Michelle

http://iphone.macnn.com/articles/10/...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/...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

Borg

why did you repeat it all ?

Jolly Roger

In article <prudnbMa9OAidOvRnZ2dnUVZ7oidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >,
Borg <saerimner@gmail.com> wrote:

> why did you repeat it all ?

repeat what?

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Borg

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

Your Name

In article <prudnbMa9OAidOvRnZ2dnUVZ7oidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >, Borg
<saerimner@gmail.com> wrote:

> why did you repeat it all ?

It could have been a styled / HTML version and a plain text version. Some
newsreader applications will display just the styled version, while others
display both. Of course, technically Usenet is meant to be plain text
only, but many garbage-quality newsreaders do not respect that.

Borg

Your Name wrote:
> In article <prudnbMa9OAidOvRnZ2dnUVZ7oidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >, Borg
> <saerimner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> why did you repeat it all ?
>
> It could have been a styled / HTML version and a plain text version. Some
> newsreader applications will display just the styled version, while others
> display both. Of course, technically Usenet is meant to be plain text
> only, but many garbage-quality newsreaders do not respect that.


yer I am using Thunderbird.

Michelle

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?

--
Sent from my iPhone

Tom Harrington

In article
<1866304854304569136.414789michelle-michelle.org@news.eternal-september.
org>,
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?

Your initial post in this thread contained the full message, with
signature, twice.

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/

David Empson

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

Todd Allcock

At 27 Aug 2010 02:33:52 +0000 Michelle 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?


On my phone's Usenet client, your post looked like this:

<text of article you cut and pasted>

<url of article>

<repeated text of article you cut and pasted>



Unlike Borg, it didn't bother me enough to post about it. (Maybe he pays
for Usenet per byte!)

I just assumed you accidentally pasted twice, or else it was a quirk of
Newstap. Interesting article, and no harm done from the double paste.