video players. Further, thanks to HTML5 browser support, extensions now exist which can take embedded flash video players of certain sites and transform them in place into HTML5 video.
HTML5 video is agnostic of codec - it does not specify what format video will be in, nor does it specify what formats browser must support. Just as the old IMG tag doesn't specify GIF, BMP, etc. The supported formats are whatever formats systems and browsers support. It would have been nice if W3 had been able to specify Ogg/Theora as a "must support" common-denominator format, but agreement could not be reached on that. That does NOT take away from the importance of HTML5 video.
I strongly suspect many of the people who argue against HTML5 video are people who are running proprietary video-delivery plugins in their browser.. 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 despair of anyone who argues that we should stick with option a because of the patent issues with /some/ video formats.
Next step: If you're in the UK, we need to lobby the BBC Trust and OfCom to get them to require the BBC to deliver its internet TV services in an open format - rather than via Adobe Flash.
sigh, correction: "and your comment does /not/ discriminate by race".
Not a very well edited comment. ;)
The Iranians democratically elected a parliament that had a mandate to address the long-standing inequity of the oil revenues. After nationalisation, the International Court of Justice even found *in favour* of Iran and *upheld* the legality of Iran's nationalisation. Thereafter the Iranians were subjected to blockades, sanctions and CIA/MI6 plots. Eventually leading to the overthrow of the democratic government and the installation of the last Shah who, with the help of the CIA, turned into a rather brutal dictator. The Iranian people eventually overthrowing him in a popular uprising.
To this *day* Iran is owed large amounts of money by the UK and the USA on things like arms and oil contracts which the *UK and USA* defaulted on after the overthrow of the Shah, and which both US and international court in The Hague have ruled on in favour of Iran.
Re racism, perhaps I misunderstood you and your comment does discriminate by race. In which case I am not quite sure on what basis you discriminate between westerners and those foreign knuckle-draggers who can't think for themselves. Regardless of what basis you use, I am still pretty certain you suffer from a very misplaced sense of intellectual superiority over your fellow man.
Well, you're basically taking the attitude that it is entirely right that powerful nations go into less powerful ones and plunder their mineral wealth. "They're paying for the equipment and people plunder those minerals, so it's theirs" is your attitude essentially.
E.g. with respect to Iran, the UK government was earning more money in tax from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company than the Iranian government were earning on the concession! Never mind the private AOIC were generating. The Iranians then *democratically* elected politicians in an election in which the issue of oil revenue (the lack of it) was a major issue. After the nationalisation.
Basically, in your opinion it is right that contracts made with unelected, undemocratic kings in naive times, that essentially plunder a country of mineral wealth, should be enforced against the democratic expressed will of a people - and that these contracts should be enforced by powerful western nations. Enforced to the extent that those western nations overthrow the democratic governments and replace them with dictators (of the same family as the king who signed those early oil concessions in the case of Iran), who then must resort to rather brutal suppression to remain in power.
I thoroughly disagree with your hypocritical world view, where democracy, the consent of the people and the rule of law is good for your country but denied to other countries, solely to allow your countrymen to rob the natural resources of those other countries.
Worse, given your UID, I doubt I am talking to a young twenty-something who has the excuse of youthful immaturity and inexperience for their less reasonable views. Instead I likely am talking to a grown, mature and middle-aged person who has managed to attain age without wisdom or human compassion.
And yes your "knuckle-dragging" comment was racist. You made it in the context of Persians and Venezuelans, but I would imagine there are many other people you would apply that term to.