OT: Which one of you paid for your H.264?

[www.osnews.com]



www.strypesinpost.com

Bizarre.

How are they going to prove which codec was used at any given point?

It's unenforceable. They can't track down every HD production and find out which camera was used (and many productions use multiple camera brands and models now), how each camera encodes, and whether the agreement applies.

Also, you can't really sell a product like this and then say people don't own what the product makes. That would be like Fender Guitars saying, you owe us royalties for parts you play with a Fender Stratocaster on commercial music recordings, or Microsoft trying to get a piece of a novel a guy wrote in Microsoft Word. I'm pretty sure something in copyright law prohibits that.


www.derekmok.com

Man, Gerard, can you not link to blatant trolling like that? I know it's been making the rounds ? I saw it myself over the weekend on Twitter or something. But come on. There might be an important discussion to be had about licensing codecs, but that kind of radical political bullshit isn't the way to start it.

Google up the author sometime. I don't know her personally, but I'm familiar with her, and she's got a reputation for this kind of @#$%&-stirring.

I didn't google her up, but I checked the Canon PDF on the 5DMK2 and yea, you can't use the mpeg4 that the 5D uses for commercial purposes, which is just bizarre..

If there is a copyright issue at hand, I think the users on the forum should know about it.



www.strypesinpost.com

Unless you are FOX and announce that you shot the HOUSE finale with the Canon 5D, there is literally no way to enforce that restriction. Camera makers cannot tell what camera shot what for what project.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

That's not news. Any of us who use FCP have already explicitly agreed to knowing about those provisions. Vide the FCP license agreement, articles 12 & 13:

[store.apple.com]

It applies to MPEG-2 as well.

randy

------------------------
"I've suffered for my art. Now it's your turn."

Does anyone have any idea what the licensing costs would be if this was enforced
or how complicated the web of paperwork would be?

Philip Hodgetts wrote about this awhile back. Can't remember what he said but it was not as draconian as it reads.

Michael Horton
-------------------

so both apple and Microsoft patented it?

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=2095&tag=nl.e550

Jeff Harrell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>can you not link to blatant trolling
> like that? I know it's been making the rounds...There might be an
> important discussion to be had about licensing
> codecs...

This topic actually has been brought up and chewed over elsewhere -- months ago -- on DVinfo.net. Apple was approached with the question about licensing and issued a response without addressing the question. I find the licensing issue very troublesome but as it has been pointed out in this thread, policing and investigating into how each production is made makes this an unenforceable regulation except for random stabs at companies and video producers.

-Andrew