Codecs Should Be Patent Free
In the times we currently live in, where the music, video and tele industries are in constant battle with the consumers, trying to make them pay, it should be obvious that patented codecs are a bad thing.
Now, do not get me wrong. I think everybody should pay for what they use. I think pirates are a bad thing. But we need an open solution, that everyone are free to provide implementations of, without the need to buy specs or pay roalties for the use or implementation of a certain codec.
This is also why I think Opera and The Mozilla Foundation are doing the right thing when speaking about which video codec to choose for the open web platform. Of course, either H.264 should be patent free or everybody should team up around an open, patent free codec like Ogg Theora.
If not, consumers will pay. Less products/players to choose from. No free players or encoders. Platform locked features. Etc. For instance, currently I have no way to use the SF Anytime VOD service on my Mac, because they have choosen to tie it to the Windows Media format and player. I understand their choice, given the current availability of DRM solutions around.
If everybody would just team up on an open, patent free codec, like Theora, I am sure there would be viable DRM solutions around too. Solutions that would play on all major platforms, and not just in one specific player on one specific platform. Instead of battling patents with eachother, the major players should battle on providing the best implementation and best products with the coolest features. Stuff that would really give the users a better experience.
August 20, 2009
В· 
polesen В· 
5 Comments
Tags: codec, DRM В· Posted in: Uncategorized
5 Responses
I think the problem is, that “providing the best implementation and best products with the coolest features” is more work, more expensive and a higher risk than just battling with patents. Actually, assuming there is a new cool feature in some commercial media player, then in a few months the next best free player will have it, too.
Hi dasuxullebt. Yes, I think you are right. It is of higher risk. About..
I would say yes and no. See how Apple has been able to keep an advantage in their products, without anyone being able to produce a copy that beats Apples products.
Watch out for the word “should”… leads into many strange places.
Over the past two years when I’ve asked Ogg proponents “Why is it important to you?”, the only real response has been “So toolmakers don’t have to pay licensing costs.”
There has been a *ton* of significant innovation in codecs over the past decade since On2 VP3 (later called Ogg Theora) was first developed. You’re welcome to not take advantage of that, but saying what other people “should” do seems sort of over-arching.
(I agree with you that more diversity in rights-management would be beneficial as well… would provide more choice.)
@John:
Okay, point taken. And I am, as it shows, by no means an expert in what the different codecs can achive or not. And of course, I do want latest developments.
Setting aside the current codecs H.264 and Theora, would it not be beneficial for coming codec development to be non-patented work? I mean, if codec development experts had coorporated on developing Theora (or some other patent free codec), that might have been the H.264 of today, would it not?
Yes, I’d agree with you that it would be good to have technology which doesn’t require a legal degree to use!
I’m not sure how to bring that about myself, though — the legal/political lifestyle is very rewarding, and tends to draw as much attention and investment as actual problem-solving does….
Leave a Reply