Michelle <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> Borg <saerimner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
> >> In article <prudnbMa9OAidOvRnZ2dnUVZ7oidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >,
> >> Borg <saerimner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> why did you repeat it all ?
> >>> repeat what?
> >>
> >
> > all of the message
>
> Who repeated it?
You did. The entire text of your message was posted twice. Quoted below
is exactly what I saw (apart from some line rewrapping).
I suspect it was something attempting to post both plain text and HTML
versions using MIME, and the MIME division and HTML encoding got
stripped but both text parts remained.
> http://iphone.macnn.com/articles/10/...akes.free.h264
> .use.permanent/
>
> The MPEG-LA video standards group today revised its AVC License to
> permanently exempt free H.264 and AVC video Internet use from any
> royalties. It had previously planned to start charging companies for
> streaming H.264 at the start of 2016 but now will allow free use
> indefinitely as long as viewers aren't charged. Paid video, as well as
> corporate use of offline video, will still carry a licensing cost.
> The deal effectively sanctions the use of H.264 for HTML5 video as well
> as within Flash containers at YouTube and other sites. Google
> co-developed its WebM standard in part to guarantee a royalty-free
> standard for HTML5 and would still have an advantage for paid content,
> but much of the regular use would be negated.
>
> Apple and Microsoft have both sided with H.264 as they believe its
> legality and licensing are clearer than with WebM. MPEG-LA has warned
> that WebM may violate patents in spite of Google's claims and that
> anyone who used it could face a mandatory change in the long term.
>
>
> -- Michelle
>
> --
> Sent from my iPhone
> http://iphone.macnn.com/articles/10/...akes.free.h264
> .use.permanent/
>
> The MPEG-LA video standards group today revised its AVC License to
> permanently exempt free H.264 and AVC video Internet use from any
> royalties. It had previously planned to start charging companies for
> streaming H.264 at the start of 2016 but now will allow free use
> indefinitely as long as viewers aren't charged. Paid video, as well as
> corporate use of offline video, will still carry a licensing cost.
> The deal effectively sanctions the use of H.264 for HTML5 video as well
> as within Flash containers at YouTube and other sites. Google
> co-developed its WebM standard in part to guarantee a royalty-free
> standard for HTML5 and would still have an advantage for paid content,
> but much of the regular use would be negated.
>
> Apple and Microsoft have both sided with H.264 as they believe its
> legality and licensing are clearer than with WebM. MPEG-LA has warned
> that WebM may violate patents in spite of Google's claims and that
> anyone who used it could face a mandatory change in the long term.
>
> -- Michelle
>
> --
> Sent from my iPhone
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz