YouTube going WebM
Out of context: Reply #5
- Started
- Last post
- 6 Responses
- Boz0
@logi
I disagree with that last article.. I read it.. it's nonsense.. there is no increase of cost for anyone.. he assumes that Google will continue serving 2 copies of files to everyone, and somehow create a problem for producers.. which is really opinion and has no real connection with reality.
And come 2015 the costs for everyone playing and showing h.264 content (like YouTube will jump astronomically).
This is one of the best comments to that article and 100% true:
What is Google going to do after 2015 when the current h.264 web licensing agreement expires? Let’s say the licensing agency picks $4/video and sends Google a bill for $1B/yr? You’d be crazy to take a risk like that.
If h.264 wants webm to go away, supply a permanent free license for web use.
1) to have a real option when 2015 when comes around. If the MPEG-LA is unreasonable Google will 100% pull the plug on h.264. The existence of a credible webm option will keep MPEG-LA in check. Do you really want some of your major competitors (Apple, MS) picking the royalty number you are going to have to pay for h.264?
2) Firefox is screwed. Firefox is tri-licensed. One of those licenses is the GPL. From the GPL v2, “b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.” Firefox’s license prevents them for ever incorporating h.264. Same for Chromium.
So if MPEG-LA wanted to get rid of this problem, they could provide a royalty free license for web use until 2030 when their patents expire and be content with shaking down the hardware manufacturers. Instead they are trying to ingrain h.264 as a widely used standard. Then I fully expect to see robber baron level royalty requirements after 2015 unless there is something around to keep them in check.