[mythtv-users] Myth on WD HDTV Media Player for $99

[Scott D. Davilla]

>On Sunday 11 October 2009 09:40:15 Scott D. Davilla wrote:
>
>>  Here's a thought, decoding h.264 requires a license with the patent
>>  holders. That's a fact that we conveniently ignore all the time in
>>  open source software because the patent holders will only go after
>>  big fish that bundle and sell such software. Anytime you use ffmpeg
>>  to play h.264 content via software, you are violating the licensing
>>  no matter how much you might feel entitled. So you could say that use
>>  of a lib like vdpau or crystal hd actually is more legal than using a
>>  software based solution. You better believe that Both Nvidia and
>>  Broadcom have licenses with the patent holders for decoding the video
>>  formats that they support.
>
>I'm certainly no expert here, but as I understand it even decoding MPEG2
>requires a license.
>
>Is there any "legal" way to decode MPEG2 under Linux? I'm not aware of any,
>certainly there is no legal way to decode CSS under Linux.
>
>I believe that there is no way to even play a legally-purchased DVD under
>Linux, and that has nothing to do with CSS, just the MPEG2. Even playing a
>non-protected DVD would be illegal without an MPEG2 license, and there is no
>such thing for Linux that I know of.
>
>I certainly feel "entitled" to play a DVD that I paid for without having to
>send money to Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.
>
>If you purchase a retail version of a DVD drive it usually comes with
>(presumably licensed) software to play DVDs, but I think the license is tied
>to the software, not the drive itself.
>
>Morally I feel I have paid for the right to play a DVD, both when I purchased
>the drive, and when I purchased the DVD itself.
>
>If anyone needs to pay for the MPEG2 license it should be the DVD maker, not
>me.

They do, it's a license to encode using MPEG2. To legally view it, 
use a player that has a license to decode it. Window and OSX have 
players that have a license to decode, you paid for it when 
purchasing the computer.

>Certainly nobody had to buy an NTSC license to watch analog TV these past 50
>years.

Actually you did indirectly when you bought the TV. There was never a 
NTSC license per say but the cost of implementing the technology was 
rolled into the cost of the TV. There are numerous patents regarding 
NTSC and you better believe that any TV using those methods paid a 
license to use it. Which of course you paid back when buying the TV.

>Something so ubiquitous should not be proprietary and patentable. The entire
>software patent issue is getting insane.

What's more insane is having to pay for the specs that describe the 
details :) The IEEE has done a great disservice to everyone. They 
have no problem creating a standard that requires payment of a 
license to someone or some group. That's what really created this 
mess.

>People certainly deserve to be paid for their work, I don't believe that all
>software should be free, but I should be able to use a product that I have
>paid for.

Again, simple, use the product on a device that's licensed to play 
it. You might feel that either the DVD maker or the DVD driver maker 
"should" have included this license but that's not reality, they did 
not because that would have raised the cost of said product. If you 
disagree, then don't buy said product and vote with your wallet.

Here's another thought, what if someone started a fund that would 
enable the purchase of a unlimited use decode license for mpeg2/h.264 
under linux. I would guess that would be a several million dollar 
item. How much would you give? How many linux users would do this?