Proprietary video codec H264 and open-source WebM

[K7IA]

Nearly a week ago Google announced its new Video Standard "WebM" that utilizes familiar technologies like Matroska (container), Vorbis (audio codec) and On2's VP8 (video codec) available publicly with an irrevocable free patent license.

There are various comments and articles on this open-source technology such as

DOOM9 -> WebM Exciting New Video Standard with VP8, Vorbis, Matroska

x264 guru Dark Shikari -> The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8

If you dig into these articles you will notice that the bottom line is WebM's video codec (VP8) lacks encoding features when compared to H264 (what I interpret as "bigger file size compared to H264").

At some point, you would expect a newer technology to be better in every aspect compared to it's predecessors, that's why it is only natural to dismiss "VP8" if you think that "what defines a better codec is the ability to the keep the file size lower compared to other codecs while keeping the quality as high as possible and is playable on your computer".

Most of you are aware that free-of-charge doesn't mean "free", especially for proprietary technologies. H264 is just such proprietary codec that is widely used and it's licensing rights are controlled by MPEG-LA of which Apple and Microsoft are members of.

When you start digging the internet, you end up with various articles like

... depending on how you use H.264 you have to pay license fees to the MPEG-LA, which represents various patent-holders that came together to create the standard. We're talking some major industry heavyweights here: in addition to Apple and Microsoft, the H.264 patent roster includes Panasonic, Sony, Dolby, Thomson, and Toshiba -- in all there are 26 companies or organizations listed as holding H.264 patents. (As an aside, Apple has a single patent in the pool, while Microsoft has around 75, and Microsoft says it actually pays more in license fees than it collects in royalties.)

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/

Corrected Version of February 2, 2010 News Release Titled “MPEG LA’s AVC License Will Continue Not to Charge Royalties for Internet Video that is Free to End Users”

(DENVER, CO, US – 2 February 2010) – MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as Internet Broadcast AVC Video) during the next License term from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015. Products and services other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video continue to be royalty-bearing, and royalties to apply during the next term will be announced before the end of 2010.

MPEG LA's AVC Patent Portfolio License provides access to essential patent rights for the AVC/H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) digital video coding standard. In addition to Internet Broadcast AVC Video, MPEG LA’s AVC Patent Portfolio License provides coverage for devices that decode and encode AVC video, AVC video sold to end users for a fee on a title or subscription basis and free television video services. AVC video is used in set-top boxes, media player and other personal computer software, mobile devices including telephones and mobile television receivers, Blu-ray DiscTM players and recorders, Blu-ray video optical discs, game machines, personal media player devices and still and video cameras.

Source: http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx

MPEG-LA’s CEO Larry Horn and Bellow Bellows Are Patent Trolls

--------------

While we are concerned with "How to keep-on sharing files using BitTorrent without being identified", "Evade C&D letters" and "Keep the trackers running" , the very content we download and archive is encoded with Apple & Microsoft technology and they apparently can stop us from viewing them anytime they want. They don't have to stop P2P sharing of files.

Now I am not such a encoding guy, in fact the only movie I ripped was "Blues Brothers", and I would refrain from commenting on a technology that is yet to be digested by the experts out there, but I am certain that I wouldn't want to pay microsoft or apple for the GITS movies I "downloaded for free" in the future or allow them to prevent me watching it.

Just like you wouldn't mind using FLAC as your audio codec (which occupies significantly more space) when you are dealing with a 1080p anime that has a filesize greater than 6-8 GB, may be there is chance that WebM or VP8 will be adopted by sub groups and promoted by distributors/trackers like BakaBT so that this free and open-source technology will eventually replace H264 in the future.

[halfelite]

They cannot stop you from watching what you already have. The royalty doesn't cover the content. it covers how its playable. people like MS and apple already pay this. and in turn you pay for it when you buy and apple or MS product. youtube videos and online streaming video is royalty free in h264 as it is now. Its things like bluray players, encoders, decoders they pay the royalty. The end users will not be effected its all the middle people.

[Mag-X]

They cannot stop you from watching what you already have. The royalty doesn't cover the content. it covers how its playable. people like MS and apple already pay this. and in turn you pay for it when you buy and apple or MS product. youtube videos and online streaming video is royalty free in h264 as it is now. Its things like bluray players, encoders, decoders they pay the royalty. The end users will not be effected its all the middle people.

The problem is that it may be cheap now, but what about in the future? What happens if H264 becomes the codec of choice for HTML5? What's to stop MPEG-LA from jacking the price sky high once they have the industry by the balls? Microsoft, Google, and Apple can afford to pay huge licensing fees, but what about smaller players like Mozilla and Opera?

[fohfoh]

They cannot stop you from watching what you already have. The royalty doesn't cover the content. it covers how its playable. people like MS and apple already pay this. and in turn you pay for it when you buy and apple or MS product. youtube videos and online streaming video is royalty free in h264 as it is now. Its things like bluray players, encoders, decoders they pay the royalty. The end users will not be effected its all the middle people.

The problem is that it may be cheap now, but what about in the future? What happens if H264 becomes the codec of choice for HTML5? What's to stop MPEG-LA from jacking the price sky high once they have the industry by the balls? Microsoft, Google, and Apple can afford to pay huge licensing fees, but what about smaller players like Mozilla and Opera?

And we cannot forsee a new codec?

[Lupin]

Proprietary video codec H264 and open-source WebM

Err... How do you compare a codec to a container?

[K7IA]

Proprietary video codec H264 and open-source WebM

Err... How do you compare a codec to a container?

Fortunately I didn't. This thread is about "Proprietary video codec H264 and open-source WebM" , but I understand that it's a common mistake. There isn't much of a comparison anyway, except the following line.

If you dig into these articles you will notice that the bottom line is WebM's video codec (VP8) lacks encoding features when compared to H264 (what I interpret as "bigger file size compared to H264").

--------

They cannot stop you from watching what you already have.

Now we are not talking about your 2 year-old newspapers, books, magazines you previously bought here. The video needs to be decoded in real-time every time you watch it on your player, with the technology that is patented by these companies. There is no other way to evade this unless you convert it something else. It is not enough that you store the file on your hard drive.

--------

Also consider this. Why would Google go to great lengths to come up with something alternative to H264, which we all acknowledge that performs very good, and buy "On2" - the company that developed VP8 video codec - and make it publicly available license free.

You might think that the sole reason why microsoft and apple are against Theora (yet another previous generation proprietary free video codec from On2 - formerly known as VP3) in HTML5 is because it doesn't shrink the video enough compared to H264. Well if this is the case then they should gladly support VP8 as well since it is comparable to VP-1 and H.264 Baseline.

Overall verdict on the VP8 video format ... I expect VP8 to be more comparable to VC-1 or H.264 Baseline Profile than with H.264. Of course, this is still significantly better than Theora, and in my tests it beats Dirac quite handily as well.

Source: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377

Unfortunately, the big picture says it is about CONTROL, Apple & Microsoft's grip on a video format that even the pirates are not reluctant to use. Being free-of-charge today doesn't mean it is free.

[vuzedome]

So, who wants to join the vuzeD video codec project?
WebM can kiss itself goodbye when this is done.


Now, onto more serious stuff,

WebM, not going to happen.

[Lupin]

Fortunately I didn't. This thread is about "Proprietary video codec H264 and open-source WebM" , but I understand that it's a common mistake. There isn't much of a comparison anyway, except the following line.

The topic is misleading. It hints at a comparison between the two (which obviously cannot be made)

The links you've provided mostly speaks about VP8 and H264.

[Daiz]

the very content we download and archive is encoded with Apple & Microsoft technology and they apparently can stop us from viewing them anytime they want. They don't have to stop P2P sharing of files.

This is completely untrue. Nobody can stop you from viewing H.264 files, nor can anyone stop you from encoding them.

Fansubs are already breaking the law so we might as well use the best video format available. That's all there is to it.

[K7IA]

Here is a little more on the issue.

Mozilla and Opera call for Google open codec in HTML5 spec

You might get the impression while reading that article that the WebM's VP8 is solely for watching and encoding video available as online (streaming) content and this is just about browsers' ability to play video on a HTML5 compliant page. Well you can't expect them to talk about piracy

Nobody can stop you from viewing H.264 files, nor can anyone stop you from encoding them.

Fansubs are already breaking the law so we might as well use the best video format available.

I had heard about Microsoft's "Palladium" during an IRC chat in 2002 and it's ATMEL companion chip which was about to wreck havoc on pirates. Apparently it turned into this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base

Believe me, a software company that produces an operating system - along with its kernel - can do anything if it wants to. Not only they can prevent you from watching your favorite pirated video, they can even prevent you from putting that file on your hard disk or any media you can use with your computer.

Don't confuse this with EC's pressure on Microsoft to allow users to choose their default internet browser. No court will help you if you claim that you can't watch your pirated movie.

This is not about today anyway.

[Daiz]

If Microsoft honestly were stupid enough to stop me from watching "unauthorized" video files on my computer then I'd just switch to some flavor of Linux and use all the FOSS splitters/decoders to watch my shit. Problem fucking solved.

You're being overly paranoid. Nobody would be stupid enough to do shit like this, it'd be a commercial suicide.

[K7IA]

In your small world people might mass migrate to some flavor of Linux just because they can't watch their pirated movies, but the reality is far from it.

10 years ago when people were hoping that Linux distributions would finally get a chance with Microsoft pushing its licensing strategy and its fight against illegal copies of Windows operating system, suddenly vendors started shipping their desktops and laptops with Windows OS. Those same vendors didn't even give you a proper chance to choose your OS on your brand new PC after all these years.

What makes you think that Microsoft would openly commit commercial suicide?

http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source/desktop-linux-why-it-may-have-lost-its-chance-820

Now there is a reason why I didn't create this thread in the Lounge section. This is not some sort of struggle to push WebM and get rid of H.264 , it is simply a discussion about technologies. I only expect that you contribute with something useful along with relevant sources.

[Daiz]

I only expect that you contribute with something useful along with relevant sources.

While you're free to post wild fantasies pulled out of your ass?

Seriously speaking your posts haven't made much sense from the very beginning of this thread, like this one from the first post:

At some point, you would expect a newer technology to be better in every aspect compared to it's predecessors, that's why it is only natural to dismiss "VP8" if you think that "what defines a better codec is the ability to the keep the file size lower compared to other codecs while keeping the quality as high as possible and is playable on your computer".

What the fuck were you trying to say here? Which is the "new technology" you're referring to, H.264 or VP8?

Neither Apple nor Microsoft (who are just minor parties in the H.264 patent pool, Apple having exactly ONE patent in the pool) have some sort of magical "stop H.264 videos from playing" button in their offices. Something like that would never be made either.

I suggest you actually educate yourself on the subjects you are talking about instead of taking every FUD or biased article as the Ultimate Truth(tm).

[theholyduck]

99% of computers already have a h264 decoder, LEGALLY, either by running windows, mac or similar (microsoft, adobe and apple al pay mpeg-la liscences to sell products that include a h264 decoder), or living outside the us and thus out of reach for mpeg-la decoder royalties. similarly, there is no royalties or legal problems in distributing h264 video for free, ANYWHERE: its completely liscence and royalty free .

while the vp8 spec is frozen and was developed in secret by a properitary company repeatedly proven to be staffed almost entirely by idiots, (nubmer6 who used to work for on2 can elaborate more on that)
where as h264 was developed in a 100% open manner, where everyone with the skill to join in the developement of the format was accepted. it went through rigorous testing as a standard, and countless amount of highly experienced people worked on it to make it a open and free standard.

While vp8 is now open and free.h264 is open (the spec is 100% freely available and theres no restrictions on writing your own decoder or encoder) but only free outside of the us, or for non-comercial users.

see how h264 is essentially the pinnacle of open developement and free flow of information? where as vp8 again is a FROZEN format developed totally in secret without a real spec.
Already several bugs, some of them MAJOR have been discovered in vp8, but is un-fixable because they're present in both the encoder and decoder. and theres already several million videos encoded with the broken encoder.

Open and free videoformat, don't make me laugh. its a gigant pile of shit and google refuses to help you if you use it and get sued

[fohfoh]

AFAIK, Microsoft did try to implement that either in earlier versions of vista or windows 7 (forgot which it was). The issue was that there was such a HUGE backlash from people that they were required to removed that "feature" in a later update.

Seriously, take the tin foil hats off.

Even if it was true, I'm sure a codec pack would implement things that would "cheat" the system to make it seem like a piece of media. Locking out media forever is a stupid move for anyone so no one is going to do it.

[K7IA]

While you're free to post wild fantasies pulled out of your ass?

Actually I am quite free to post any kind of fantasies that I can pull out of my ass in here. This is not the RFC list.

If only you can find a way to speak properly instead of spitting, while stating your facts and pointing out to any sources that will support you.

while the vp8 spec is frozen and was developed in secret by a properitary company repeatedly proven to be staffed almost entirely by idiots,...
...
Open and free videoformat, don't make me laugh. its a gigant pile of shit and google refuses to help you if you use it and get sued

Yes I understand what you are saying. In fact many people seriously criticize google's actions including not submitting the license to OSI.

But in the long run European and other countries will adopt the regulations and "outside the US" won't work anymore.

AFAIK, Microsoft did try to implement that either in earlier versions of vista or windows 7 (forgot which it was). The issue was that there was such a HUGE backlash from people that they were required to removed that "feature" in a later update.

Yes, microsoft originally intended to use hardware supported content protection in Windows Longhorn AKA Vista

[Proin Drakenzol]

While you're free to post wild fantasies pulled out of your ass?

Actually I am quite free to post any kind of fantasies that I can pull out of my ass in here. This is not the RFC list.

If only you can find a way to speak properly instead of spitting, while stating your facts and pointing out to any sources that will support you.

Here's an idea.

GO FUCK YOURSELF

You're not special. If you want other people to "speak properly instead of spitting" maybe you should stop taking a dump on your own fucking thread.

AFAIK, Microsoft did try to implement that either in earlier versions of vista or windows 7 (forgot which it was). The issue was that there was such a HUGE backlash from people that they were required to removed that "feature" in a later update.

Yes, microsoft originally intended to use hardware supported content protection in Windows Longhorn AKA Vista

The other problem is, of course, that it's impossible to sort the illegal content from the legal-but-unregistered content. Without some guarantee that Microsoft won't accidently delete Timmy's 3rd Birthday videos it's not something that can ever be implemented without being an undue invasion of privacy. People have a "reasonable expectation" that none of their personal, legal files will ever be touched. And that's something no amount of EULA fine print can overcome (e.g. "If the user fails to properly select options X, Y, Z and register the video withing 5 days the content will automatically be deleted") since a EULA is not a legally binding document.

[vuzedome]

Alright, alright, back on topic.

WebM, why the name? This just confuses more people as it is still Matroska.

[Xtras]

There is one thing that I like a lot about this though. It might lend devices to stop viewing MKV as just a tool for pirates since now Google is backing it in this WebM. Thus, more companies might add MKV compatibility to devices instead of just using MP4 and AVI.

[nstgc]

Its more likely that the use of the matraska container will hurt Google for that very reason.