But...

Posted Dec 13, 2007 0:48 UTC (Thu) by RobertBrockway (guest, #48927)
In reply to: Yup. by khim
Parent article: Specifying codecs for the web

A central concept of the Internet is that content is independent of the location of the end
user (as a general rule).  What you are suggesting is to have the video codec dependent on the
location of the viewer.  That is setting a very bad precedent.

I think people need to sit up and take a good long hard look at the global patent system.  It
is in a mess.  It is too easy to patent processes that didn't require any significant R&D to
develop in the first place.  The patent system is expensive and so naturally favours large
corporations over small corporations or individuals.  There are so many patents that it is now
very difficult to be sure that no patent infringement is occuring.  I believe the patent
system is near collapse.  Throught these discussions it is important to keep in mind that the
patent system is not an immovable rock, which is how  many seem to view it.  A lot of "patent
reform" has occured in recent decades .

to post comments

"central concept" does not work for video...

Posted Dec 13, 2007 5:59 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It's simple question of logistics. For example RUtube is significantly more popular then YouTube. How come ? Two factors:

1. 30min limit instead of 10min limit
2. free or cheap Russian traffic instead of expensive foreign traffic

Theora will just exacerbate second problem. The solution for Google is to sign contracts with big Russian ISPs, but... if you do THAT surely you can provide different kind of video too ?

Logistics will dominate field of web-video for next 10-15 years and by the end of this period patents related even to H.264 will be close to expiration