[aklug] Re: Interesting info on Flash

H.263 is patented but free to use. Firefox can be usable with it. With H.264
it can not and never will as it will cost money per download by the end of
the year while H.263 is free.
I was under the impression that HD video support has been around for a long
time before H.264.

DRM is mentioned because it is the sole reason why H.264 is being pushed.
Its more control and free codecs are a threat to publishers. If it were not
an issue and patents problem then Ogg/theo would include some of the
features of H.264 which we could all enjoy. Its creators admited they
purposely crippled it.

 The free codecs were purposely crippled so they would not be sued. However,
Steve Jobs admits the FSF may be sued anyway to stop it. This is pretty
dangerous to the internet and I do not care if it is so good. I want the
internet on my pc and not a subscription based Ipad where hacking is
considering becoming root on your machine. Murdoch loves this device with
good reason as he does not want information freely shared.

If Linux and Firefox are going to be overthrown so a few producers can save
some bandwidth then it does not matter to me. The version of Ubuntu with the
H.264 codecs will certainly not be free making debain or other users
obsolete in the process if H.264 becomes standard. So you will need to pay
$40 to use Linux or buy a Dell Mini with its flavored version of ubuntu that
has the patented codecs

Software patents need to be stopped. Unfortunately, I do not think this is
possible with our rampant corruption and bribing going on by the powerful
interests.

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tim, some Qs.
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Tim Gibney <timgibney76@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I agree it's about licensing and patents. I'm not sure this debate is
> about drm. Here's a question: if Google, having absorbed On2, releases
> something with a more generous license than, say, H.264, or better
> yet, open sources it and gives it whatever patent protection they can,
> will it support DRM? If it doesn't, will any commercial content
> providers ever use it?
>
> At the risk of conflating the video codec issue with the
> interactive-app issue, I find it interesting that (from what I've
> read) the pr0n industry decided 1.) the Betamax vs. VHS debate, 2.)
> the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD debate and is surely not passing up a chance to
> post video in iPad-friendly formats, by which I mean HTML5. Insert
> touch interface joke here.
>
> So a question would be, will interactive app development on the web be
> decided by an overlapping but not identical trend in video?
>
> > 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'm reading this that anything that reduces Flash usage is good, on one
> level?
>
> > 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.
>
> Are you suggesting that the current Flash implementation on Linux will
> go away? I thought that what web sites (like CNN) were doing is using
> HTML5 for browsers that want that, and degrading to Flash (boy there's
> a turn of phrase) for everyone else. I don't understand how the lack
> of H.264 support in Firefox (on any platform) will mean that you have
> to switch to Windows. Please explain.
>
> > 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.
>
> The canvas tag in HTML5 is greatly improving. I suspect you'll see
> interesting things done with it quite soon; I have. Don't know much
> about the tools. But 'animations' and video codecs are two totally
> different things which I think you're conflating.
> What's wrong with H.263? As a video producer, I have two words. HD and
> bandwidth. I do care about the difference, particularly between H.263
> and H.264 rather than the difference between MPEG4 (parts earlier than
> part 10, which is H.264) and H.264. Also they suffer from the same
> licensing issues as H.264, right? Aren't they administered by the same
> consortium?
>
> It feels weird to be defending non-FOSS IP in a linux-related forum,
> but we live in a complicated world. Somebody tell me we'll find a way
> out of this mess!
>
> Here's an interesting perspective from Adobe:
> http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/01/sympathy_for_the_devil.html
>

---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Tue May 11 00:04:58 2010