HTML has support for digital rights management (DRM, restricting how content can be used) via the HTML5 Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). The addition of DRM is controversial because it allows restricting users’ freedom to use media restricted by DRM, even where fair use gives users the legal right to do so.

Yeah, I did say everyone would like that. But, we’re not quite there yet. Honestly, I suspect it will be another 10 years.

But, I don’t think VP8 licensing is more permissive. Not every IPR holder is at the table with VP8. The same can be said of H.264, admittedly, but VP8 exposes one to greater unknowns. At least the H.264 patent holders are known.

Paul,

You left me unconvinced on this one.

Same people who can sue on VP8 can sue on H.264. MPEG-LA patents was paid for on VP8 by Google already. The licensing around it is far more permissive than what Cisco’s openH264 binary can ever offer to those running on their own devices or when you try to fit it into an iOS device.

Today, when every device out there supports video, and most services are free, the only barrier left for many use cases is a royalty bearing video codec .

I’d like to remind you that image compression was once patented, with GIF causing headaches. Most patents have expired. The rest was worked around. We since then moved on to PNG format and others are pursuing new territories (WebP anyone?). We no long think of image compression as something requiring royalty payments. Voice is headed that route as well with SILK, Speex and now Opus. It is time we start making the shift towards video with this mindset.

Yeah, I think everyone would like a royalty-free codec that is in the business of making any kind of video product. And, there are a few initiatives to try to make that happen. However, I’m very doubtful that anyone will actually produce something really good that isn’t stepping on somebody’s patent.

So considering reality :-), what I’d really like to see is some rational licensing fees. H.265 royalties are just too much right now. H.264 is good and Cisco, by offering a binary library, is covering the cost for just about anyone that wants to use it, thus making it totally free.

Perhaps we need to do the same for H.265 and/or put pressure on the license holders to reduce costs.

I get a little wound up when I hear the suggestion that VP8 or VP9 or whatever else is “free” when I know there is IPR on them, held by some of the same companies that have IPR on H.264 and H.265. And using any of the others totally puts companies at risk of being sued.

Stass,

All true. Thanks for raising these issues up. My only doubt here is where in the 18 months hardware cycle is Google today – there were announcements in CES at the beginning of this year for VP9 decoders in TVs if I recall correctly, so the cycle might have already begun – I just don’t know.

iPhone 6 must have H.264 support as well, otherwise, it won’t be able to FaceTime with an iPhone 4 or 5.

Paul,

Nice to see you here again 🙂

The fight here isn’t between who has patents threatening its well being, but rather on the concept of a royalty free video codec. The difference in stance and the statement that video coding technologies should be commoditized is what at stake here.

Quite frankly, I think the current licensing cost of H.265 is nuts, but I suspect the folks participating in the MPEG-LA licensing pool for that will lower the cost eventually. If they do not, people will go use other technologies. H.264 went through similar licensing frustration when it was introduced and I expect a repeat of history with H.265 gaining wide adoption.