Comment by peutetre
2 years ago
> As it is often the FUD pointed towards H.265
There is no uncertainty or doubt. The licensing of H.265 is well understood to be terrible.
You yourself are the perfect demonstration of this. You plainly don't know the terms of the licensing for all the different patent pools and individual licensors, and you've contradicted yourself multiple times in this thread. Let's review:
1. First you claimed there were no content distribution fees. That's false.
2. Next you claimed that "content distribution" only refers to streaming and broadcasting. That's false.
3. Then you claimed that "content distribution" does indeed include selling movies on discs. That's true and it means we're back at Claim 1.
Watching you flail about trying to save face is pretty funny, but more importantly it is the clear demonstration that you don't understand the terms of H.265 licensing which is, of course, why the licensing is so terrible.
One of the reasons AV1 is more usable is because its licensing is simpler, clearer, and more straightforward. You've proven that.
Thank You for explaining it. I will let HN be the judge.
Have a nice day.
Both of you come out looking pretty insufferable tbh
TBH I had to suffer years of AOM and their supporter claiming themselves as Patent free. So I do get a easily annoyed by it.
peutetre was clear from the start, ksec claimed that content distribution fees are not for physical media and to defend his position he asked "Do HEVC Advance and Velos Media currently, or has ever charges for Broadcasting and Streaming?" which makes no sense, since the specific topic was about physical media.
2 replies →