A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital +camera, a Canon IXUS 130. It was instructive and very disturbing to +be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to +specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera. +Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras +are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway. What is the +problem, you might ask? It is software patents, MPEG-4, H.264 and the +MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences +that is at risk. + +
On page 27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is +written:
+ +++ +This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard +and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding +MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and +non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the +AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video.
+ +No license is granted or implied for any other user for MPEG-4 +standard.
+
In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology +(MPEG-4/H.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and +non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations +holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.
+ +This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to +read +"Why +Our Civilization's Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the +MPEG-LA" by Eugenia Loli-Queru and +"H.264 Is Not +The Sort Of Free That Matters" by Simon Phipps to learn more about +the issue. The solution is to support the +free and +open standards for video, like Ogg +Theora, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.
+