open formats is the way to go. Patents seems more and more like a scam
Figures. Patents are the backbone of capitalism. Some say it invented capitalism as we know it.
It’s an outdated legalism. 250 years ago, the patent office operated as an incentive to record and register ideas to the public in exchange for exclusive commercial license.
Now that simply isn’t an issue
Software and business method patents have always been bullshit.
Patent the machine, not how you use it. Software is just instructions to a machine.
Perhaps patients have their place but software patients make no sense. One big issue is that it is not practical to avoid writing a system that already exists because there are many, many ways to describe the same software system. It’s so difficult to search every term that might be used that multiple people could have already patented the same thing and be unaware the other exists.
quietly
Stop putting “quietly” in your fucking headlines, you hacks. This wasn’t “quiet”, it was very publicly announced.
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.
Wait, is Stallman right again?
AGAIN?
Stallman only eats open sores.
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.
I can see the purpose when done correctly but that would mean maybe a 3-5 year protection to give you a headstart on the competition not 20+ years of monopoly and stagnation.
The notion that ideas need protection from competition is foundationally caustic. The current regime incentivises locking them behind exclusionary and extractive mechanics as if they’re finite, when they’re intrinsically the opposite.
I can see how ‘IP’ can appear appealing, if not justifiable, but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.
but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.
Can you talk about what are those effective alternatives that have been suppressed you are referring to as a replacement for the current IP scheme?
The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.
Intellectual property is a term that wraps a whole bunch of things (copyright, trademarks, patents). Are you fully aware of the impact how abolishing all IP would negative affect society?
Copyright prevents the KKK from producing and selling Pokemon cartoons with Pikachu supporting stupid shit like white supremecy propaganda. Are you sure you want that protection gone?
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.
Lets just take the patents portion of IP for a moment. The first part of what you’re asking for here is exactly what patents do. To have something patented, the patent holder has to fully document the machine/process/method to create the patented item. This is that mechnism that enables the “more known and used”. Society gains this knowledge because the owner fully shares it. A design patent can last for only 14 or 15 years (depending on filing date). The longest type of patent (Utility) lasts only 20 years. After as few as 14 years everyone can use this knowledge without any fees/restrictions/payments.
This is a be-careful-what-you-wish for situation with what you’re asking for here. There are companies choosing NOT to file patents anymore and simply keep their methods secret. Since they methods aren’t patented they are under no obligation to ever share them publicly. There is a very real chance that many of these technologies/methods may be unknown to society at large for long after the term of normal patent protection would have expired and society would have been able to use the knowledge.
EDIT: I was trying to think of a good example of a company that agrees with your stance about not patenting and I remembered one. Elon Musk is choosing not to patent SpaceX rocket engines because it would force him to document how they work. Instead they are just keeping the designs secret. So your desire to not have patents used are advocating for what Elon Musk does.
My comments stem from broader work I’ve been ruminating on, which doesn’t yet exist in a form I can readily share here. I’m not advocating for the abolition of IP alone, there needs to be an appropriate and battle hardened replacement to fill the void. This is part of my attempt to help extract it from my head.
The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.
Intellectual property is a term that wraps a whole bunch of things (copyright, trademarks, patents). Are you fully aware of the impact how abolishing all IP would negative affect society?
I’m well aware of the scope my comments cover, and I stand by them.
Copyright prevents the KKK from producing and selling Pokemon cartoons with Pikachu supporting stupid shit like white supremecy propaganda. Are you sure you want that protection gone?
I’m fascinated as to the justification in relying on copyright to prevent hate speech, or enforce other morality constraints. This example is just another case of using the wrong tool for the job.
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.
Let’s just take the patents portion of IP for a moment. The first part of what you’re asking for here is exactly what patents do. To have something patented, the patent holder has to fully document the machine/process/method to create the patented item. This is that mechnism that enables the “more known and used”. Society gains this knowledge because the owner fully shares it.
I agree this is a stated claim of patent systems, and it’s a concept that should stand. My argument is that the incentives are problematic. By conjuring gaol cells and granting exclusive ownership over an idea, it rewards restrictive, exclusionary and extractive behaviours.
My counter proposal is to create a replacement system which intrinsically rewards open, sharing, and collaborative actions.
A design patent can last for only 14 or 15 years (depending on filing date). The longest type of patent (Utility) lasts only 20 years. After as few as 14 years everyone can use this knowledge without any fees/restrictions/payments.
A key distinction between the current and my proposed systems is reframing the designation of ‘ownership’ as ‘attribution’. A reason for this is ownership invokes a right to restriction, whereas attribution serves as the provision of recognition.
The restrictions facilitated by patents are entirely imaginary, and cause unnecessary harm the entire span of their enforcement.
This is a be-careful-what-you-wish for situation with what you’re asking for here. There are companies choosing NOT to file patents anymore and simply keep their methods secret. Since they methods aren’t patented they are under no obligation to ever share them publicly. There is a very real chance that many of these technologies/methods may be unknown to society at large for long after the term of normal patent protection would have expired and society would have been able to use the knowledge.
How is an example of the patent system being insufficient to incentivise someone to engage with it a defence of the patent system?
Further, an element of my proposal is pseudonymous and anonymous submission. If an idea exists, but has not been published, and doing so could be dangerous if traced back to the author, it provides a mechanism for it to be made available to and for society.
EDIT: I was trying to think of a good example of a company that agrees with your stance about not patenting and I remembered one. Elon Musk is choosing not to patent SpaceX rocket engines because it would force him to document how they work. Instead they are just keeping the designs secret. So your desire to not have patents used are advocating for what Elon Musk does.
Not all sociopaths are billionaires, but all billionaires are sociopaths, and should be euthanised through taxation. Anonymous submission could be a pathway for a privileged altruistic entity to make the concept more broadly available, which would create an incentive for a ‘Musk’ to engage with the system earlier and more frequently.
Copyright prevents the KKK from producing and selling Pokemon cartoons with Pikachu supporting stupid shit like white supremecy propaganda. Are you sure you want that protection gone?
YES I want to watch the KKK Pokemon cartoon with Pikachu in a little robe and hood
Do you want kids watching it too? How about Bluey throwing Nazi salutes or Paw Patrol using racial slurs? Even worse if you were looking to buy a legitimate cartoon for your kid, there would be nothing to tell you which you were buying. Anyone could claim full ownership of these characters and sell them doing horrible stuff and nothing you do as a parent could protect your kids unless you first bought each, then watched it yourself, before your kid watched it.
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.
I’m gonna go patent Marxism lol. Maybe I’ll patent irony at the same time.
Something like that very vaguely happened.
Last attempt to squeeze some money before these formats are abandoned in favor of competition, I guess.
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.
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.
Not sure if sarcasm.
Patents and copyrights for things wealthy people control last the better part of a century, if they ever expire. It is only us plebs that are bound by the intent of those silly patent and copyright laws.
Copyright works like you said, because of Disney mostly. Patents last max 20 years from filing, by law. Unless the US patent law is a total shitshow compared to the rest of the world.
tiny bit clickbait, small companies are still at $100,000 unchanged
not that that should exist, either
Totally off topic, but man that is one terrible table design. 😆
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.”
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
And those servers are what process your Twitchs, your YouTubes, your Netflixs and etc services
Most hardware can’t decode it either which is very important. Also it’s currently being sued over patents
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
How does someone seek royalties on an open, royalty-free video coding format?
By claiming that you own patents on technology used by said format.
The “open royalty free” aspect applies to companies that are a part of the AOMedia group, if you’re not involved with them you’re not covered by the patent grants and restrictions in place, and can charge whatever the courts say is cool.
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.
Man I can’t wait to upgrade my device/GPU with AV1 hardware support
AI slop bubble fart reverb sfx
AMD’s XT 7000 series is available for cheap as already a few gens old, or Intel ARC
For a while there Turbodong 2000 was my hope of what AI would be used for.
If you’re not in tears, we can’t be friends
I always wanted it to be CELERY MAN, personally.
Your first link is clearly an artist with a WEEKND anal sphincter.
deleted by creator
Legally VP8 is beginning to look like the go-to format for video…
_ /\ _
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
Does this have any impact towards the consumer?
Disconnect your TV from the internet and don’t let it update (downgrade) your software.
Disconnect your TV from the internet and don’t let it update (downgrade) your software
jellyfin for the win
Thanks, but I don’t own a smart TV - hopefully dumb TVs are still gonna be around when it’s time to upgrade
They will probably make it more expensive to legally acquire content that is playable on a dumb TV than to get the same content for smart TVs. You’re paying extra for having indefinite access to the content rather than revokable subscription-based access.
Of course, as a consumer, you can become a criminal, with all the associated increasingly harsh consequences.
Probably price increases to offset corporate losses.
Price increases on streaming services you mean?
If so, a magical alternative exists on the high seas, or so I’ve heard
Honestly probably a good thing long-term, lots of platforms have been dragging their heels in adopting better newer codecs, so maybe this will finally give the justification required to put in the engineering hours.
