Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Not really, there are some scary lawyer words buried in those owner's
>> manuals.
> 
> I just read a recent discussion where someone went thru a bunch of user
> manuals for all the high-end cameras, including like the things that TV
> studios and digital movie production houses use, and they *all* say you
> have to go get your license for any commercial use. Indeed, individual
> viewers also need a license to watch any video that was *ever* in MPEG
> (h.264?) format that ever had any sort of money transfer associated with
> it.
> 
> So if you take a video with a camera that records it as mpeg, transcode
> that to FLV, share it via youtube (where youtube makes money serving
> ads), and I watch it, I technically need a license to watch that video.
> 

We read the same discussion, then.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
I suspect this is the one.

Engadget cleared up a lot of her story with this:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/

For the most part, I think they are right. The patents are in coding and
decoding, and patent infringement does not extend to the end user.
People building the encoder chips are already paying licenses to use the
patents, it's just software that hasn't been paying. I think there is a
mistake in the Engadget story, in that distributing an h.264 file would
still not be patent infringement for the end user. If the video encoder
paid their license and the video player did as well, should they finally
be asked to, then the video host should not be liable. Now, they mention
YouTube, and I suppose since currently YouTube does both encode from any
video type to h.264 and then display through a decoder that they are
distrubting, their flash player, that they might be liable to pay a
license as well.

Obligatory car analogy; think of Honda Hybrid owners. They do not need a
license from Toyota to use the car. They don't even need a license to
replace parts, as long as those parts are bought from people who hold a
license. And if they buy unlicensed parts, no one is going to come along
and repossess the car.

/still not legal advice

Post a reply to this message