Re: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:21:54 -0400
Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com> wrote:

> > not to a standards community that, as this
> > discussion shows again and again, is ill-prepared to deal with commercial
> > realities.
> 
> Commercial realities?  I thought we were the Lorax: we spoke for the
> Net, not for any one group's commercial realities.  There's a world
> outside of MPEG.
> 
> The net is a public resource, a public utility.  Everyone is allowed
> to use the pipes.  The water in the pipes is not free, but it is
> provided nearly at cost and ~ universally.  The public has a right to
> the pipes and the water.  Companies do not own the pipes.  They do not
> own the water.  But companies reap the benefits of clean, potable
> water (and a sewer system, though it's not as much fun to talk about)
> like everybody else.
> 
> When the water in the pipes must be licensed, tracked, and restricted,
> by a single for-profit consortium with complete authority in the
> matter, it is no longer a public resource.  It becomes a bad musical.
> 
> I will not be able to buy the water in these pipes.  Not because I
> can't afford it; those who control it will not sell me a license
> because I'm not willing to become an extension of their water
> enforcement agency.  It is not about money, it is about control.
> 
> So I am actually slightly offended at the suggestion I do not
> understand the commercial reality.  I am knowingly standing against
> where it wants to take us.
> 
> If WebRTC becomes encumbered, it very simply becomes yet another
> for-profit play, and that's... just not very interesting.  We already
> have several of those in the same space.
> 

I agree.

Besides, it's not like just the browsers need to agree on the codec. Endpoints may not be browsers, but something someone else builds to make new and exciting applications out of the bricks WebRTC provides us with. As I already said some time ago, an encumbered codec would cut out most of the people who could fuel WebRTC with new ideas, use cases and so on.

Go tell a student/geek that if he wants to implement a WebRTC endpoint that takes video from a peer, manipulates it somehow for fun and then gives it back or sends it to another peer that he needs a license for that. That of course also applies to small/tiny companies or startups: how many of them would embark the WebRTC road to try and make some business, knowing they should buy god-knows-how-many licences that could sink their business before it can even start? If they're even given the choice to buy some, of course, according to what Monty said.

Just my two ents,
Lorenzo

> Monty
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
http://www.meetecho.com