[aklug] Re: Interesting info on Flash

From: Tim Gibney <timgibney76@gmail.com>
Date: Thu May 06 2010 - 17:45:32 AKDT

This really angers me.
I am so happy Firefox is big enough so that h.264 can't win. HTML does not
specify h.264 but rather implementing a video codec. Its the MPAA who wants
to have html 5 be synonymous with H.264. Microsoft would like this as well
as it can be used to kill Linux and Firefox.

H.264 is a danger to open standards and the free internet itself. This is
not some philosophical issue such as the gnu zealots insistence on using
only free software, but rather its about licensing, patented and drm. It
wont be free by next year. Its billed as a standard but its an anti-standard
drmed infested monopoly aka patent on video that only an elite consortium
controlled by monopolists.

Flash is a danger already too as there is no way to learn entry level web
development skills without it. Flash is becoming synonymous with the World
Wide Web. No longer is it the case that anyone can learn how to do web
development on their own and have it standard on all devices. All the jobs
list flash experience required for any internet work.

I frankly do not care if H.264 is so superior to ogg and H.263. Firefox *can't
*use it period. It is not free and is an illegal bait and switch technique
that Microsoft and Apple would love to use. If Firefox can't play videos
from youtube or CNN then its bye bye linux and hello Windows/IE for me and
everyone else.

I wish the debate would die and truly free tools to create animations with
ajax and html 5 with H.263 would become standard. Whats wrong with H.263
Mpeg4? It works fine and does not set a time bomb with liabilities.

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Christopher Howard <choward@indicium.us>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/05/10 21:25, Jeremy Austin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:44 PM, barsalou <barjunk@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> It is a one sided viewpoint, but it is interesting none the less.
> >>
> >> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
> >
> > There's an interesting OSS angle to this story, about video formats
> > (and not interactive Flash apps).
> >
> > Microsoft's next IE will support H.264 only, not Ogg, and Firefox
> > apparently will not yet support H.264. If true, this is going to make
> > things tough in our OSS-fueled race to HTML5 and freedom from Flash.
> >
> > Is the real story here that video codecs have gotten so complicated
> > that there's no possible way an *effective* codec can avoid using
> > patented techniques?
> >
> > jermudgeon
> > ---------
> > To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
> > with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
> >
>
> This whole issue is confusing me. I don't get it... what is open about
> H.264?
>
>
> http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-what-you-need-to-know.html
>
> "Briefly, MPEG LA represents the patent holders of AVC/H.264
> technologies. It is the sole licensing authority for the technology.
> Typical customers include consumer equipment manufacturers (Blu-ray Disc
> players and recorders), software developers (encoding programs, DVD
> players), and content developers. According to the “Summary of AVC/H.264
> License Terms,” which you can download from the MPEG LA site
> (www.mpegla.com/ avc/avc-agreement.cfm), there are no royalties for free
> internet broadcast (there are, however, royalties for pay-per-view or
> subscription video) until Dec. 31, 2010. After that, “the royalty shall
> be no more than the economic equivalent of royalties payable during the
> same time for free television.”This makes royalties payable for “free
> television” the best predictor of where internet royalties will stand in
> 2011. Under the terms of the agreement, you have two options: a one-time
> payment of $2,500 “per AVC transmission encoder” or an annual fee
> starting at “$2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least
> 100,000 but no more than 499,999 television households, $5,000 per
> calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at least 500,000 but
> no more than 999,999 television households, and $10,000 per calendar
> year per Broadcast Market which includes at 1,000,000 or more television
> households.”
>
> But then, what can we really be sure about?
>
> "Harkness cautioned, however, that the royalty group may go in a totally
> different direction when it came to license terms for internet usage."
>
> - --
> Christopher Howard
> http://linuxprogrammingforums.com
> http://indicium.us
> http://theologia.indicium.us
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkvjGv8ACgkQQ5FLNdi0BcUBQQCcC+1XjqIJ7qexdQaVVWV44JYx
> ar4An3Ox7AbFbz+rIKE1aNYUJQeSCpvZ
> =3G8W
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
>
>

---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Thu May 6 17:45:43 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 06 2010 - 17:45:43 AKDT