

No, you can't do that with H.264 - middayc
http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/

======
middayc
T.F.A. site getting hammered, copy/past

==No, you can’t do that with H.264==

A lot of commercial software comes with H.264 encoders and decoders, and some
computers arrive with this software preinstalled. This leads a lot of people
to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever
purpose they like. Unfortunately for them, it ain’t so.

Maybe the best example comes from the Final Cut Pro license:

    
    
        To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or >decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional >licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN >THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON->COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE >WITH THE AVC STANDARD (“AVC VIDEO”) AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO >THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON->COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A >VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. INFORMATION >REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA >L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
    

The text could hardly be clearer: you do not have a license for commercial use
of H.264. Call it “Final Cut Pro Hobbyist”. Do you post videos on your website
that has Google Adwords? Do you edit video on a consulting basis? Do you want
to include a video in a package sent to your customers? Do your clients send
you video clips as part of your business? Then you’re using the encoder or
decoder for commercial purposes, in violation of the license.

Now, you might think “but I’m sticking with MPEG-4, or MPEG-2, so it’s not a
problem for me”. No. It’s just as bad. Here’s the relevant section of the
license:

    
    
           1. MPEG-2 Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains MPEG-2 >functionality, the following provision applies: ANY USE OF THIS PRODUCT >OTHER THAN CONSUMER PERSONAL USE IN ANY MANNER THAT COMPLIES >WITH THE MPEG-2 STANDARD FOR ENCODING VIDEO INFORMATION FOR >PACKAGED MEDIA IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT A LICENSE UNDER >APPLICABLE PATENTS IN THE MPEG-2 PATENT PORTFOLIO, WHICH LICENSE >IS AVAILABLE FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C., 250 STEELE STREET, SUITE 300, >DENVER, COLORADO 80206.
           2. MPEG-4 Notice. This product is licensed under the MPEG-4 Systems >Patent Portfolio License for encoding in compliance with the MPEG-4 >Systems Standard, except that an additional license and payment of >royalties are necessary for encoding in connection with (i) data stored or >replicated in physical media which is paid for on a title by title basis and/or >(ii) data which is paid for on a title by title basis and is transmitted to an >end user for permanent storage and/or use. Such additional license may >be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC. See http://www.mpegla.com for additional >details. This product is licensed under the MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio >License for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer for (i) >encoding video in compliance with the MPEG-4 Visual Standard (“MPEG-4 >Video”) and/or (ii) decoding MPEG-4 video that was encoded by a >consumer engaged in a personal and non-commercial activity and/or was >obtained from a video provider licensed by MPEG LA to provide MPEG-4 >video. No license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. Additional >information including that relating to promotional, internal and commercial >uses and licensing may be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC.
    

Noticing a pattern? You have a license to use their software, provided you
don’t make any money, your friends are also all correctly licensed, and you
only produce content that complies with the MPEG standard. Using video for a
commercial purpose? Producing video that isn’t within MPEG’s parameters? Have
friends who use unlicensed encoders like x264, ffmpeg, or xvid? Too bad.

This last thing is actually a particularly interesting point. If you encode a
video using one of these (open-source) unlicensed encoders, you’re practicing
patents without a license, and you can be sued. But hey, maybe you’re just a
scofflaw. After all, it’s not like you’re making trouble for anyone else,
right? Wrong. If you send a video to a friend who uses a licensed decoder, and
they watch it, you’ve caused them to violate their own software license, so
they can be sued too.

Oh, and in case you thought this was specific to Apple, here’s the matching
piece from the Windows 7 Ultimate License:

    
    
           1. NOTICE ABOUT THE H.264/AVC VISUAL STANDARD, THE VC-1 VIDEO >STANDARD, THE MPEG-4 VISUAL STANDARD AND THE MPEG-2 VIDEO >STANDARD. This software includes H.264/AVC, VC-1, MPEG-4 Part 2, and >MPEG-2 visual compression technology. MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this >notice: THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC, THE VC-1, THE MPEG-4 PART >2 VISUAL, AND THE MPEG-2 VIDEO PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE >PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE >VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE STANDARDS (“VIDEO >STANDARDS”) AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC, VC-1, MPEG-4 PART 2 AND MPEG-2 >VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND >NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER >LICENSED TO PROVIDE SUCH VIDEO. NONE OF THE LICENSES EXTEND TO >ANY OTHER PRODUCT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH PRODUCT IS >INCLUDED WITH THIS PRODUCT IN A SINGLE ARTICLE. NO LICENSE IS >GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL >INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE >WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
    

Doesn’t seem so Ultimate to me.

My advice: use a codec that doesn’t need a license:

    
    
        Q. What is the license for Theora? Theora (and all associated technologies released by the Xiph.org >Foundation) is released to the public via a BSD-style license. It is >completely free for commercial or noncommercial use. That means that >commercial developers may independently write Theora software which is >compatible with the specification for no charge and without restrictions of >any kind.

~~~
sailormoon
Why is this being downvoted? The site was down and the parent was just trying
to be helpful. I admit the formatting is a bit bad but does that deserve
punishment?

edit: parent was at -1 when I posted that.

~~~
middayc
I admit the formatting is a bit bad. I was a little lazy and didn't want to
seek out formatting rules. I would improve it now, but it seems I can't edit
it any more.

------
romland
The problem with these write-ups about how bad H.264 is (or will be in 2011)
is that it will not reach the right people in time; the masses. The people who
clicked through to an article with H.264 in the title already know about the
ins and outs.

The companies that implement and support H.264 also know all about the
license, and they have most likely gotten some pretty sweet deals for getting
this thing as widely deployed as possible.

What needs to be done is to get the message through so that the masses realize
that MPEG LA will come after _you_ with their pitchforks and torches in less
than a year from now. Worse yet, we do not even know how the license will
look.

But maybe scaring people is not the key here. The question remains then: How
do we get that message through to the big masses? Make alternatives look
"cool"? Next generation video?

I know, I know. I'm not saying anything new...

A (6 month old) interesting link:
[http://streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-w...](http://streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-
what-you-need-to-know.html)

~~~
tjogin
There are obvious problems with H.264, but I don't believe MPEG LA's _plan_ is
to sue regular people for not complying with the license agreement when they
did that video that one time.

Not because I think they're not evil enough to do it, but because that kind of
money-making scheme just doesn't scale.

Also, whenever they've sued one or two people, people's eyes will open and
they'll just use an other codec. No big deal.

As a means to make money, that strategy simply sucks. A more likely turn of
events is that licensing H.264 becomes quite a bit less good of a deal when
H.264 has truly established itself. But even then they're not going to sue
millions of people, because that doesn't scale, they're going to sue big
vendors and service providers.

Certainly, that's not great either. But no, MPEG LA are not coming after
"_you_".

~~~
middayc
I thought we were "hackers" here with potential to create startups, possibly
related to video or just using it as a support system?

If you have the need to pay for the sake of it you can relocate to my country,
we have one of the highest taxes in the world :)

~~~
tjogin
What does high taxes have to do with anything? I'm just saying that it's
irrational to think that MPEG LA's plan is to sue consumers. Us being
"hackers" does nothing to change those odds.

~~~
sjs
> I'm just saying that it's irrational to think that MPEG LA's plan is to sue
> consumers. Us being "hackers" does nothing to change those odds.

Some of us make products that may want to use h.264 and would be liable to
have to pay to do so. Not as consumers, but as businesses.

> Certainly, that's not great either. But no, MPEG LA are not coming after
> "_you_".

Not if you're just a consumer, but we are not all just consumers on HN. So
they might come after us.

------
edd
So in summary: be careful some software and technologies you use have licences
that you should read.

If you are using any technology for commercial use you should probably be
reading all licensing agreements and have your lawyers deal with anything that
arises.

~~~
vog
Or, just drop these technologies and use their free competitors (e.g. Theora)
that don't require you to engage your lawyers just to compress some videos.

~~~
PanMan
That sounds nice, but as long as Flash, Silverlight, iPhones, don't support
Theora but do support h264, it's not that practical..

~~~
qjz
But there are no barriers to adopting Theora practically overnight, once the
market expresses an interest. Vorbis seems to be well supported after an
initial wait-and-see period.

~~~
IgorPartola
And what if you have around 8 petabytes of video
([http://beerpla.net/2008/08/14/how-to-find-out-the-number-
of-...](http://beerpla.net/2008/08/14/how-to-find-out-the-number-of-videos-on-
youtube/)) in H.264? What would you do, double your storage? How long would
that take to re-encode anyways. The reason why Youtube is using H.264 instead
of Theora is because they already have the videos in that format.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I would buy a company that makes video codecs that don't infringe on the MPEG
patents for 133 million dollars. Coincidentally, so did Google:

[http://www.on2.com/blog/2009/08/google-and-on2-to-improve-
vi...](http://www.on2.com/blog/2009/08/google-and-on2-to-improve-video-
quality-on-the-web/)

~~~
robin_reala
Here’s hoping for the dream scenario: Google release VP8 as a open and free
format with a patent indemnity clause, then migrate YouTube over to it. They
also release open specifications for a VP8 hardware decoding part, an OpenCL
codec, and help Adobe bundle support into Flash for Microsoft and Apple
browsers.

Happy days!

~~~
jrockway
I think Flash is on the way out now. If anything, Google would just release
their own plugin.

------
eelco
Well, so how much does the licensing actually cost? On their website MPEG LA
mentions there are certain thresholds to "minimize the impact on lower volume
users" (<http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Intro.aspx>). If you're
running an consulting business using this format is it so weird to pay a
little (or maybe nothing?) to use it?

I'm pretty sure you can find outrageous (and oftentimes unlawful) things in
most licenses (that's more or less the point), but come on, do you really
think MPEG LA will ever sue your friend that watched your x264 encoded clip of
your cat on his iPhone? (Which they found out about... how?)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
From wikipedia (but it actually happened!):

 _In August 1999, Unisys changed the details of their licensing practice,
announcing the option for owners of Billboard and Intra net Web sites to
obtain licenses on payment of a one-time license fee of $5000 or $7500. Such
licenses were not required for website owners or other GIF users who had used
licensed software to generate GIFs._

Edit:

I am completely opposed to web standards including proprietary codecs. HTML5
should have Theora (or some other open gratis and libre codec) as the standard
which all browsers wishing to be HTML5 compliant must be able to handle - this
does not stop anyone from using h264 if they wish to. What it does is ensure
that the web remains as free and open to use as possible.

If the working groups had plumped for Theora then optimisations and hardware
would follow in pretty short shrift. It ain't going to happen and the reasons
are commercial - this makes me sad for the future of the web, I see this is a
big turning point. Kinda like if the developers of HTML4 had said "we know
about the LZW patent but we're going to write in GIF as the standard
requirement".

(Incidentally I gather that no image formats were written into the standards
before?!).

So do you link to h264 videos from your intranet - want to buy a license for
$10k? No? Switch to Theora as the best free alternative. OK, now none of the
browsers support your video format natively. Congratulations you've been
screwed again by MegaCorp.

~~~
jrockway
_I am completely opposed to web standards including proprietary codecs. HTML5
should have Theora (or some other open gratis and libre codec) as the standard
which all browsers wishing to be HTML5 compliant must be able to handle - this
does not stop anyone from using h264 if they wish to. What it does is ensure
that the web remains as free and open to use as possible._

You seem not to realize that Apple and Microsoft are the ones writing the
"standards". Their goal is use HTML5 to make money, not to make the web "more
free" or something.

Our only hope is that Google takes a stand.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _You seem not to realize that Apple and Microsoft are the ones writing the
> "standards"._

Nope I thought it was the WHAT-WG and the HTML WG at the W3C. Yes major
corporations have direct influence on these groups but so to do the OSS
friendly browser corps and to some extent web designers and users.

Google are already using h264 in HTML5 on YouTube for capable browsers aren't
they? Are they sending Theora/Vorbis streams at all? Seems clear where they
are going then.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Google are currently using H.264 for everyone on Youtube. That's what they
send to iPhone, most of the higher quality Flash videos and the new HTML5
trial.

However, they support Theora in both Chrome and Chromium. In the Chromium OS
demos they demonstrated playing Theora files from an SD card. They also
purchased a company that creates codecs that don't infringe on MPEG patents
and which was the original source of Theora.

I don't think it's clear at all which "side" Google is taking on this because
as a large they'll get some benefit whether the web adopts royalty free codecs
or not (e.g. if small, community specific Youtube competitors pay more per
video than giant sites like Youtube that's good, but more video on the web
generally probably helps Google too).

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Thanks for your wider view and info.

------
jey
Interesting. Is there precedent showing that these clauses are enforceable?
After all, I can write whatever I want in a contract, but that doesn't mean
it'll hold up in court.

~~~
vog
Even if these clauses weren't enforceable, their sole existence causes a
rather shady impression. What are the business practices behind such licences?

It's usually a good idea to restrain from cooperating with such companies.
Unless, of course, the market forces you to do that - which is the only reason
they get away with such excessive licence conditions for a nowadays state-of-
the-art technology.

~~~
Nelson69
Shady? Don't the involved parties want to protect their own interests as much
as they can?

The way I read the MS and Apple licenses is that they are just covering their
asses, there is a greater than zero percent chance that there could be new
MPEG fees that would make it unpalatable for them to continue to support it. I
suspect that neither MPEG nor Apple or MS or Adobe or really anyone wants that
to happen. At the same time the MPEG folks don't want to just take a one time
fee and potentially leave money on the table. It's somewhat open ended, that's
unsettling but how do you price that stuff? You could do it per use but
everybody seems to find that unacceptable, you could charge a percentage of
profits but not many companies would go for that, you could have a one time
flat fee but that will usually be too large, so you kind of have periodic re-
evaluation. For most users, it seems like it's simply an issue between them
and their vendor, not MPEG.

Look at MP3, it is patented. Thomson has gone after companies and collected
money on the patents. Nobody seems to care at all and it appears to be much
more nebulous, they may or may not try to get you to pay them, it's not clear
to me who is sued and why. That's shady...

------
chrischen
I'm making a service for indie filmmakers to self distribute films and this
has been a big pickle.

I was making an encoder for them to download using ffmpeg but then realized I
may have wasted my time because of the licensing of h264.

So the problem became: do I take the cost and encode their video or do I let
them send the video prencoded for me. I had assumed that if they had encoding
software that they have already paid for a license. Anyways, i've added
support for ogg to the service (with warnings about it's usability).

Does anyone know if sorenson squeeze has this licensing issue?

~~~
jon_dahl
You can license H.264, for the purpose of encoding video, for free or cheap,
if your volume is modest. [1]

Whoever handles the video distribution (you or your customers) also needs to
license the codec. This too is free or cheap. It could all change in the
future, but who knows if that will happen.

Personally, I'd be more worried about other parts of the encoding chain. What
format are you using? MP4 requires a license. What audio codec? Both AAC and
MP3 require a license, and they're more expensive out of the gate. And what
about decoding inputs? You need to license decoders for whatever input you
accept.

[1]
[http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsS...](http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf)

~~~
chrischen
It is cheap, but the scary thing is building the app dependent on H.264, and
letting them control things.

I'm actually trying to figure out whether or not to have the user encode
everything, and absolve me of any of the encoding details, or licensing
everything myself and doing it for them.

Right now I'm planning to have the filmmakers encode and send me final
deliverable product, but to ensure a standard of quality, I'm also requiring
videos to use H.264/AAC or dolby digital, or Vorbis/Theora. Still ironing out
the details, but obviously part of my service can be absolving them of
licensing issues so I'm still not sure which way to go.

Also it's a pay-to-download service for films, so all videos will probably be
longer than 12 minutes. Pretty sure I can't get it for free.

------
jon_dahl
H.264 is a far superior codec to Theora. For a large site, distributing video
in Theora would significantly increase bandwidth costs, and would hurt user
experience. I've seen the articles that claim that the two are basically the
same, but it just isn't true - you can cherry-pick cases that look close, but
those cases are a minority.

 _That said_ , the world needs an open-source video codec, and I'm glad that
Mozilla is taking a stand here. MPEG-LA is much more likely to offer favorable
licensing terms if it doesn't have a monopoly on web video.

~~~
jrockway
_H.264 is a far superior codec to Theora. For a large site, distributing video
in Theora would significantly increase bandwidth costs, and would hurt user
experience._

Would it hurt user experience as much as not having ads or never being able to
charge for accounts? Because that's what using the free version of h.264
implies.

~~~
jon_dahl
I don't disagree, and I'd love a free open-source video codec that compared
favorably with H.264. I wouldn't be surprised if we have one soon. But we
don't yet.

~~~
jrockway
I would be surprised, actually. With vague software patents covering nearly
everything related to video encoding ("Method for the computation of the sum
of two integers"), it's a legal minefield. If people could freely implement
their own ideas, then we would definitely have something better. But thanks to
software patents, this is not possible.

------
sketerpot
To hell with it; I'm just going to be a criminal. Scoff if you like, but I
have a feeling that this is going to be the typical reaction if patent-holders
start going for blood in a few years.

------
malkia
So if I release an iPhone game (commercial) with video in it encoded in one of
the formats mentioned... Them I'm violating? I guess so!

~~~
robin_reala
Not necessarily, you just need to pay the licensing fees for a commercial-use
encoder.

------
cracki
not this again, and at the top of the front page too... i've heard it often
enough. please stop.

