top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 297 points 6 months ago (31 children)

open formats is the way to go. Patents seems more and more like a scam

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 107 points 6 months ago (25 children)

    Figures. Patents are the backbone of capitalism. Some say it invented capitalism as we know it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 79 points 6 months ago (22 children)

    I mean, I get the idea of patents. If there were no protection of "ideas", some random person could have one, try to bring it to market but could just be outplayed by a big corporation with enough money to copy this idea and sell it everywhere before he can even start production. They have more resources and money, but might not have had that idea. There should be some protection. Problem is, that these are also abused by the big corporations, so... Maybe we need to fix this somehow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    You should be able to own the right to bring a novel idea into production, after it’s generally available then it should have no protection.

    Basically if you come up with an idea, you get to get the first initial rounds of profits to make it worth your while, that’s it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (16 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 249 points 6 months ago (2 children)
    [–] 159 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    quietly

    Stop putting "quietly" in your fucking headlines, you hacks. This wasn't "quiet", it was very publicly announced.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 80 points 6 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 46 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    slammed

    Stop putting "slammed" in your fucking comments, you hacks. This wasn't "the WWE", it was very obviously Lemmy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (4 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    Via LA told Streaming Media that it contacted unlicensed media companies during 2025 to give them “a window to secure a license” under the previous terms, but the company didn’t go to the trouble of issuing a press release or public announcement, opting instead for direct outreach. Any company that didn’t respond or wasn't contacted now faces the new rate structure as its starting point for negotiations.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 107 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Wait, is Stallman right again?

    AGAIN?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 65 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    If I come up with a concept in philosophy can I patent it and charge money when people use it in their philosophy? Fees for codecs operate on this plane of backwardness. Patents in and of themselves are stupid enough, but the capacity for stupidity within patenting knows no bounds apparently.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 64 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Last attempt to squeeze some money before these formats are abandoned in favor of competition, I guess.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 63 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.

    Information and ideas intrinsically accrue value the more they’re known and used, and the incentives provided around their collation and attribution should embody that, not punish them with imaginary locks that provide ownership.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 57 points 6 months ago (41 children)

    Here's why it doesn't matter:

    "AOMedia Video 1 (AV1) is an open, royalty-free video coding format initially designed for video transmissions over the Internet. It was developed as a successor to VP9 by the Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia),[3] a consortium founded in 2015 that includes semiconductor firms, video on demand providers, video content producers, software development companies and web browser vendors."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1

  • source
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 6 months ago (33 children)

    Here's why it does matter

    Most server hardware thats out there right now doesn't support av1 encoding, so all of those, literally tens of thousands of them in thousands of spread out data centers have to be replaced with brand new +$1,500 a pop cards that do support it before they can use it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The best part of the article is the very end, even if the site makes it look unrelated.

    Avanci's Video pool and Access Advance's Video Distribution Patent pool are both now seeking content royalties from streaming services for the use of HEVC, VVC, VP9, and AV1. Access Advance's rates are capped at roughly $63 million per year, and Avanci has published rates of 1.6% to 2.0% of revenue or $0.12 to $0.15 per user per month.

    $4.5 million max for H.264 is rookie numbers vs. the $63 million max for AV1

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 51 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    tiny bit clickbait, small companies are still at $100,000 unchanged

    ![Classification of companies as Nascent/Small based on units of content provided and type of content delivery:

    OTTStreaming FASTStreaming Social Media Cloud Gaming Cable/SatelliteTelevision OTANetwork
    <5M <20M <500M <5M <1.5M <100M ](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/97191cb5-a66b-4b26-a208-ea4c419d01d1.webp)

    not that that should exist, either

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 47 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    H.264 came out in 2003. Shouldn't the patents associated with it have expired by now? 23 years is more than 20 years from the filing date or else the codec's release itself is prior art. The 17 years from issuance rule ended in 1995. I don't think they can have any Lemelson style submarine patents that are still valid.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago*

    Well, we're barely in the era where people can safely say "MPEG-1 is definitely out of patents and we're pretty damn confident Layer III (MP3) is too". Patents expire on the day they'll be set to expire, but unfortunately, patent lawyers hired by big companies don't expire that easily.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 45 points 6 months ago

    We need a "right of retrieval" where,once encoded, it must be free to decode and play back. If we're going to allow proprietary media, all the prices should be clear and up front. No charging on the back end after everyone has already encoded their baby vids to avc; no changing prices after the fact.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Thing that bothers me is these guys are claiming to have patents over AV1.

    The whole point of av1 is it supposed to be free of this bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Man I can't wait to upgrade my device/GPU with AV1 hardware support

    AI slop bubble fart reverb sfx

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 22 points 6 months ago

    Legally VP8 is beginning to look like the go-to format for video..

    _ /\ _

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    I’m pretty sure most of the H.264 patents expired or are set to expire next year. Maybe it’s one last cash grab before the best codec ever made is liberated

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›