Their should just be a formal written statement of exclusion. maybe content creators and consumers are excluded while manufacturers of hardware and software are not. Then content creators would know that this will not and does not effect them. Maybe the fight should be for exemption policy and then rightly let the owners of the technology pursue their monetization in the right direction. Is this the elephant in the room? Do they even care about content creators? How much money is there? Not much. And even if they think their is, publishers will surely switch to other formats and it will be cat and mouse. Ridiculous to even conjure up. Some idiotic unlikely future scenario when the content police pounce.
I like so-called Open technology. But I am not going to be concerned about my dinky little camera that outputs h.264. So if their should be a focus moving forward, I do believe that it should be in the form of formalized statement of exemption by MPEG-LA. Put the ongoing concerns to rest. In 5 years, it might not even matter. H.264 could be obsolete... or have modified license terms that clearly allow free use etc etc. How I feel at this particular moment in time and space under current normal brain function. Sull On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM, elbowsofdeath <st...@dvmachine.com> wrote: > > > Oh I dont know. Considering that the companies who hold the patents for > things like H.264 are also companies that need us to both consume and create > media in order to make a profit from us via sales of hardware, software & > services, I dont really think it is in their interests to try to extract > more money from everyone in silly ways that would cause a massive backlash, > especially those who cannot afford to pay. > > Cheers > > Steve > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Heath" <heathpa...@...> wrote: > > > > I agree about the worst case scenarios usually, however, given the state > of on line media and given the very real and intense battle going on over > copyrights, copyright protections, the RIAA suing everyone, the big media > corporations working harder than ever to buy legsislation, the inability of > our elected leaders to actually look at an issue, the outdated laws, the > judges who have no idea about new media, etc...and it's kinda hard NOT to go > worst case.... > > > > Heath > > http://heathparks.com/blog > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "elbowsofdeath" <steve@> wrote: > > > > > > Well I think that article raises some important issues. Its more than a > tad hysterical in some respects though. > > > > > > Lets face it, there is no end of legal smallprint issues, if we paid > attention to every last one and assumed worst case scenarios as that article > does, I could hardly get out of bed without infringing. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "tom_a_sparks" <tom_a_sparks@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA > > > > > > > > it looking more and more like GIF/LZW/Unisys, but it called > Microsoft/apple/MPEG-LA/etc > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
