H.264 licensing body won't charge royalties for HTML5

One of the key objections Mozilla and its supporters have had to the use of H.264 codecs for HTML5 video -- the built-in decoding system being developed for the next edition of HTML -- is that it's proprietary technology. As such, there are no guarantees against the rights holders to that technology staking claims to it, and charging money for it...and there may not be much protection against others who believe they have claims on it, to test their theories in a full-scale patent infringement trial.

Up to now, the MPEG Licensing Authority (MPEG LA) has not been charging royalties to anyone, including streamers and the viewers of streamed content, for the use of H.264 encoding and decoding for the specific purpose of delivering free streams. That way, for example, the participants in YouTube's and Vimeo's current tests of H.264 in HTML5 -- Web browser-based video without any plug-ins -- can proceed without incurring charges.

But discussion about that fact prompted a reader of the Linux news service LWN.net to ask MPEG LA whether that meant H.264 users must still obtain some type of license. As part of its response late yesterday, MPEG LA delivered a statement to multiple sources, including Betanews, announcing that the rights management firm will extend the period for which it will refrain from collecting royalties for use of H.264 in free streaming video, until the last day of 2016 2015. The term of that royalty-free agreement was due to expire at the end of this year.

"Products and services other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video," reads MPEG LA's statement to Betanews, "continue to be royalty-bearing, and royalties to apply during the next term will be announced before the end of 2010." Internet Broadcast AVC Video is the name of the patent portfolio to which H.264 belongs, when used in the context of streaming.

But in a direct, personal response to the LWN.net reader that was shared with other members, MPEG LA global licensing director Allen Harkness explained that the fact it doesn't charge end users (viewers) royalties for downloading H.264 streams, doesn't mean they should not be licensed to do so. Effectively, someone has to be licensed to produce the videos, and that license does incur a fee. But that license is then effectively passed downstream to the end user.

"While our Licenses are not concluded by End Users, anyone in the product chain has liability if an end product is unlicensed," wrote Harkness. "Therefore, a royalty paid for an end product by the end product supplier would render the product licensed in the hands of the End User, but where a royalty has not been paid, such a product remains unlicensed and any downstream users/distributors would have liability. Therefore, we suggest that all End Users deal with products only from licensed suppliers."

The implied danger here is that a producer of video who did not use a licensed codec (whether or not he owed anything for it) could be exposing the viewer of that video to liability. Or as Mozilla contributor Robert O'Callahan described it in a blog post last Friday, "In other words, if you're an end user in a country where software patents (or method patents) are enforceable, and you're using software that encodes or decodes H.264 and the vendor is not on the list of licensees, the MPEG LA reserves the right to sue you, the end user, as well as the software vendor or distributor."

The AVC codecs used to encode video for streaming or other distribution, often carries a fee regardless of how the videos themselves will be used. Some software makers, including UK-based Magix AG, opt to enable H.264 encoders to be purchased separately, to ensure not only that users are properly licensed but also that users who have no plans to actually encode using H.264, don't end up spending extra money for the license.

Under the terms of the current royalty rates due to expire on December 31, makers of software products including the codec are charged 20¢ per unit after the first 100,000 units sold per year, and 10¢ per unit after the 5,000,000th unit sold that year. Royalties for this year are capped at $5 million. Subscription video streaming services also incur royalties, at a rate starting at 2¢ per subscribed title plus about 10¢ per subscriber per year. Those rates, and their associated caps, are likely to change next year, and MPEG LA may be announcing changes soon.

Source: Betanews

Tags: H.264, HTML5, Internet

Comments
Add comment

Your name:
Sign in with:
or
Your comment:


Enter code:

E-mail (not required)
E-mail will not be disclosed to the third party


Last news

 
Consumer group recommends iPhone 8 over anniversary model
 
LTE connections wherever you go and instant waking should come to regular PCs, too
 
That fiction is slowly becoming a reality
 
The Snapdragon 845 octa-core SoC includes the Snapdragon X20 LTE modem
 
Human moderators can help make YouTube a safer place for everyone
 
Google says Progressive Web Apps are the future of app-like webpages
 
All 2018 models to sport the 'notch'
 
The biggest exchange in South Korea, where the BTC/KRW pair is at $14,700 now
The Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) Review
The evolution of the successful smartphone, now with a waterproof body and USB Type-C
February 7, 2017 /
Samsung Galaxy TabPro S - a tablet with the Windows-keyboard
The first Windows-tablet with the 12-inch display Super AMOLED
June 7, 2016 /
Keyboards for iOS
Ten iOS keyboards review
July 18, 2015 /
Samsung E1200 Mobile Phone Review
A cheap phone with a good screen
March 8, 2015 / 4
Creative Sound Blaster Z sound card review
Good sound for those who are not satisfied with the onboard solution
September 25, 2014 / 2
Samsung Galaxy Gear: Smartwatch at High Price
The first smartwatch from Samsung - almost a smartphone with a small body
December 19, 2013 /
 
 

News Archive

 
 
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      




Poll

Do you use microSD card with your phone?
or leave your own version in comments (4)