The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.
Information and ideas intrinsically accrue value the more they’re known and used, and the incentives provided around their collation and attribution should embody that, not punish them with imaginary locks that provide ownership.
The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.
Intellectual property is a term that wraps a whole bunch of things (copyright, trademarks, patents). Are you fully aware of the impact how abolishing all IP would negative affect society?
Copyright prevents the KKK from producing and selling Pokemon cartoons with Pikachu supporting stupid shit like white supremecy propaganda. Are you sure you want that protection gone?
Information and ideas intrinsically accrue value the more they’re known and used, and the incentives provided around their collation and attribution should embody that, not punish them with imaginary locks that provide ownership.
Lets just take the patents portion of IP for a moment. The first part of what you’re asking for here is exactly what patents do. To have something patented, the patent holder has to fully document the machine/process/method to create the patented item. This is that mechnism that enables the “more known and used”. Society gains this knowledge because the owner fully shares it. A design patent can last for only 14 or 15 years (depending on filing date). The longest type of patent (Utility) lasts only 20 years. After as few as 14 years everyone can use this knowledge without any fees/restrictions/payments.
This is a be-careful-what-you-wish for situation with what you’re asking for here. There are companies choosing NOT to file patents anymore and simply keep their methods secret. Since they methods aren’t patented they are under no obligation to ever share them publicly. There is a very real chance that many of these technologies/methods may be unknown to society at large for long after the term of normal patent protection would have expired and society would have been able to use the knowledge.
EDIT: I was trying to think of a good example of a company that agrees with your stance about not patenting and I remembered one. Elon Musk is choosing not to patent SpaceX rocket engines because it would force him to document how they work. Instead they are just keeping the designs secret. So your desire to not have patents used are advocating for what Elon Musk does.
My comments stem from broader work I’ve been ruminating on, which doesn’t yet exist in a form I can readily share here. I’m not advocating for the abolition of IP alone, there needs to be an appropriate and battle hardened replacement to fill the void. This is part of my attempt to help extract it from my head.
The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.
Intellectual property is a term that wraps a whole bunch of things (copyright, trademarks, patents). Are you fully aware of the impact how abolishing all IP would negative affect society?
I’m well aware of the scope my comments cover, and I stand by them.
Copyright prevents the KKK from producing and selling Pokemon cartoons with Pikachu supporting stupid shit like white supremecy propaganda. Are you sure you want that protection gone?
I’m fascinated as to the justification in relying on copyright to prevent hate speech, or enforce other morality constraints. This example is just another case of using the wrong tool for the job.
Information and ideas intrinsically accrue value the more they’re known and used, and the incentives provided around their collation and attribution should embody that, not punish them with imaginary locks that provide ownership.
Let’s just take the patents portion of IP for a moment. The first part of what you’re asking for here is exactly what patents do. To have something patented, the patent holder has to fully document the machine/process/method to create the patented item. This is that mechnism that enables the “more known and used”. Society gains this knowledge because the owner fully shares it.
I agree this is a stated claim of patent systems, and it’s a concept that should stand. My argument is that the incentives are problematic. By conjuring gaol cells and granting exclusive ownership over an idea, it rewards restrictive, exclusionary and extractive behaviours.
My counter proposal is to create a replacement system which intrinsically rewards open, sharing, and collaborative actions.
A design patent can last for only 14 or 15 years (depending on filing date). The longest type of patent (Utility) lasts only 20 years. After as few as 14 years everyone can use this knowledge without any fees/restrictions/payments.
A key distinction between the current and my proposed systems is reframing the designation of ‘ownership’ as ‘attribution’. A reason for this is ownership invokes a right to restriction, whereas attribution serves as the provision of recognition.
The restrictions facilitated by patents are entirely imaginary, and cause unnecessary harm the entire span of their enforcement.
This is a be-careful-what-you-wish for situation with what you’re asking for here. There are companies choosing NOT to file patents anymore and simply keep their methods secret. Since they methods aren’t patented they are under no obligation to ever share them publicly. There is a very real chance that many of these technologies/methods may be unknown to society at large for long after the term of normal patent protection would have expired and society would have been able to use the knowledge.
How is an example of the patent system being insufficient to incentivise someone to engage with it a defence of the patent system?
Further, an element of my proposal is pseudonymous and anonymous submission. If an idea exists, but has not been published, and doing so could be dangerous if traced back to the author, it provides a mechanism for it to be made available to and for society.
EDIT: I was trying to think of a good example of a company that agrees with your stance about not patenting and I remembered one. Elon Musk is choosing not to patent SpaceX rocket engines because it would force him to document how they work. Instead they are just keeping the designs secret. So your desire to not have patents used are advocating for what Elon Musk does.
Not all sociopaths are billionaires, but all billionaires are sociopaths, and should be euthanised through taxation. Anonymous submission could be a pathway for a privileged altruistic entity to make the concept more broadly available, which would create an incentive for a ‘Musk’ to engage with the system earlier and more frequently.
Copyright prevents the KKK from producing and selling Pokemon cartoons with Pikachu supporting stupid shit like white supremecy propaganda. Are you sure you want that protection gone?
YES I want to watch the KKK Pokemon cartoon with Pikachu in a little robe and hood
Do you want kids watching it too? How about Bluey throwing Nazi salutes or Paw Patrol using racial slurs? Even worse if you were looking to buy a legitimate cartoon for your kid, there would be nothing to tell you which you were buying. Anyone could claim full ownership of these characters and sell them doing horrible stuff and nothing you do as a parent could protect your kids unless you first bought each, then watched it yourself, before your kid watched it.
I can see the purpose when done correctly but that would mean maybe a 3-5 year protection to give you a headstart on the competition not 20+ years of monopoly and stagnation.
The notion that ideas need protection from competition is foundationally caustic. The current regime incentivises locking them behind exclusionary and extractive mechanics as if they’re finite, when they’re intrinsically the opposite.
I can see how ‘IP’ can appear appealing, if not justifiable, but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.
but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.
Can you talk about what are those effective alternatives that have been suppressed you are referring to as a replacement for the current IP scheme?
I feel like I realized something profound when I was replying to your message initially. I was going to say something that I still find somewhat reasonable: if you create or develop or invent something useful or revolutionary, surely people shouldn’t be allowed to copy it for free? You did all the work
But then I realized that’s pretty close to poor people voting against taxing m/billionaires more. I’m not a millionaire, and I’m not developing any revolutionary tech either
The problem patents were solving was an inventor creating something and having it completely taken over by a well funded company leaving said inventor penniless. They created a new problem, though, when the well funded companies realized they could just buy all the patents and force everyone else to pay them while holding those ideas hostage.
One of the greatest tricks Capitalists ever pulled was convincing creative individuals that copyright exists to serve their interests.
My comments stem from broader work I’ve been ruminating on.
The current IP regime (copyright, patents, trademark, etc.) incentivise locking ideas up and away as tightly as possible, they aren’t fit for purpose, and should be largely done away with, but the void that would leave needs a replacement that is proven and battle hardened.
My current proposition is a mechanism that rewards the spread of knowledge, and its comprehension, as broad and deep as practicable.
Creating, discovering, disseminating, and explaining ideas should be rewarded, but not by housing them in conjured gaol cells.
H.264 came out in 2003. Shouldn’t the patents associated with it have expired by now? 23 years is more than 20 years from the filing date or else the codec’s release itself is prior art. The 17 years from issuance rule ended in 1995. I don’t think they can have any Lemelson style submarine patents that are still valid.
Well, we’re barely in the era where people can safely say “MPEG-1 is definitely out of patents and we’re pretty damn confident Layer III (MP3) is too”. Patents expire on the day they’ll be set to expire, but unfortunately, patent lawyers hired by big companies don’t expire that easily.
Not sure if sarcasm.
Patents and copyrights for things wealthy people control last the better part of a century, if they ever expire. It is only us plebs that are bound by the intent of those silly patent and copyright laws.
Copyright works like you said, because of Disney mostly. Patents last max 20 years from filing, by law. Unless the US patent law is a total shitshow compared to the rest of the world.
We need a “right of retrieval” where,once encoded, it must be free to decode and play back. If we’re going to allow proprietary media, all the prices should be clear and up front. No charging on the back end after everyone has already encoded their baby vids to avc; no changing prices after the fact.
open formats is the way to go. Patents seems more and more like a scam
AV1 is right there. One has to wonder why all the device manufacturers rushed to implement HEVC but allowed AV1 to dillydally.
Figures. Patents are the backbone of capitalism. Some say it invented capitalism as we know it.
Patents are a (relatively speaking) newfangled trick to turn ideas into legal “capital.” In the same way that a corporation “is” a person.
The backbone of capitalism? I’m not following that.
Patents are a way to spread knowledge, whole still offering some [time limited] protections. Before them, trade secrets were the norm, and way too much knowledge was lost with it’s creators.
It’s an outdated legalism. 250 years ago, the patent office operated as an incentive to record and register ideas to the public in exchange for exclusive commercial license.
Now that simply isn’t an issue
Software and business method patents have always been bullshit.
Patent the machine, not how you use it. Software is just instructions to a machine.
Perhaps patients have their place but software patients make no sense. One big issue is that it is not practical to avoid writing a system that already exists because there are many, many ways to describe the same software system. It’s so difficukt to search that multiple people could have already patiented the same thing and be unaware the other exists.
The patents have expired everywhere except USA, Brazil and Malaysia.
This is a blatant money grab before they expire everywhere.
But you then are forced to move to the US
quietly
Stop putting “quietly” in your fucking headlines, you hacks. This wasn’t “quiet”, it was very publicly announced.
Slammed
slammed
Stop putting “slammed” in your fucking comments, you hacks. This wasn’t “the WWE”, it was very obviously Lemmy.
Blast
Blast
Stop putting “blast” in your fucking comments, you hacks. This wasn’t “NASA”, it was very obviously a user.
Shocked.
Shocked
Stop putting “shocked” in your fucking comments, you hacks. This wasn’t “the monkey”, it was very obviously a human.
On the internet nobody knows you’re
a catthe monkey
😡
Lemmy user melts down over headline buzzwords.
Via LA told Streaming Media that it contacted unlicensed media companies during 2025 to give them “a window to secure a license” under the previous terms, but the company didn’t go to the trouble of issuing a press release or public announcement, opting instead for direct outreach. Any company that didn’t respond or wasn’t contacted now faces the new rate structure as its starting point for negotiations.
Wait, is Stallman right again?
AGAIN?
I have met Stallman, I don’t like Stallman, Stallman is right about most thing related software licensing.
This reads like a lawyer was holding a shotgun to your head while you were typing it. I have to assume we won’t get any more explanation than that 🤣.
I agree with most of Stallman’s views on proprietary code. However, the one time I met him in person I found him to be off putting. I am not going to get into details because this is the internet and I know how people are.
Was he eating his leg boogers?
I am not going to shit on the man. His views and opinions about free software are worth knowing and understanding. I just would invite home to a dinner party or ask his opinion on any other topics.
Stallman only eats open sores.
Legally VP8 is beginning to look like the go-to format for video…
_ /\ _
If I come up with a concept in philosophy can I patent it and charge money when people use it in their philosophy? Fees for codecs operate on this plane of backwardness. Patents in and of themselves are stupid enough, but the capacity for stupidity within patenting knows no bounds apparently.
I’m gonna go patent Marxism lol. Maybe I’ll patent irony at the same time.
Something like that very vaguely happened.
Ridiculous that the works of Marx, who’s been dead for like 150 years are still copyrighted by someone. But I think that patents are even more absurd than copyright.
Technically it’s just that particular English translation that’s copyrighted. The original text is public domain.
Long Live WebM I guess.
Webm is just a subset of mkv
webm can contain VP8, VP9 or AV1 video streams. I guess if you mean webm with VP9 inside it could be one solution, though less efficient. Also Google donated VP9 and what they had for VP10 to the development efforts of of AV1, so if AV1 is found to be infringing it’s a negative signal for VP9 too…
Edit: Sorry I was a bit off-topic. I was thinking of the action that Dolby is currently taking against Snapchat for their AV1 use.
mkv for the win
Man I can’t wait to upgrade my device/GPU with AV1 hardware support
AI slop bubble fart reverb sfx
deleted by creator
For a while there Turbodong 2000 was my hope of what AI would be used for.
If you’re not in tears, we can’t be friends
I always wanted it to be CELERY MAN, personally.
Your first link is clearly an artist with a WEEKND anal sphincter.
AMD’s XT 7000 series is available for cheap as already a few gens old, or Intel ARC
Here’s why it doesn’t matter:
“AOMedia Video 1 (AV1) is an open, royalty-free video coding format initially designed for video transmissions over the Internet. It was developed as a successor to VP9 by the Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia),[3] a consortium founded in 2015 that includes semiconductor firms, video on demand providers, video content producers, software development companies and web browser vendors.”
Here’s why it does matter
Most server hardware thats out there right now doesn’t support av1 encoding, so all of those, literally tens of thousands of them in thousands of spread out data centers have to be replaced with brand new +$1,500 a pop cards that do support it before they can use it
And those servers are what process your Twitchs, your YouTubes, your Netflixs and etc services
I was gonna say, I like AV1, but my Plex server says otherwise.
I’m using a 15 year old i5 and a GTX 970, having no issues with AV1 video. Curious what hardware you’re running.
Neither of those things support AV1 encoding or decoding. Curious how you’ve come to believe you’re having “no issues” with a codec your hardware has no support for.
You don’t need HW acceleration to playback AV1. Maybe they watch most of their content at 720p and are software decoding and it’s been good enough.
Yeah you’re going to need HW acceleration to encode AV1 on your server “without issues”.
Theres a world of difference between something that’s technically possible and something that will just work without issues of any kind. Something being “good enough” implies the existence of caveats. Mainly being that’d be a shitty experience lol.
Sure, but most people don’t need encode. The start of this thread talks about encoding, but the person you replied to didn’t specify. My guess is they’re just talking about playback.
Software decoding has clearly been sufficient.
Lmao
I doubt that it’s doing real time transcoding in av1, probably just sending the file “as-is” to your client device and you’re noticing as modern networks allow real time streaming of files with that size
My server with much newer components does like 5 fps in encoding av1
were you trying the default av1 encoder in ffmpeg? that one is unoptimized try libsvtav1 I get hundreds of fps, albeit on a 9800x3d
just the default encoder. I tried it only once and when I saw the FPS I gave up almost immediately
That one is not optimized. I get hundreds of fps with libsvtav1, give it a try
Time to switch to Jellyfin.
Jellyfin somehow makes his hardware support AV1?
Yeah, it transcodes AV1 just fine. Half my stuff is in AV1 and I’ve never had an issue watching it on any device.
So does Plex… It transcodes AV1 just fine.
Clearly their hardware isn’t powerful enough to transcode it smoothly. So they resort to codecs that play natively on their hardware
How would that help at all lol
I didn’t ask for recommendations.
Damn my bad, that changes everything! My sincere apologies!
You’d probably have higher adoption rates if you jellyfans weren’t so annoying.
You’re right, they’re the worst.
use software transcoding if thats your issue
if plex cannot work at all with AV1, it might be time to move to a non-garbage media server like jellyfin.
jellyfin is the least functional of the trinity of media servers so that’s not the best recommendation here.
Work great for me. Click button and media plays. What issues are you having?
“Click button media plays” would be the bare minimum a media server does. Being able to play media at all does not elevate it above of its position at the bottom of the media player stack.
Removed by mod
not a wise choice but one nonetheless
Most hardware can’t decode it either which is very important. Also it’s currently being sued over patents
Most hardware is only really true if you account for older hardware in circulation, most new hardware will be shipping hardware decoder support for AV1.
On top of this, the software decoder support is remarkable for AV1,
libdav1dis a marvelous piece of software, bringing access to a plethora of devices lacking hardware decoder support.My hardware is old. Has hardware decoding for old formats.
This is only really true if you have extreme throughput requirements, a regular VOD operation can get by fine on software encoding.
If you have the kind of throughput needs that warrant hardware encoders you’re going to want to go ASIC anyway, so regular server hardware won’t cut it. Like YouTube for example had to build their own ASICs because of the downright absurd scale they are running at
Can’t be too sure about that: https://sh.itjust.works/post/57524423
The whole patent system should just be abolished. And if we can’t achieve that, at least software patents.
Nah, we’ve seen what happens with patents. from medical, to agriculture, to automotive to software. The system isn’t working even slightly as originally intended in almost all scenarios and should be dismantled
“Nah”? You seem to be agreeing
Maybe the nah was to the just software patents part
The best part of the article is the very end, even if the site makes it look unrelated.
Avanci’s Video pool and Access Advance’s Video Distribution Patent pool are both now seeking content royalties from streaming services for the use of HEVC, VVC, VP9, and AV1. Access Advance’s rates are capped at roughly $63 million per year, and Avanci has published rates of 1.6% to 2.0% of revenue or $0.12 to $0.15 per user per month.
$4.5 million max for H.264 is rookie numbers vs. the $63 million max for AV1
How does someone seek royalties on an open, royalty-free video coding format?
By claiming that you own patents on technology used by said format.
The “open royalty free” aspect applies to companies that are a part of the AOMedia group, if you’re not involved with them you’re not covered by the patent grants and restrictions in place, and can charge whatever the courts say is cool.
tiny bit clickbait, small companies are still at $100,000 unchanged
not that that should exist, either
Totally off topic, but man that is one terrible table design. 😆
What could possibly be worth my predicted lifetime worth of earnings?!?
Last attempt to squeeze some money before these formats are abandoned in favor of competition, I guess.
is this why youtube is lagging and buffering?
That’s probably because Google are deliberately nerfing your viewing because you are using an ad blocker.
They tell you as much in the little pop up.
Or because you’re not using a chromium based browser.
Just some classic anti-competative practices
better than watching ads!
