MPEG LA Declares H.264 Standard Permanently Royalty-Free

[PeterQVenkman]

OS X include a H.264 decoder? Check.
Windows include a H.264 decoder? Check.

Mozilla release products for OS X and Windows? Check.

Not really sure what the issue would be.

I'm not sure I have this right, but I'll take a stab at it.

OSX includes h264 decoding as part of quicktime, in order to view an h264 encoded video in the firefox browser, one would have to embed a quicktime movie - therefore using the quicktime plugin for the browser, like so:

<object classid="clsid:02BF25D5-8C17-4B23-BC80-D3488ABDDC6B" codebase="http://www.apple.com/qtactivex/qtplugin.cab" height="256" width="320">

<param name="src" value="http://www.yourdomain/your.mov">
<param name="autoplay" value="true">
<param name="type" value="video/quicktime" height="256" width="320">

<embed src="http://www.yourdomain/your.mov" height="256" width="320" autoplay="true" type="video/quicktime" pluginspage="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/">

</object>

That's not the video tag.

 

[spillproof]

♫ Step By Step, Bit by Bit,
Stone By Stone (Yeah), Brick by Brick (Oh, yeah)
Step By Step, Day By Day, Mile by mile (ooh, ooh, ooh) ♫

 

[SockRolid]

WebM

Google WebM is the new Google Wave. Google's latest answer to a question nobody asked.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Again you all are not understanding.
The part of the license you are refering to is only talking about video's encoded in h.264. It is not talking about encoder and decoders which are very different and are not royalty free.

Also firefox is not designed to actess the video codec on a computer and I would not put it past both apple and ms to block direct actess to that part of the OS to 3rd part software. Now plug ins (quicktime or wmp) is another story but are those are first party plug in.

Either way you missed the point.

In the case of the (a) encoder and decoder manufacturer sublicenses:

For (a) (1) branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM
basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system (a
decoder, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = “unit”),
royalties (beginning January 1, 2005) per legal entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no
royalty (this threshold is available to one legal entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per
unit after first 100,000 units each year; above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10
per unit. The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an enterprise (commonly controlled
legal entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5
million per year 2009-10.8

For (a) (2) branded encoder and decoder products sold on an OEM basis for incorporation
into personal computers as part of a computer operating system, a legal entity may pay
for its customers as follows (beginning January 1, 2005): 0 - 100,000 units/year = no
royalty (available to one legal entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per unit after first
100,000 units/year; above 5 million units/year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit. The
maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an enterprise (commonly controlled legal entities) is
$3.5 million per year in 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year in 2007-08 and $5 million per
year in 2009-10.9

FireFox doesn't have a problem with other frameworks.

The fact of the matter is this news is big and it is you who is missing the point.

 

[BaldiMac]

As opposed to nobody with an actual free, open standard. Do try to keep up.

What's wrong for charging for something? It is an open standard. It's not free. It's licensed on terms that people seem to find very reasonable, or it wouldn't be as ubiquitous as it is.

Oh, please. I used the word "tax" like when people say "Apple tax." Of course it isn't an actual tax or a talking head on TV would find a way to blame Obama for it.

There is still money to be paid, call it what you want, I don't care. If you like I can go back and change the word "tax" to "license" just to relieve your fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

You were using it the exact same way people use the term "Apple Tax". To spread FUD. To make it seem unreasonable.

Hey, if you like being nickle and dimed to death by all of this BS, then more power to you.

No nickels and dimes. 2 cents or less. For a better product. Seems like a reasonable price. Do you really think iTunes movie downloads would be 12.97 instead of 12.99 if it wasn't for the h.264 license fee?

 

[awmazz]

Sell a decoder. Distributing a free decoder for free is free of fees. Say that really fast free times.​

Nope decoder still have to pay fees. the only thing that is free is video that is encoded

Encoders and decoder still have to pay a fee no matter if they are given away free or not. In mozzilla's case that will cost them 5 mil this year and more than that next year as the rate goes up.

The quoted post is a prim example of the complete miss understanding of the issue people here are having.

I posted the actual terms of the license, yet you simply restate the same unsupported opinion. Tell me what I'm misunderstanding about the word "sold" in the licensing terms? I'll post it *again* for you. Read it this time. See if you can actually read - and understand yourself - the key word there:

In the case of the (a) encoder and decoder manufacturer sublicenses:

For (a) (1) branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM
basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system (a
decoder, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = “unit”),
royalties (beginning January 1, 2005) per legal entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no
royalty (this threshold is available to one legal entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per
unit after first 100,000 units each year; above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10
per unit. The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an enterprise (commonly controlled
legal entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5
million per year 2009-10.8​

 

[SockRolid]

The fat lady is already singing for Opera

...Opera is not supporting h.264 either...

It's just a small matter of programming. They might support h.264 in a desperate attempt to keep their market share from eroding to zero. But who cares? It's too late already. According to Wikipedia:

"As of May 2010 Opera has a 2.43% of worldwide usage share of web browsers, according to Net Applications."

Read it and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_browser

And in terms of mobile browsing per device, 64% of all mobile browsing is done from iPhone alone. That doesn't even include the other iOS devices (iPod Touch and iPad):

http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/articles/mobile-web-browser-usage-statistics.php

So yes, quite a few people may have downloaded Opera. But only a tiny percentage of them actually use it.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

You were using it the exact same way people use the term "Apple Tax". To spread FUD. To make it seem unreasonable.

The whole thing is unreasonable because companies like Apple and Microsoft are not supporting anything but h264. That sucks. Eventually, one will have to support h264 simply to ensure regular people can see the content - and if you are a business that sells that content, you all of a sudden have one PITA to deal with. Licensing fees. Blah. MPEG LA could sue the little guy who sells blender tutorials and doesn't pay his $4.00 a year. Nice. One could switch to another format, but then you'd lock out of Apple's iOS market by default. Again, nice.

I called it a tax, but perhaps I should have called it a toll. Because MPEG LA is a patent troll, and trolls demand something when you cross their bridge.

No nickels and dimes. 2 cents or less. Seems like a reasonable price.

It's going to cost mozilla only 2 cents to support h264? Heck, I'll pay their fees.

Oh wait...

Now think about indie game development that happens to include video in it. Just another way to take more money from the big companies that can afford it and the little guys who cannot.

Do you really think iTunes movie downloads would be 12.97 instead of 12.99 if it wasn't for the h.264 license fee?

Don't be silly. Apple never discounts anything because of the Apple tax, remember?

 

[BaldiMac]

Well their argument is based on the HTML5 specs. The HTML5 spec says that the video element must only be a royalty-free codec. H.264 is not in the spec. :/

No, it doesn't say anything about the codec being royalty-free. No codec is in the spec.

umm..h.264 is in IE8 and 9. The only browser that won't support it is Firefox.

We are talking about native decoding by the browser of video displayed by the HTML5 video tag. IE8 and earlier do not support the HTML5 video tag. Opera and Firefox do not have plans to support H.264 through the video tag.

It seems that most of you here are on the H.264 bandwagon because Apple supports it. But I'm actually rooting for WebM to win out. Zero fees to use regardless of if you are making money from videos or not. How is that a bad thing? I agree with Apple that Flash needs to die, but Apple should be providing native support for WebM on Safari.

How is it a bad thing? A few reasons. Zero fees means less investment in future versions. And WebM is poorer quality than H.264 for most uses. And then there is the risk that WebM violates patents held by the group of companies responsible for H.264.

Why are you so excited about it? Why support a patent troll company like MPEG LA that will sue anyone at the drop of a hat? Take a look at their news:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx

It's full of lawsuits.

At least Adobe never charged people per video they encoded. But hey, let's all celebrate the death of Adobe and welcome the new micro-transaction, micro-license fee future lorded over by MPEG LA and others of their ilk.

No thanks. I'll use other formats whenever possible.



I think MPEG LA is trying to scare off people from using WebM at all - the only real questions were raised by WebM's biggest competitor. It's a business tactic. Nobody wants to take on the initial risk of an expensive lawsuit with a patent troll like MPEG LA. Even if WebM wins, it would likely be an expensive trial tied up for years with appeals which MPEG LA would use to their advantage. During this time they would probably try to keep WebM out of the market until after trial, while MPEG LA continues to build market share.

More FUD. Lawsuits do not mean troll. If you believe someone has stolen from you, why is it unethical to sue them?

Hello license fees and lawsuits.

And more FUD.

FireFox doesn't have a problem with other frameworks.

The fact of the matter is this news is big and it is you who is missing the point.

Mozilla is under the impression that they would have to pay the license fees.

http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/

 

[PeterQVenkman]

More FUD.

And more FUD.

Such compelling arguments. Your counterpoint is that you disagree. Great job!

 

[BaldiMac]

The whole thing is unreasonable because companies like Apple and Microsoft are not supporting anything but h264. That sucks. Eventually, one will have to support h264 simply to ensure regular people can see the content - and if you are a business that sells that content, you all of a sudden have one PITA to deal with. Licensing fees. Blah. MPEG LA could sue the little guy who sells blender tutorials and doesn't pay his $4.00 a year. Nice. One could switch to another format, but then you'd lock out of Apple's iOS market by default. Again, nice.

I called it a tax, but perhaps I should have called it a toll. Because MPEG LA is a patent troll, and trolls demand something when you cross their bridge.

Way to change the argument. We were talking about the reasonableness of the license fee for selling H.264 video. It's is not a hardship for your little guy who sell 13 minute blender tutorials for $0.99 to pay $.02 for the video codec. I doubt it would he would sell a whole lot more at $0.97.

And, of course, you have to add the FUD about suing someone for $4. Nice.

It's going to cost mozilla only 2 cents to support h264? Heck, I'll pay their fees.

Oh wait...

No, Mozilla doesn't sell videos as far as I know. Again, we were not talking about the license fee for encoders and decoders (which would cost Mozilla $5 million a year with the current terms.)

Now think about indie game development that happens to include video in it. Just another way to take more money from the big companies that can afford it and the little guys who cannot.

No one would be forcing them to use H.264. And if they did, only videos over 12 minutes would be charged the lower of $0.02 or 2% of the purchase price. Where is the hardship?

 

[BaldiMac]

Such compelling arguments. Your counterpoint is that you disagree. Great job!

I like how you edited out my actual argument in your quote, so it looks like I didn't make one. Classy.

 

[Master Chief]

Deliberate miss information?

Oh man. There is so much wrong in this article that I don't even know where to start. I rather skip; You'll get the news, the real facts from the W3C members soon enough

 

[Westside guy]

The content provider encodes it. If they provide the content for free then the content provider pays no fee. If the content provider charges for the content then they pay the fee. Mozilla pays nothing for the plug-in used to decode it. Provided they don't charge.

Exactly. The wording seems quite clear.

you still are not understanding it.

The encoding and decoding software is not royalty free. No matter if the video playing is free on the web.

h.264 encoders are pay the royalty to encode it. Not a big issues there.
Decoder software on the other hand have to pay for that right to decode any h.264 video regardless if it is free or not.

Since the browser would have to function as a decoder it has to pay royalties in the terms of 5 mil plus a year. There is no plug in for that part of HTML 5. That is the browser handling it all. This is the issue.

Now if you want to sell video encoded in h.264 you have to pay royalties on that video. So in a sell of a h.264 video MPEG-LA is going to collect money from the software ecoding it, the software decoding it and the video itself. In a free h.264 video MPEG-LA is going to collect money from the encoding software and the decoding software.

The common person just is not getting it.

Well, I think you're the one not getting it - but I don't think I'm going to convince you, and I know you're not going to convince me otherwise.

BTW that "the common person just is not getting it" comment is a bit much.

Sell a decoder. Distributing a free decoder for free is free of fees. Say that really fast free times.

Yup, you're right. But people seem to keep ignoring what it actually says in favor of what they believed pre-announcement. And looking through Mozilla's previous statements regarding h.264, they seem to have been pretty consistent in saying, more or less, "yes, it's free now, but we don't know if it'll be in the future" - this new announcement appears to have been written specifically to address those concerns.

I know none of this will stop - or even slow - the debate here; but until we hear from Mozilla (and Opera) one way or the other, these arguments are all rather moot. And I'll be really surprised if we don't hear from Mozilla sometime in the next few days.

 

[jamiek88]

Well, that's just great.

There goes several thousand man-hours wasted on Macrumors arguments.

THANKS A LOT, MPEG LA! Don't you know how hard we worked on those threads?

Poof. All useless now.

GOLD!

 

[ranReloaded]

Nope. This does not change the licensing fees that Firefox would have to pay. (I think I read that it would be in the $5 million range.) It only applies to video distribution that is free to end users, which has always been free.

Thanks for clarifying, and too bad for .h264 on Firefox.

The punchline "the standard for standards" is a bit too much IMHO.

 

[stationstops]

this only applies to video which is free to end users, an important footnote.

that would not include iTunes, NetFlix, Hulu+, Amazon on Demand, etc

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Exactly. The wording seems quite clear.



Well, I think you're the one not getting it - but I don't think I'm going to convince you, and I know you're not going to convince me otherwise.

BTW that "the common person just is not getting it" comment is a bit much.



Yup, you're right. But people seem to keep ignoring what it actually says in favor of what they believed pre-announcement. And looking through Mozilla's previous statements regarding h.264, they seem to have been pretty consistent in saying, more or less, "yes, it's free now, but we don't know if it'll be in the future" - this new announcement appears to have been written specifically to address those concerns.

I know none of this will stop - or even slow - the debate here; but until we hear from Mozilla (and Opera) one way or the other, these arguments are all rather moot. And I'll be really surprised if we don't hear from Mozilla sometime in the next few days.

You need to so some reading before you come a bashing.

Mozilla is under the impression that they would have to pay the license fees.

http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/

Sum it up Moz feels it would have to pay the 5 mil and I would take their word over most people here wanna be understanding of that agreement.

Also the current announcement does NOTHING to but keep the status quo the way it is now. All it been doing is extending what was suppose to end this year got extended to 2015 to permanently. None of which removed the fees from Mozilla.

 

[Flash3441]

:How is it a bad thing? A few reasons. Zero fees means less investment in future versions. And WebM is poorer quality than H.264 for most uses. And then there is the risk that WebM violates patents held by the group of companies responsible for H.264.

So in other words, anything that is free and open source must suck because less will be invested in it. Do I understand you correctly? Java turned to absolute crap when Sun made it open source in 2006, right? No one invested in improving it at all.

Companies like Google, Yahoo!, Firefox, Opera will invest in improving something that is open source rather than something that they have no control over. WebM has potential to be better at a much faster rate than H.264 ever will.

And the quality between VP8/WebM and H.264 is not very different. See here and here

 

[awmazz]

Well, I think you're the one not getting it - but I don't think I'm going to convince you, and I know you're not going to convince me otherwise.

I'm with you. I give up. After that last post, it's clearly a futile exercise.

 

[JAT]

Apple wins again.

Why, is Apple an individual?

 

[AlmostThere]

Who cares what is in the browser?

The codec that matters in the one that YouTube uses.

 

[twilson]

Take a closer look:



If you charge money for your content you will still have to pay royalties. I don't know if that counts content with advertising or not (like hulu or youtube) - because you would be making money off of h264 content that way.

Sites like Digital Tutors, lynda.com, etc, if they provide a downloadable version in h264, they would be obligated to pay. All my classes from FXPHD.com are h264 encoded. I'm sure they'll switch to something else now.

NO you wouldn't have to pay, as the content (videos) are still free. Do you pay for YouTube, I haven't heard anyone hand over cash to view it?

 

[twilson]

No, Mozilla doesn't sell videos as far as I know. Again, we were not talking about the license fee for encoders and decoders (which would cost Mozilla $5 million a year with the current terms.)

Why would it, Mozilla isn't selling a product (which is specifically mentioned in the licensing).

 

[ranReloaded]

Nope. This does not change the licensing fees that Firefox would have to pay. (I think I read that it would be in the $5 million range.) It only applies to video distribution that is free to end users, which has always been free.

I think we ALL here can agree that, since Firefox is distributed for Free, Mozilla SHOULD be excempted from paying any royalties/fees to MPEGLA?