[aklug] Re: Interesting info on Flash

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Tim Gibney <timgibney76@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 o=
f
> the year while H.263 is free.

Firefox might be usable with H.263, but no non-Flash-based player, to
my knowledge, ever became standard during the years this was an
option. (And no HTML5 yet, obviously.) So we're stuck with the future
scenario of having H.264 from providers that can pay the $5
million/year, playing on devices that run non-free software, degrading
to Flash (a curse all its own) on Firefox and Linux.

> I was under the impression that HD video support has been around for a lo=
ng
> time before H.264.

http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/open-video-codecs-and-quality/

You're right, HD support has been around. And at higer bitrates,
there's less of a difference between, say, MPEG2 and H.264, to pick
two points in time far apart. The battle in codecs is being fought
with *low* bitrate video -- from the first iPod-optimized YouTube
videos (H.264) to Hulu and Netflix.

> 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 n=
ot
> 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.
>
> =A0The free codecs were purposely crippled so they would not be sued. How=
ever,
> 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.

I thought the battle is more about streaming than DRM. How are free
codecs a threat to publishers? Do you mean content publishers? I'd
think that if publishers could use a superior-or-equivalent free codec
without the threat of being sued they'd leap at the chance to save the
future licensing fees. There's not one single company that owns the
patents to H.264; in fact, there are hundreds. I thought free codecs
(by which we mean Ogg/Theora) would have been used already (by, say,
Google, in their YouTube property, which is 40% of web video) were it
not for the patent issue, not the DRM issue. Google dropped DRM and
trying-their-own-video-codec (remember Google Video?) long ago, but
their purchase of On2 might change that.

> If Linux and Firefox are going to be overthrown so a few producers can sa=
ve
> 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 pa=
y
> $40 to use Linux or buy a Dell Mini with its flavored version of ubuntu t=
hat
> has the patented codecs

Why would Linux cost $40? The cost per user is, at most, $.20 for
H.264 licensing. At the moment; from history, we know this will
change.

"The other problem is that the Internet, because of it=92s global
nature, hides many of these costs. Everyone =96 and I mean everyone =96
uses tools from parts of the world where there are no software patents
to transcode and edit videos. (One of the world=92s largest free
software downloads after Firefox? VLC. 111M last time I checked.) This
grey area for tools means that these heavily patented formats gain
much of the same advantage as free formats =96 lots of free tools and
tons of ad-hoc support from free software people =96 but with the
ability to still enforce and monetize in parts of the world where
patents are enforced. It=92s actually a brilliant strategy, even though
the outcome is that the true costs of patents are hidden from the view
of most people."
 from http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2010/01/html5-video-and-h-264-what-h=
istory-tells-us-and-why-were-standing-with-the-web/

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

Agreed.

jermudgeon
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Tue May 11 11:30:28 2010