[Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

[David Gerard]

On 16 January 2014 13:37, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:

> 3. The CNET interview with MPEG-LA's legal folks seems to indicate a
> bizarre stance: Yes, they intentionally have scary, inconsistent and
> confusing licensing terms. This is to make sure people with deep pockets
> wind up paying the patent pool lots of money. For smaller users? Those
> onerous terms sound like they apply to you but you can disregard them. This
> is NOT a good state of affairs for a conscientious, detail-oriented free
> culture contributors.
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html


Given Commons' attitude on even incredibly unlikely copyright risks
... it's just ridiculous to assume such a provision on a format would
be allowed to pass.

I see at least one person has deemed it a snowball-pass after just a
few hours. I find this ... unlikely.


- d.