I’ve started reading this article which list the various H.26x proposals - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Coding_Experts_Group
Seems like the group that comes with these is eventually part of the UN ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicat...
Is it because they come with the codecs “jointly” with the MPEG organization, which is for profit? If the group is part of a standards organization that’s part of the UN, I feel like they should come up with non-patent-encumbered “recommendations”.
There are multiple patent pools for H.265 wanting to be paid licensing fees (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Velos Media). HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees.
And there are patent holders not in any pool who also want to be paid (Technicolor, Motorola, Nokia, etc.).
It's a mess.
That is not correct. Unless you meant they once "suggested" to ask for content distribution licensing.
Physical Media has always been a seperate and its own category.
>>HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees.
1. Are Broadcasting and Streaming "content distribution"?
2. Do HEVC Advance and Velos Media currently, or has ever charges for Broadcasting and Streaming?
And to quote: You were wrong. Just accept that and be happy.
Have a nice day.
You're just wrong. Don't worry about it.
1. No where did I make the claim selling movies on discs is not content distribution. It is however NOT ALL content distribution, which is what you implied. And Physical Media licensing has been is own category since MPEG2 as used in DVD.
2. You claim of content distribution does not include Streaming and Broadcasting. Which has been the debate of the HEVC / H,266 licensing programme during its early stage of IP Negotiation terms. If you dont know H.265's history on patent terms then my suggestion is that you read up on it. As it is often the FUD pointed towards H.265. And you are, knowing or not, repeating it.
3. >You're just wrong. Don't worry about it.
This is HN. Not Reddit. If you dont know something, ask. Stop pretending you know something that you dont.
There is no uncertainty or doubt. The licensing of H.265 is well understood to be terrible.
You yourself are the perfect demonstration of this. You plainly don't know the terms of the licensing for all the different patent pools and individual licensors, and you've contradicted yourself multiple times in this thread. Let's review:
1. First you claimed there were no content distribution fees. That's false.
2. Next you claimed that "content distribution" only refers to streaming and broadcasting. That's false.
3. Then you claimed that "content distribution" does indeed include selling movies on discs. That's true and it means we're back at Claim 1.
Watching you flail about trying to save face is pretty funny, but more importantly it is the clear demonstration that you don't understand the terms of H.265 licensing which is, of course, why the licensing is so terrible.
One of the reasons AV1 is more usable is because its licensing is simpler, clearer, and more straightforward. You've proven that.
Have a nice day.
The specific was not about Physical media. The specific was that All content distribution requires fees. Physical media was not even specified in the original context.
It's really like H.264 all over again where everyone claims the patent pools make a big difference but only on the periphery.
While some cameras do support it, it's much more common to use ProRes, DNxHD/DNxHR or h264 in all-intra mode (as e.g. in XAVC-I and XAVC-S-I).
h265, or long-GOP codecs in general, are only really used for long talking head shots or lectures.