736
Firm quietly boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100,000 up to staggering $4.5 million — backbone codec of the internet gets meteoric increase, AVC hikes follow disastrous H.265 licensing increa (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
158 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I can see the purpose when done correctly but that would mean maybe a 3-5 year protection to give you a headstart on the competition not 20+ years of monopoly and stagnation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    The notion that ideas need protection from competition is foundationally caustic. The current regime incentivises locking them behind exclusionary and extractive mechanics as if they’re finite, when they’re intrinsically the opposite.

    I can see how ‘IP’ can appear appealing, if not justifiable, but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    I feel like I realized something profound when I was replying to your message initially. I was going to say something that I still find somewhat reasonable: if you create or develop or invent something useful or revolutionary, surely people shouldn't be allowed to copy it for free? You did all the work

    But then I realized that's pretty close to poor people voting against taxing m/billionaires more. I'm not a millionaire, and I'm not developing any revolutionary tech either

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    The problem patents were solving was an inventor creating something and having it completely taken over by a well funded company leaving said inventor penniless. They created a new problem, though, when the well funded companies realized they could just buy all the patents and force everyone else to pay them while holding those ideas hostage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    One of the greatest tricks Capitalists ever pulled was convincing creative individuals that copyright exists to serve their interests.

    My comments stem from broader work I’ve been ruminating on.

    The current IP regime (copyright, patents, trademark, etc.) incentivise locking ideas up and away as tightly as possible, they aren’t fit for purpose, and should be largely done away with, but the void that would leave needs a replacement that is proven and battle hardened.

    My current proposition is a mechanism that rewards the spread of knowledge, and its comprehension, as broad and deep as practicable.

    Creating, discovering, disseminating, and explaining ideas should be rewarded, but not by housing them in conjured gaol cells.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.

    Can you talk about what are those effective alternatives that have been suppressed you are referring to as a replacement for the current IP scheme?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent