hello at simonsmith.co
Wed Jul 19 23:24:40 CEST 2017
I would stay with h.264 if possible - its popular and supported by most
platforms. Having to trouble shoot video issues on an ongoing basis is not
really fun. But yes - there is a licencing requirement if its being used
commercially - no idea how actively it is policed.
Are the video's going to be shared commercially? How will they be accessed
etc etc etc. Depending on the video's, length and number of users etc ,
there could be no actual costs incurred -
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf and even if
costs were to be incurred, what would be the support costs and possibly
losses if a less popular codec was used.
m. +27 83 306 7862
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Stephen Barncard wrote:
> > Which means every network and independent film-maker is breaking the
> > law...
> > because I guarantee that they're not looking at the EULA when
> > sending off their work for broadcast or theater. I see this every
> > day.
> > Kinda like "don't ask don't tell" if you ask me.
> > And unenforceable. They'd have to sue everyone using their product.
> Is that any more difficult than identifying a specific printer used to
> print a document?
> > I just don't worry about this stuff when working on music or video
> > projects.
> In this case I'm working with a client in which my contract obliges me to
> ensure there are no copyright or patent liabilities in delivered work.
> I can push it off on their legal team, but as a consultant it seems useful
> to be able to suggest alternatives as well.
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode