Wikipedia's Assault On Patent-Encumbered Codecs 428
An anonymous reader writes "The Open Video Alliance is launching a campaign today called Let's Get Video on Wikipedia, asking people to create and post videos to Wikipedia articles. (Good, encyclopedia-style videos only!) Because all video must be in patent-free codecs (theora for now), this will make Wikipedia by far the most likely site for an average internet user to have a truly free and open video experience. The campaign seeks to 'strike a blow for freedom' against a wave of h.264 adoption in otherwise open HTML5 video implementations."
HTML5 Video (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all nice and all, but if open video technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better. There is no other way.
However it's nice to see Open Video Alliance trying to partner with Wikipedia. In addition to being technically better, that's another aspect you need to take care of. You need to make sure websites, TV, phone, computer and so on manufacturers support your technology. You have to work with them to get it supported - not just put it out there and hope it catches up because its "open", because that's not going to happen. Personally I would also hate to see technically inferior solution being used, as it would eat huge amount of bandwidth. Theora just isn't on the same table with H.264 for Internet video. Theora is based on VP5 from On2 and now that Google acquired them, they're going at VP8.
As far as having a single standard for HTML5 video goes, Theora lost. H.264 is and has been already everywhere and on every device. I also suspect majority of sites will use H.264, as that's what is being used with Flash already.
However, what I see happening (and hope) is HTML5 Video tag being released without requiring support for a single codec, just like img tag is. Then browsers can either implement their own support, use third party tool like gstreamer (like Opera does) or just depend on OS (what I suspect IE and Safari will do). Firefox is still having their ideological problems, but I'm pretty sure they will start using gstreamer too.
What I'm more worried about is that I cannot watch Wikipedia videos with any other device than my PC. Want to see a video clip of a place you're traveling on your phone? Not possible. Want to see videos from Wikipedia with your PS3/360? Not possible. It will create some serious problems, and I don't think Wikipedia is big enough to push the change alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open video bitstream formats, like Theora, are simply not capable of being better than H.264 (yet). The best bet in that regard is Dirac by the BBC, but even that does not fare too well against H.264 as encoded by x264.
However, open video formats simply do not need to be better than the proprietary formats, they simply need to be "good-enough" and be ubiquitous on the web, and pretty soon all browsers (except IE, probably) will support them out of the box. Wikipedia going with theora is a good move in that
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I hate it, Direc is also inferior to H.264. Not only technically, but support of it sucks and it has seeking problems (at least with the currently available players, where it sometimes takes many seconds after a seek to playback again).
What is most interesting though is what Google will do with On2 - they're the only ones that could completely change the game.
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:5, Insightful)
But why should the average user be quite in some stupid ideological fight when they are never going to be paying for the H.264 royalties that Microsoft, Apple and Google will be shelling out to include H.264 support in their browser?
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:4, Informative)
The cost is still paid by the average user, it's just tacked onto the cost of the O/S or whatever you buy from Apple, MS, etc
Assuming the latest amount of 1.9 billion internet users (and not even accounting those not using internet), the $5 million cap per license, and Windows market share of 98%:
$0.002 per user.
I just don't see so many people caring.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, tell me where to send my 0.01$ to end all this non-sense and force HTML5 video to standardize on H.264
They'll even make five times the profit by doing so.
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:4, Insightful)
that's bold of you user #31 million some.
but seriously, it's important and i don't know if you're trolling or what, perhaps i'm that idealistic? please help me understand why having formats and software free of legal entanglement and reducing humanity's dependency on a few, often secretive, organisations is not worth the minimal effort that this volunteer-run collective is taking to contribute to a shared ideology?
we joke and belittle 'slashdot' culture but a lot of this here shit is real sir and i think we do ourselves a disservice. and if you're sincere then damn, go read wikileaks for a bit and see if you can't get a sense of perspective. these are the tools with which we increasingly control our personal identities and the global economy of both ideas and goods. anyone who can understand why it's important to keep that as neutral and transparent as possible really ought to step up wherever they can because... it really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The cost is still paid by the average user, it's just tacked onto the cost of the O/S or whatever you buy from Apple, MS, etc.
So they pay a fraction of a penny more? Oh noes! That's gonna break the bank!
Re: (Score:2)
Even that is questionable. No reason why the browsers can not just use the OS's installed codec system. In Windows DirectShow/X/Video or what ever they call it. Gstreamer in Linux, and Quicktime on the Mac.
The browser will not have to pay diddley
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Illegal in the US...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which is not FREE software, is it?
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:5, Informative)
No-one said that it is.
The point is that browser remains FOSS. If user is a FOSS purist, he doesn't install the "evil" codecs, and doesn't go to websites which only provide H.264 streams. If user is a pragmatic Linux user, he either buys the codec (freeness of browser not affected), or ignores the law and installs it from "non-US" repositories (legality of browser is not affected).
Most people, of course, just use a mainstream desktop OS, where this all is provided out of the box (and they've paid for it when they purchased their PC/Mac with that OS preinstalled).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is Mozilla forcing you? No one forces you to use default Firefox. If it's available as a patch, compile Firefox yourself and there you have it. Even if it wasn't, you could make it yourself or pay someone to do it.
But no, you want to force Mozilla to give you what you want. Well, too bad. One of Mozilla's goals is to defend the right to browse with a complete free stack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Politics aside By going with the OS codec subsystem offers other benefits.
Suppose the Vorbis folks produce an updated version you can just download the codec and install it and not have to wait for Mozilla to update Firefox. Same for security updates.
Or let's say some website decides to use Dirac? Add the Codec and your good to go.
Using a codec system is more flexible and can be more secure.
At this point the decision is purely political statement at the cost of flexibility and usability which I feel is ALWA
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that Quicktime and DirectShow don't support theora or vorbis by default, so hopefully Mozilla/Wikipedia/anyone else who cares can get them popular enough that Microsoft and Apple have to finally support some free codecs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both Apple and Microsoft have patents in MPEG-LA AVC patent pool, so they don't pay royalties.
Being in the patent pool doesn't give you free access to all the other patents in the pool. They pay royalties just like anyone else though the bulk of the cost is usually covered by cross-licensing of patents.
Re:Oh, they WILL be paying. (Score:5, Insightful)
They just won't know it.
Know what? People pay 0 dollars for a browser. Exactly what costs are they bearing due to Apple or Google or Microsoft including H.264 support in the browser?
Oh, and a more idealistic person might even say that they'll not only be paying money
Paying money where? Browsers have all been free for quite some time now.
but paying in a more metaphorical sense with lock-in, etc.
What lock-in? What exactly am I "locked-in" to when I watch H.264 HTML 5 movies on youtube? And how would those movie being encoded in theora make me less "locked-in"?
Re:Oh, they WILL be paying. (Score:4, Informative)
Know what? People pay 0 dollars for a browser. Exactly what costs are they bearing due to Apple or Google or Microsoft including H.264 support in the browser?
I would assume that the licensing fees for MPEG are a part of the Windows and Mac OS X price tag.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would assume that the licensing fees for MPEG are a part of the Windows and Mac OS X price tag.
Is there someone who wouldn't assume that? What would it be like if someone found out the answer and posted it?
Meanwhile, this uncertain assumption that some unknown cost paid by some unknown entity and then included as an unknown component cost in some unknown products is hardly a call to arms .
Re: (Score:2)
It's slow, unwieldy, CPU intensive
One can play 720@24p videos on an old AMD XP series chip with ffmpeg and it's not even really the fastest H.264 decoder around.
and tends to fall over and shit itself with even the tiniest bit of corruption.
And your answer to this is something like XviD which is far worse at bitstream corruption? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is a moot point anyway. It's just compression, how hard could it be? Lets get a sourceforge project going to make something better.
Oh yes, it's just soooo simple. Sure, if you ignore all the complex things that go into actually building a audio/video codec with good compression efficiency. Is this ignoring the fact that it took codecs like DivX, XviD, x264 years and years to reach their current state
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's all nice and all, but if open video technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better.
New [wikipedia.org] here [microsoft.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all nice and all, but if open video technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better. There is no other way.
Why? Closed formats don't seem to operate under that constraint. In fact, technical qualities seem to be a non-issue as far as success goes in general. The backing of big players seems to be what counts, and that's exactly what we have here. Whether Wikipedia + Firefox + RedHat + other open players is big enough remains to be seen (and I admit I have my doubts), but if "technically better" becomes an issue, I think it'll be the first time ever.
What I'm more worried about is that I cannot watch Wikipedia videos with any other device than my PC
Ah, now your real concern appears, I suspect. If Theora starts to get momentum, it'll appear on phones and similar devices quickly enough. My phone already supports Ogg Vorbis. (It may even support Theora; I haven't tried.) If yours doesn't, then perhaps you went with the wrong vendor. I didn't look for Vorbis support for my phone, but I did look for openness; if that wasn't a factor in your choice of phone, then my sympathy for you is nil. Especially if you want to connect with Wikipedia, whose commitment to openness is legendary.
If you want Wikipedia to go with your proprietary, encumbered format(s), your best be is to lobby the patent holders to donate the patents to the public domain. Good luck with that. :)
Which video game console supports Theora? (Score:2)
Ah, now your real concern appears, I suspect. If Theora starts to get momentum, it'll appear on phones and similar devices quickly enough. My phone already supports Ogg Vorbis. (It may even support Theora; I haven't tried.) If yours doesn't, then perhaps you went with the wrong vendor.
I want to go with the right vendor. But which video game console supports Theora? None of the big three do. Or should people buy one box for Theora video and one box for games?
If you want Wikipedia to go with your proprietary, encumbered format(s), your best be is to lobby the patent holders to donate the patents to the public domain. Good luck with that. :)
That depends on what Google decides to do with VP8.
Re: (Score:2)
A hacked one? :)
If you want a machine to play video files in any format, then may I suggest an old PC? A powerful machine isn't needed, so whenever you upgrade, you get a new "free" media player. (I was amazed at how quiet my old desktop became, once I'd replaced the hard disk with a USB stick and downgraded the graphics card.)
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree with the first point. It takes both backing of big players (hence support, as I addressed in the first post) and being technically capable.
As far as technical qualities come, closed formats do have competition there too. DivX (and it's open companion XviD) really did challenge MPEG-2. They were technically better and did gain momentum at least on the internet and even beyond that.
But as this is about online video, it makes more sense to have the more-bandwidth-friendly H.264 than more-cpu-friendl
Re: (Score:2)
As far as technical qualities go, MP3 is still king of audio, despite being the worst supported format out there, proprietary or otherwise. Also, VHS beat Betamax. If history teaches us anything, it's that technical qualities are, at best, a very minor factor in success.
it makes more sense to have the more-bandwidth-friendly H.264
Not for Wikipedia. Their license won't allow it, so for Wikipedia, the choices are between Theora, maybe Dirac, and no video at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair, the format is entirely open, but patent encumbered. Nobody would argue that MP3 is a closed format, for example.
IOW the only challenges are legal challenges (regarding software patents and royalties). They're not proprietary at all.
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair, the format is entirely open, but patent encumbered.
A bit of an oxymoron there, but I know what you mean. The technical specifications are open; use is not. The latter may not be a factor for the typical home user whose license fee was bundled in with their hardware or OS, but it's going to be a factor for Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody would argue that MP3 is a closed format, for example.
I would. MP3 is a proprietary format.
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all nice and all, but if open video technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better. There is no other way.
Why? Closed formats don't seem to operate under that constraint.
Because closed formats have a company or companies willing to push it for reasons other than technical superiority. Open source relies on a lot of people getting excited about something and pushing it in a more organic way, and for that to happen in a big way then the thing they're pushing has to be technically superior. Linux has gained momentum in its areas by being superior for developers and sysadmins who know what they're doing. Firefox gained momentum the same way. I can't think of an open source product that gained mainstream popularity without being technically superior.
I didn't look for Vorbis support for my phone, but I did look for openness; if that wasn't a factor in your choice of phone, then my sympathy for you is nil
So, only people who spend their valuable time and money getting an open phone instead of the iPhone are worthy of consideration in this debate? Like it or not, the iPhone's dominance isn't because of any media blitz or cult of Apple, it's because it came out in a market where it was by far the best choice and is still superior to any other smartphone I've seen.
So, if you want to prioritize openness in your purchasing, that's fine. But this is about Wikipedia trying to influence the culture as a whole and the emerging standard, and to suggest that this process ignore the vast majority of people is at best naive and at worst extremely damaging to your own position.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux has gained momentum in its areas by being superior for developers and sysadmins who know what they're doing. Firefox gained momentum the same way. I can't think of an open source product that gained mainstream popularity without being technically superior.
It depends on how you define "popularity" and "superior", but FreeBSD vs Linux (the BSD lawsuit was a factor, but that became moot before Linux hit even 1.0), KHTML vs Gecko, OpenOffice vs LaTeX (or Abiword/Gnumeric). Some would also argue for Bash vs $FAVORITE_SHELL_HERE as well but I haven't tried any of them to judge personally.
So, only people who spend their valuable time and money getting an open phone instead of the iPhone are worthy of consideration in this debate? Like it or not, the iPhone's dominance isn't because of any media blitz or cult of Apple, it's because it came out in a market where it was by far the best choice and is still superior to any other smartphone I've seen.
Really? if it can't support Wikipedia, then I guess it wasn't the best choice after all. All devices have problems, it just so happens that you chose one that had "closedness" and
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Closed formats don't seem to operate under that constraint. In fact, technical qualities seem to be a non-issue as far as success goes in general.
"Its the money, stupid!"
No, not kickbacks, or payola, or licensing fees.
Lets start at the top. Content providers have been banging their head into the bandwidth wall for a decade, starting when the notion of streaming high quality video really took off. Their cost, primarily, is bandwidth. Their product, primarily, is eyeballs. Their revenue, primarily, is advertisers.
To make this work, they need to offer competitive quality in order to maximize the number of eyeballs, and they need to do it with the least bandwidth in order to offer competitive pricing to advertisers.
H.264 was a big improvement over the previous generation of codecs, which finally allowed what might finally be viable online video streaming businesses.
In this case, technically better still matters... its just about the only thing that matters. These businesses don't have the margin to fuck around. If they drop the ball then they lose their shot at #1.
Re: (Score:3)
if that wasn't a factor in your choice of phone, then my sympathy for you is nil.
Thats okay, I feel sympathy for the fact that you won't be able to watch as much stuff as I will since you have a codec that while open, is largely irrelevant as far as content is concerned
So, by your "logic", if my phone supports Vorbis, it can't possibly support other codecs? I assure you that's not the case.
Beyond you seem to have built a beautiful straw man, but since it bears no resemblance to me or my opinions, I see little point in arguing. But I will point out that Wikipedia only allows Ogg Vorbis and Midi for audio uploads, so your assertion that their requirement for open formats is new is utterly baseless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:5, Interesting)
What I'm more worried about is that I cannot watch Wikipedia videos with any other device than my PC. Want to see a video clip of a place you're traveling on your phone? Not possible. Want to see videos from Wikipedia with your PS3/360? Not possible. It will create some serious problems, and I don't think Wikipedia is big enough to push the change alone.
In general I find the "must have hardware support now" argument a bit short sighted. By that reasoning there would never be any change in video codecs. In any case, the PS3 and 360 even combined represent a very small percentage of internet connected devices. And the 360's larger problem is not having a web browser so Wikipedia video would be streamed from your PC anyway and if needs must you can transcode on the fly.
As mobile phones go, my Nokia N900 plays Theora. It also runs Firefox. Fennec [mozilla.com] is on Maemo 5 (the N900's OS) and will soon be available for Android, Windows Mobile, and future MeeGo devices [mozilla.org]. Millions of devices in the field already have the capability to play Ogg Theora and it will only become more trivial to do so with Firefox releases for those platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
You would be surprised how many actually use their PS3 to watch videos online. It's far from very small percentage (and I understand why, it's really convenient).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> You would be surprised how many actually use their PS3 to watch videos online.
So? Sony could add support in a week worst case; the PS3 certainly has enough CPU+SPU grunt to handle pretty much any codec you care to throw at it. Chicken and the egg here, Sony won't do it without demand and there won't be demand without must have content. Wikipedia is trying to crack that problem. If Google would help with YouTube we could bury h264 this year and never be troubled with those patent trolls again.
And I
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we'd be back to the "this site requires IE 8.x or higher" days. That really is something from early 2000 and accompanied problems that carried for recent years. But it has been changing now and IE9 looks to be supporting all the new things like Firefox/Opera/Chrome/Safari.
Personally I think codec-neutral way is the best way. Because you know, otherwise it's going to be H.264.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they don't offer hardware acceleration in a mobile device, your begging for a huge battery drain. The point isn't only that they can play them, but that they are well supported by the device and that the impact isn't overly detrimental.
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:5, Insightful)
For any definition of "technically better" where this is not a vacuous tautology (that is, any definition other than "technically better means whatever ends up winning"), this isn't true: solutions that aren't "technically better" by almost any definition you choose will win all the time, because the business model behind selling them allows them to be sold cheaper (even if they aren't any cheaper to produce), because they are imposed by market-dominant players, or for all kinds of other reasons beside technical superiority.
Compatibilty of patent-unencumbered formats with a venue like Wikipedia would be exactly that kind of non-technical factor. (As would, on the other side, the competitive advantage that those who co-own the patents see in the dominance of patent-encumbered formats that they are part of the controlling syndicate for.)
Re:HTML5 Video (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all nice and all, but if open video technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better. There is no other way.
Try telling that to Microsoft!
Recall that Windows did not become the de facto standard OS by being better - it was definitely not better than the alternatives in the period in which it became dominant. So there is another way: gain sufficient market share through fair means or foul, and you can win. Whether wikipedia would count as critical mass or not is an open question, but if they were sufficiently bloodyminded, then whichever codec they chose to standardize on would ipso facto become a necessary codec, even if it were not used widely elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Recall that Windows did not become the de facto standard OS by being better - it was definitely not better than the alternatives in the period in which it became dominant.
Are you comparing to '94 Linux? There's no way an casual user would got by with it. Linux is even still semi-hard for casual users, and it would had been hell back then. Windows however, even if it lacked what we now a days have, was superior. You really have to compare it to that days computers - they weren't nice.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not, especially as most Wikipedia content is text and images, not videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any way to specify multiple formats? Ex: that points to H.264, but falls back to H.264 if that isn't supported?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure. Maybe "good enough" would be good enough ? Quality is just one feature. Free-ness and Open-ness are 2 other, quite important ones. I'm fairly sure most videos on the web and on PCs in general are not artistic in nature. Slightly lower quality for no cost and freedom to do whatever you want with them may still be a winning proposition.
The main issue is network effects: supporting 1 video format is a no-brainer, supporting 2 of them...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's all nice and all, but if open video technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better. There is no other way.
No, actually as long as Theora is not significantly worse than h.264 it does not really matter.
However it's nice to see Open Video Alliance trying to partner with Wikipedia. In addition to being technically better, that's another aspect you need to take care of. You need to make sure websites, TV, phone, computer and so on manufacturers support your technology. You have to work with them to get it supported - not just put it out there and hope it catches up because its "open", because that's not going to happen.
Yeah, just look how popular Vorbis Ogg is in portable music players.
Personally I would also hate to see technically inferior solution being used, as it would eat huge amount of bandwidth. Theora just isn't on the same table with H.264 for Internet video. Theora is based on VP5 from On2 and now that Google acquired them, they're going at VP8.
Actually it is based on VP3 and it is way behind h.264 - it does not even support B-frames! Also being at least one generation behind, Theora is dead end - all that is being done at this point is tweaking the encoder.
What I'm more worried about is that I cannot watch Wikipedia videos with any other device than my PC. Want to see a video clip of a place you're traveling on your phone? Not possible. Want to see videos from Wikipedia with your PS3/360? Not possible.
Well then, make sure you complain to manufacturers of these devices. If enough people care, they will add Theora support.
It will create some serious problems, and I don't think Wikipedia is big enough to push the change alone.
Actually I
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, they're all running Flash (which is closer to H.264)
What do you mean "closer to"? Flash has been using H.264 in MP4 for quite some time now.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube uses only H.264 with HTML5 video tag, and Flash directly uses H.264 as it's HD codec. I really doubt YouTube will change from H.264 anyway, as it's currently serving both Flash and HTML5 users and is easier on bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call YouTube "hardly anyone".
Quit embeding the codec support in the browser (Score:4, Insightful)
Let the OS handle it, and let the browser interact via plug-ins.
It's really not that complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
We tried that. It didn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
If people have the technical chops to install something like flash, why wouldn't they have the technical chops to install something else? Or better yet, just have the browser install it automatically when the browser itself gets installed.
Scareware disguised as codec (Score:2)
If people have the technical chops to install something like flash, why wouldn't they have the technical chops to install something else?
Because they trust adobe.com and distrust random codecs downloaded from random sites that infect people with the "Antivirus 2009" scareware.
Re: (Score:2)
If the OS isn't handling your plugins for you then it is lame and you should drop it for something more sophisticated and less user hostile.
The kind of pseudo-code we're talking about here isn't exactly rocket science (or video compression).
Although having a proper package manager certainly helps.
Re: (Score:2)
If the OS isn't handling your plugins for you then it is lame and you should drop it for something more sophisticated and less user hostile.
Yes because no one has to install plugins in Linux, right?
Although having a proper package manager certainly helps.
Why do you need a package manager when browsers have been facilitating the easy installation of plugins, such as Flash, for years now?
Re:Quit embeding the codec support in the browser (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you need a package manager when browsers have been facilitating the easy installation of plugins, such as Flash, for years now?
Because the point is the browser shouldn't need *any* codec-specific plugins at all. The browser should simply use the existing mechanisms in the operating system or desktop environment for performing video decoding. On Windows that means DirectShow, and on Linux that means gstreamer. Codec installation is then a task for the operating system or package manager. The result is a better experience for the user, and a simpler implementation for the developers, as they need only to interface to a generic video backend, rather than incorporating a completely codec stack into the browser.
'course, this kind of reasonable design decision would get in the way of pointless political posturing, and who really wants that?
Re: (Score:2)
If the OS isn't handling your plugins for you then it is lame
What happens when your operating system handles plugins for the user but reminds the user: "If you click Install, and you live in the United States, you are breaking the law." ? Ubuntu does exactly this for the gstreamer-plugins-ugly package.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when your operating system handles plugins for the user but reminds the user: "If you click Install, and you live in the United States, you are breaking the law." ? Ubuntu does exactly this for the gstreamer-plugins-ugly package.
Uh, good. That's *precisely* how this should be handled. The user should be warned of the issues with installing the codec, and then given the choice to continue. Eliminating this choice is completely antithetical to the very concept of free software.
Infringement on the repo's part (Score:2)
The user should be warned of the issues with installing the codec, and then given the choice to continue.
Some lawyers for MPEG-LA members would try arguing that the maintainer of a repository that doesn't use IP address geotargeting commits infringement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You pirate a clip of "Beavis and Butt-head" snickering and muttering "heh heh, breaking the law" to listen to while you download it.
Or you support sites that use open standards.
Or you buy a license for each of the proprietary standards that "plugins-ugly" provides. There's a reason it's called "ugly", and it's not just a lack of rugged good looks.
Re: (Score:2)
So you claim that people don't want or can't figure out how to install a plugin for playing HTML 5 video but are somehow able to install Flash?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like it's really hard for a browser to provide links to those downloads. Whatever the results will be, we will have at most H.264 and Theora. H.264 is already included in any recent Windows and Mac OS X (Linux users probably can figure out how to install it on their own). Only thing a browser needs to do is provide a download link to Theora, if it ever does catch on.
Existing PCs don't run recent Windows (Score:2, Informative)
H.264 is already included in any recent Windows
At least two-thirds of PCs run Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, or Windows 7 Starter. These operating systems do not include an H.264 decoder. Among Windows operating systems, only Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Ultimate, and Windows 7 Home Premium or higher include an H.264 decoder.
Killer App? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the "killer app" for video standards. I'm not sure how many articles would be really enhanced by the addition of video, baring in mind that video would need to be licenced under CC or similar, so clips of TV shows / films would probably be out.
To take a random example (today's featured article) . I'm not sure what video you could usefully add to that article? Especially since somebody who died in 1938 probably isn't featured in many video clips. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This assumption seems flawed. Wikipedia prefers open licensed content for images, but will accept non-open content with a fair use rationale. Presumably, the same would be true of video clips.
Non-free content in a free encyclopedia? (Score:2)
You are referring to the fair use policy [wikipedia.org] on the English Wikipedia. Please note that this is a policy for English only, not all language versions allow non-free content.
IANAL, but I doubt that non-free videos would really be a breakthrough. They'd have to be short and low-resolution (at least that's what Wikipedia deman
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. Porn is. So putting porn videos on wikipedia would be the killer app.
Natalie Portman, naked, petrified, hot grits, now featured on the Elemental Chart on wikipedia. Nerd nirvana. Or if your feeling less pure, Mila Jovavich naked and shellacked, covered in hot corn nuts doing a spread on the Actinide series. Though really, she's been naked in so much I don't even think that's porn anymore.
~X~
And... (Score:4, Insightful)
And Google, Microsoft and Apple give out a collective *yawn*. Youtube has more traffic than Wikipedia so if Google is pushing H.264 through there it will have far more impact than Wikipedia. Not to mention that Facebook, who also has more traffic than wikipedia and also youtube, also uses H.264 for its video.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those supporting Theora argue that, unless Theora is the video codec for the Net, some people (e.g. Linux users in U.S. not willing to break the law) will be restricted from large parts of the Net that will go H.264-only.
It's why Mozilla refuses to just use GStreamer codecs for HTML5 video in mainline builds, for example.
the non-free part isn't so bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not a problem. The commercial desktop operating systems are supposed to have all sorts of stuff to handle the "scary technical details" here. WP should be able to offer video in any format they like. They could even host some of the relevant bits of system software and web browser glue-ware.
Histrionics over strange data formats is so 90s.
Re:the non-free part isn't so bad (Score:4, Informative)
They could even host some of the relevant bits of system software and web browser glue-ware.
It does already. Wikipedia uses the OGGHandler extension which tries to determine automagically what method for displaying video the client supports. It supports attempting to use the following clients:
And then some more generic support for other cases [mediawiki.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Question: Do you believe that, if what Wikipedia itself currently says about the subject is correct, various MP3 patents ought to persist into at least 2012 and possibly as late as 2017? If not, when do you believe all patents covering its design and implementation should expire or have expired?
I think that if we are to allow patents on algorithms, not only should obviousness standards be rigorously enforced (including the appropriate appropriations from Congress to make it happen), but that we should be ta
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a question of compromise, it is a question of
Um, no (Score:3, Insightful)
this will make Wikipedia by far the most likely site for an average internet user to have a truly free and open video experience
Yes. An experience of videos that won't play in the average internet user's browser. It's easier to click the "close window" button than it is to care about broken video on a broken web site.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. Nobody has Java installed, either... that's the worst "fallback" ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you'd be surprised. I've seen some market research desktop penetration figures for Java, and they're really impressive. Not 97% like Flash, but way above 50%.
I still wonder where that comes from. Very few sites on the Net actually seem to need JRE these days. On the other hand, both my current desktop and my current laptop (HP and Lenovo, respectively) came with JRE preinstalled. Both were purchased within the last two years.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I bought an HP (and I'll never make that mistake again) it came with a kitchen sink installed too. If that wasn't bad enough, they even installed the crapware on the recovery disk that shipped with it-- I had to borrow a clean Windows CD from a friend and reinstall to make it even slightly usable. (Fortunately, the OEM number worked fine with the clean Windows CD.)
But anyway. Java's nothing but a security hole now. Like you said, practically no sites require it, the odds of a normal consumer comin
Good luck. (Score:2, Insightful)
They're so uptight about what pictures they'll accept (copyright, fair use), what makes anyone think that Wikipedia is going to become a giant video repository?
Dirac (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been waiting for this (Score:2)
I've been waiting for this - because it's a rare organization that can long resist the desire to go political.
So much for their independence and reliability.
This is counter to Wikipedia (Score:2, Interesting)
First of all, bad headline. This is not Wikipedia's assault; in fact, this will be seen as an assault on Wikipedia, to unduly promote a new product. Most of these additions will be reverted as spam, and the organization from that website will be seen as illegitimate canvassing. A campaign to get anything on Wikipedia is against Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. Now it's true that Wikipedia has a tendency to bend to other free-as-in-speech interests, but those video files are going to draw more attention a
Wikipedia? (Score:5, Insightful)
So far the comments are focused on teh 3v1Lz H.264 vs. 'open' codecs, why one is better than the other, etc. What about Wikipedia?
Perhaps Wikipedia doesn't actually need to be riddled with video. Maybe Wikipedia is actually better off without it. Have you ever had to suffer through some lengthy, 99% irrelevant video to get a specific piece of information? How many times have you just not bothered to watch that video because it's frustrating, you can't afford the time, don't have just the right version of some plug-in, etc? Ever tried to copy and paste from a video?
How much of the useful content of Wikipedia is going to end up trapped inside videos when easily indexed and searched, entirely unencumbered US Grade-A ASCII^h^h^h^h^hUTF-8 would have been sufficient? How much more bandwidth is Wikipedia going to have to fund to serve up cell phone footage of Silambarasan Rajendar [wikipedia.org] waving at people?
All this means is competition.... (Score:4, Funny)
No, the competition will be between various wiki-weirdoes over who can be first to enshrine their peckers forever by putting video of it on the articles for "Penis", "Herpes", and any other genital or sex-related article on that site....of which there are no small number.
A long lost battle. (Score:3, Interesting)
Give us a real codec.
Linux beats the crap out of Windows.
Firefox beats the crap out of IE.
Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.
And Theora should beat the crap out of H.264!
But right now it’s a toothless tiger, slow, bad quality/size ratio, outdated technology...
Until that changes, well... frankly nobody in the real world cares for evangelical wars.
And I’m saying that as someone who almost exclusively uses open source software, and is very very happy with it!
I wish I could write codecs. I’t word night shifts to kick H.264s ass. ^^
But hey, as previously said: If Firefox just binds to generic facilities/libraries like ffmpeg, DirectMedia and CoreVideo, the whole discussion goes away, since everybody can choose what to use anyway.
Unfortunately right now they play little dictators, enforcing what they see as “the one true codec” in their holy war.
Maybe I can at least write a patch that creates these bindings.
JPEG (Score:3, Insightful)
JPEG images are patent encumbered too. There's just a gentleman's agreement among group members not to pursue royalties for "baseline" implementations of the standard. I don't see anyone scrambling to remove them from Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is great for web filtering and searching (Score:5, Insightful)
h.264 = Porn and "funny", time wasting, videos
Theora = Actually useful stuff
That's a long way to spell "H.264 wins".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
.
You could say the same thing about FireFox's challenge to the Microsoft disaster known as Internet Explorer.
Yet FireFox has driven the web towards standards-based web design, instead of Microsoft-based web design.
And Google recoding the videos is little more than