<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_28_0027209</id>
	<title>H.264 vs. Theora &mdash; Fightin' Words About Patentability</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269779160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Thom Holwerda from OS News has penned a rebuttal to claims from Daring Fireball's John Gruber that Theora is a greater patent risk than H.264. Holwerda writes, 'And so the H264/Theora debate concerning HTML5 video continues. The most recent entry into the discussion comes from John Gruber, who argues that <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/on\_submarine\_patents">Theora is more in danger of patent litigation than H264</a>. <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/23058/Theora\_More\_of\_a\_Patent\_Threat\_than\_H264\_Wait\_What\_">He's wrong, and here's why</a>.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Thom Holwerda from OS News has penned a rebuttal to claims from Daring Fireball 's John Gruber that Theora is a greater patent risk than H.264 .
Holwerda writes , 'And so the H264/Theora debate concerning HTML5 video continues .
The most recent entry into the discussion comes from John Gruber , who argues that Theora is more in danger of patent litigation than H264 .
He 's wrong , and here 's why .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Thom Holwerda from OS News has penned a rebuttal to claims from Daring Fireball's John Gruber that Theora is a greater patent risk than H.264.
Holwerda writes, 'And so the H264/Theora debate concerning HTML5 video continues.
The most recent entry into the discussion comes from John Gruber, who argues that Theora is more in danger of patent litigation than H264.
He's wrong, and here's why.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645908</id>
	<title>interesting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269767280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as i am sure at least one person affiliated with osnews would be yelling the typical "h264 should/must be used, as its the codec that produces the best quality video"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as i am sure at least one person affiliated with osnews would be yelling the typical " h264 should/must be used , as its the codec that produces the best quality video " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as i am sure at least one person affiliated with osnews would be yelling the typical "h264 should/must be used, as its the codec that produces the best quality video"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644252</id>
	<title>White text overlay.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269700920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like this?<br><a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/ptalarbvorm-684.png" title="xiph.org" rel="nofollow">Theora</a> [xiph.org]<br><a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/yth264-684.png" title="xiph.org" rel="nofollow">H.264</a> [xiph.org]</p><p>Let me guess, you're viewing the videos with VLC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like this ? Theora [ xiph.org ] H.264 [ xiph.org ] Let me guess , you 're viewing the videos with VLC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like this?Theora [xiph.org]H.264 [xiph.org]Let me guess, you're viewing the videos with VLC?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644486</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269703860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wrong.  PNG won over GIF exactly because GIF was patent encumbered.  Nobody had any problems using GIF until the patent problems appeared.</p><p>You could just have easily said "the war was over with GIF, since its already used everywhere", yet now who uses it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wrong .
PNG won over GIF exactly because GIF was patent encumbered .
Nobody had any problems using GIF until the patent problems appeared.You could just have easily said " the war was over with GIF , since its already used everywhere " , yet now who uses it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wrong.
PNG won over GIF exactly because GIF was patent encumbered.
Nobody had any problems using GIF until the patent problems appeared.You could just have easily said "the war was over with GIF, since its already used everywhere", yet now who uses it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644312</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269701460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize how silly your argument sounds?</p><p><i>"H.264 is not, despite all claims of "people can use it" and "well, it's better". That means nothing. Ogg Theora is open and free, H.264 is not."</i></p><p>I don't recall an H.264 fee when I bought my computer. Neither will end users. The simple truth is that H.264 IS better in quality than Ogg, which is closer in compression ratios to MPEG-2. It takes less bitrate with H.264 to get the same result. That is a huge boon to streaming media sites, AND important to end users. Just because something is free doesn't mean it's better "end of discussion". <b>If the value gained is worth the price, your argument becomes meaningless</b>. I can't speak for others, but H.264 is definitely worth the 'hidden price' given what it allows me to do on my mobile devices and the limited storage available on them. If the cost to me is a few dollars tacked on to the device or OS I purchased, then it's an excellent value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize how silly your argument sounds ?
" H.264 is not , despite all claims of " people can use it " and " well , it 's better " .
That means nothing .
Ogg Theora is open and free , H.264 is not .
" I do n't recall an H.264 fee when I bought my computer .
Neither will end users .
The simple truth is that H.264 IS better in quality than Ogg , which is closer in compression ratios to MPEG-2 .
It takes less bitrate with H.264 to get the same result .
That is a huge boon to streaming media sites , AND important to end users .
Just because something is free does n't mean it 's better " end of discussion " .
If the value gained is worth the price , your argument becomes meaningless .
I ca n't speak for others , but H.264 is definitely worth the 'hidden price ' given what it allows me to do on my mobile devices and the limited storage available on them .
If the cost to me is a few dollars tacked on to the device or OS I purchased , then it 's an excellent value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize how silly your argument sounds?
"H.264 is not, despite all claims of "people can use it" and "well, it's better".
That means nothing.
Ogg Theora is open and free, H.264 is not.
"I don't recall an H.264 fee when I bought my computer.
Neither will end users.
The simple truth is that H.264 IS better in quality than Ogg, which is closer in compression ratios to MPEG-2.
It takes less bitrate with H.264 to get the same result.
That is a huge boon to streaming media sites, AND important to end users.
Just because something is free doesn't mean it's better "end of discussion".
If the value gained is worth the price, your argument becomes meaningless.
I can't speak for others, but H.264 is definitely worth the 'hidden price' given what it allows me to do on my mobile devices and the limited storage available on them.
If the cost to me is a few dollars tacked on to the device or OS I purchased, then it's an excellent value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643876</id>
	<title>Theora vs. H.264</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269696720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it was decided that in the end the patent liability for both was near equal.  So given that H.264 is the superior tech it makes sense to pick that over Theora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it was decided that in the end the patent liability for both was near equal .
So given that H.264 is the superior tech it makes sense to pick that over Theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it was decided that in the end the patent liability for both was near equal.
So given that H.264 is the superior tech it makes sense to pick that over Theora.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644274</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269701160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Today, people have data in H.264 format. A lot of data. A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly. This data is not going to vanish, and people will want to play it. Firefox can choose to support that, or they can choose to become less relevant over time.</p> </div><p>The often made assumption is that H.264 is ubiquitous. But it really isn't. H.264 usage, particularly on the web, is highly concentrated. If YouTube said tomorrow that they were going to move to VP8 for all new videos, 70\% of all new web video would be in VP8. The change would happen over night. When you've got such large amounts of content managed by so few players (YouTube, Vimeo, etc) it's very easy to force large change very quickly.  Certainly Google's press release after the acquisition of On2 seems to indicate that is exactly their plan:</p><p><a href="http://investor.google.com/releases/20100219.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://investor.google.com/releases/20100219.html</a> [google.com]</p><p>It's worth reading Mozilla's Robert O'Callahan's response to John Gruber:</p><p><a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/03/amor\_robustum.html" title="mozillazine.org" rel="nofollow">http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/03/amor\_robustum.html</a> [mozillazine.org]</p><p>Really the only pragmatic choice is not to compromise on open web standards. Every time it's happened historically, it's been a problem that wasn't worth having in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , people have data in H.264 format .
A lot of data .
A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly .
This data is not going to vanish , and people will want to play it .
Firefox can choose to support that , or they can choose to become less relevant over time .
The often made assumption is that H.264 is ubiquitous .
But it really is n't .
H.264 usage , particularly on the web , is highly concentrated .
If YouTube said tomorrow that they were going to move to VP8 for all new videos , 70 \ % of all new web video would be in VP8 .
The change would happen over night .
When you 've got such large amounts of content managed by so few players ( YouTube , Vimeo , etc ) it 's very easy to force large change very quickly .
Certainly Google 's press release after the acquisition of On2 seems to indicate that is exactly their plan : http : //investor.google.com/releases/20100219.html [ google.com ] It 's worth reading Mozilla 's Robert O'Callahan 's response to John Gruber : http : //weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/03/amor \ _robustum.html [ mozillazine.org ] Really the only pragmatic choice is not to compromise on open web standards .
Every time it 's happened historically , it 's been a problem that was n't worth having in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, people have data in H.264 format.
A lot of data.
A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly.
This data is not going to vanish, and people will want to play it.
Firefox can choose to support that, or they can choose to become less relevant over time.
The often made assumption is that H.264 is ubiquitous.
But it really isn't.
H.264 usage, particularly on the web, is highly concentrated.
If YouTube said tomorrow that they were going to move to VP8 for all new videos, 70\% of all new web video would be in VP8.
The change would happen over night.
When you've got such large amounts of content managed by so few players (YouTube, Vimeo, etc) it's very easy to force large change very quickly.
Certainly Google's press release after the acquisition of On2 seems to indicate that is exactly their plan:http://investor.google.com/releases/20100219.html [google.com]It's worth reading Mozilla's Robert O'Callahan's response to John Gruber:http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/03/amor\_robustum.html [mozillazine.org]Really the only pragmatic choice is not to compromise on open web standards.
Every time it's happened historically, it's been a problem that wasn't worth having in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644896</id>
	<title>Re:Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>jht</author>
	<datestamp>1269708840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bingo - and this is also a huge reason why the cellphone-using masses flock to iPhones and not to all the more "open" devices out there in the market.</p><p>Users don't care if the garden is walled or not.  They don't care if their video is served with an ideologically pure codec, either.</p><p>All users want is a phone that works well with plenty of conveient apps and a polished user experience.  And they want their video to play in their browser of choice, and they want it to not make their computer's fans whine like crazy or suck down the battery meter on their handheld device.  The combination of hardware acceleration support for H.264 on virtually every platform and H.264 support built into the Webkit browser family along with support going into IE9 is the finisher.  Pure though Theora may be, this has become a Beta/VHS war and if Firefox doesn't add H.264 support it'll ultimately cost them market share.</p><p>The war is over.  Firefox needs to have H.264 support if they want to remain relevant.  If content providers decide they like Theora better, then you'll see the other browser makers add support for it but that's pretty unlikely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo - and this is also a huge reason why the cellphone-using masses flock to iPhones and not to all the more " open " devices out there in the market.Users do n't care if the garden is walled or not .
They do n't care if their video is served with an ideologically pure codec , either.All users want is a phone that works well with plenty of conveient apps and a polished user experience .
And they want their video to play in their browser of choice , and they want it to not make their computer 's fans whine like crazy or suck down the battery meter on their handheld device .
The combination of hardware acceleration support for H.264 on virtually every platform and H.264 support built into the Webkit browser family along with support going into IE9 is the finisher .
Pure though Theora may be , this has become a Beta/VHS war and if Firefox does n't add H.264 support it 'll ultimately cost them market share.The war is over .
Firefox needs to have H.264 support if they want to remain relevant .
If content providers decide they like Theora better , then you 'll see the other browser makers add support for it but that 's pretty unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo - and this is also a huge reason why the cellphone-using masses flock to iPhones and not to all the more "open" devices out there in the market.Users don't care if the garden is walled or not.
They don't care if their video is served with an ideologically pure codec, either.All users want is a phone that works well with plenty of conveient apps and a polished user experience.
And they want their video to play in their browser of choice, and they want it to not make their computer's fans whine like crazy or suck down the battery meter on their handheld device.
The combination of hardware acceleration support for H.264 on virtually every platform and H.264 support built into the Webkit browser family along with support going into IE9 is the finisher.
Pure though Theora may be, this has become a Beta/VHS war and if Firefox doesn't add H.264 support it'll ultimately cost them market share.The war is over.
Firefox needs to have H.264 support if they want to remain relevant.
If content providers decide they like Theora better, then you'll see the other browser makers add support for it but that's pretty unlikely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646816</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>ilguido</author>
	<datestamp>1269786780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> That way it'd be the same as the change from GIF to PNG all those years ago, where those who want to use GIF could, and those who needed / wanted the free option (which was also superior) could use it without killing support for the other.</p></div><p>IE didn't support transparent PNG files until IE7, 2006 (yes... 2006). I hope I have answered your question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That way it 'd be the same as the change from GIF to PNG all those years ago , where those who want to use GIF could , and those who needed / wanted the free option ( which was also superior ) could use it without killing support for the other.IE did n't support transparent PNG files until IE7 , 2006 ( yes... 2006 ) . I hope I have answered your question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That way it'd be the same as the change from GIF to PNG all those years ago, where those who want to use GIF could, and those who needed / wanted the free option (which was also superior) could use it without killing support for the other.IE didn't support transparent PNG files until IE7, 2006 (yes... 2006). I hope I have answered your question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842</id>
	<title>First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269696540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the lawsuit goes to...h.264!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the lawsuit goes to...h.264 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the lawsuit goes to...h.264!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31655146</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1269864720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like PNG, "Gif" should be all-caps; it's an acronym for "Graphics Interchange Format."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like PNG , " Gif " should be all-caps ; it 's an acronym for " Graphics Interchange Format .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like PNG, "Gif" should be all-caps; it's an acronym for "Graphics Interchange Format.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645926</id>
	<title>Re:Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1269767520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So before someone starts the whole "which codec is better" flamewar again: someone at xiph thinks theora is better, ars thinks h264 is better,</p></div></blockquote><p>Xiph claims Theora might be able to compete, and everyone else in the world says Theora is horrid, and is light-years behind H.264.  End of story.</p><blockquote><div><p>Sadly few have realized (despite it being the main focus of most of those articles, but hey, who reads those) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.</p></div></blockquote><p>Quality has been one of the top two central points from the very beginning, right behind patent concerns, and I fully believe the fight would have been much closer if Theora's quality was even close to competitive.  Honestly, at this point the fight has been decided, so none of it matters, but quality is as important as any other issue (if not, why not use good old MPEG-2?).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So before someone starts the whole " which codec is better " flamewar again : someone at xiph thinks theora is better , ars thinks h264 is better,Xiph claims Theora might be able to compete , and everyone else in the world says Theora is horrid , and is light-years behind H.264 .
End of story.Sadly few have realized ( despite it being the main focus of most of those articles , but hey , who reads those ) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.Quality has been one of the top two central points from the very beginning , right behind patent concerns , and I fully believe the fight would have been much closer if Theora 's quality was even close to competitive .
Honestly , at this point the fight has been decided , so none of it matters , but quality is as important as any other issue ( if not , why not use good old MPEG-2 ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So before someone starts the whole "which codec is better" flamewar again: someone at xiph thinks theora is better, ars thinks h264 is better,Xiph claims Theora might be able to compete, and everyone else in the world says Theora is horrid, and is light-years behind H.264.
End of story.Sadly few have realized (despite it being the main focus of most of those articles, but hey, who reads those) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.Quality has been one of the top two central points from the very beginning, right behind patent concerns, and I fully believe the fight would have been much closer if Theora's quality was even close to competitive.
Honestly, at this point the fight has been decided, so none of it matters, but quality is as important as any other issue (if not, why not use good old MPEG-2?
).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645112</id>
	<title>Re:Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269711180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I&rsquo;m one of those guys that encodes the videos you might download on eztv.it or piratebay. And I&rsquo;m sorry, but I tried Theora and really wanted to give it a chance. It just doesn&rsquo;t cut it. It&rsquo;s either bigger, or looks just bad in comparison. It can beat XviD. But only losers still use that. The files become just too big. Especially with HD.</p><p>But OK, we don&rsquo;t give a shit about any patents anyway. I give you that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I    m one of those guys that encodes the videos you might download on eztv.it or piratebay .
And I    m sorry , but I tried Theora and really wanted to give it a chance .
It just doesn    t cut it .
It    s either bigger , or looks just bad in comparison .
It can beat XviD .
But only losers still use that .
The files become just too big .
Especially with HD.But OK , we don    t give a shit about any patents anyway .
I give you that .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I’m one of those guys that encodes the videos you might download on eztv.it or piratebay.
And I’m sorry, but I tried Theora and really wanted to give it a chance.
It just doesn’t cut it.
It’s either bigger, or looks just bad in comparison.
It can beat XviD.
But only losers still use that.
The files become just too big.
Especially with HD.But OK, we don’t give a shit about any patents anyway.
I give you that.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644608</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1269705360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it has not won.</p><p>Youtube and others still use h.263 and there will be hell to pay if I have to pay $10.99 for Firefox for each time I install Ubuntu just so I can be a part of the world.</p><p>We need to stand together and oppose h.264 as it will not be free starting at the end of the year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it has not won.Youtube and others still use h.263 and there will be hell to pay if I have to pay $ 10.99 for Firefox for each time I install Ubuntu just so I can be a part of the world.We need to stand together and oppose h.264 as it will not be free starting at the end of the year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it has not won.Youtube and others still use h.263 and there will be hell to pay if I have to pay $10.99 for Firefox for each time I install Ubuntu just so I can be a part of the world.We need to stand together and oppose h.264 as it will not be free starting at the end of the year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644494</id>
	<title>Encoding vs. decoding</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1269703860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If early Mozilla branches simply removed GIF support, the browser would have been dead in the water. Nobody would use it, because the images people already have were in GIF format.</p></div><p>It wouldn't have been necessary. The LZW patent under GIF was believed to apply only to encoding, not decoding. The editors of the H.264 patents were far more careful in this respect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If early Mozilla branches simply removed GIF support , the browser would have been dead in the water .
Nobody would use it , because the images people already have were in GIF format.It would n't have been necessary .
The LZW patent under GIF was believed to apply only to encoding , not decoding .
The editors of the H.264 patents were far more careful in this respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If early Mozilla branches simply removed GIF support, the browser would have been dead in the water.
Nobody would use it, because the images people already have were in GIF format.It wouldn't have been necessary.
The LZW patent under GIF was believed to apply only to encoding, not decoding.
The editors of the H.264 patents were far more careful in this respect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644170</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269700080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ogg Theora is open and free, H.264 is not. End of discussion, period.</i></p><p>Ogg Theora is complete market failure that nobody actually uses for anything. End of discussion, period.</p><p>One thing you GNU hippies are too stupid to understand is that you cannot use standards to dictate your extremely unpopular software on end users. Until there is some sort of natural userbase for Theora, the format is going nowhere -- the internet will simply route around your brain damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg Theora is open and free , H.264 is not .
End of discussion , period.Ogg Theora is complete market failure that nobody actually uses for anything .
End of discussion , period.One thing you GNU hippies are too stupid to understand is that you can not use standards to dictate your extremely unpopular software on end users .
Until there is some sort of natural userbase for Theora , the format is going nowhere -- the internet will simply route around your brain damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg Theora is open and free, H.264 is not.
End of discussion, period.Ogg Theora is complete market failure that nobody actually uses for anything.
End of discussion, period.One thing you GNU hippies are too stupid to understand is that you cannot use standards to dictate your extremely unpopular software on end users.
Until there is some sort of natural userbase for Theora, the format is going nowhere -- the internet will simply route around your brain damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646556</id>
	<title>Re:these don't seem like strong arguments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269782340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're completely right.</p><p>Another point is that the MPEG LA has absolutely no incentive to "report" to Theora which patents they are infringing.  In fact they have a vested interest in not doing so - by forcing Theora to do the necessary patent research themselves they increase their costs.  Theora's strategy of "allowing" patent holders to report issues is naively unrealistic, for this reason.  It proves nothing.</p><p>Now, Theora's rhetoric may well be enough to convince a Linux desktop user that the codec doesn't have patent issues, but convincing (say) YouTube that they will never be sued by a 3rd-party for using Theora is a completely different ballgame.  MPEG-LA has a far, far better story on this front, and if the worst happens I suspect a judge would look more kindly on a company that has paid royalties in good faith to a licensing organization, versus one that has avoided paying royalties based on weak assurances from a developer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're completely right.Another point is that the MPEG LA has absolutely no incentive to " report " to Theora which patents they are infringing .
In fact they have a vested interest in not doing so - by forcing Theora to do the necessary patent research themselves they increase their costs .
Theora 's strategy of " allowing " patent holders to report issues is naively unrealistic , for this reason .
It proves nothing.Now , Theora 's rhetoric may well be enough to convince a Linux desktop user that the codec does n't have patent issues , but convincing ( say ) YouTube that they will never be sued by a 3rd-party for using Theora is a completely different ballgame .
MPEG-LA has a far , far better story on this front , and if the worst happens I suspect a judge would look more kindly on a company that has paid royalties in good faith to a licensing organization , versus one that has avoided paying royalties based on weak assurances from a developer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're completely right.Another point is that the MPEG LA has absolutely no incentive to "report" to Theora which patents they are infringing.
In fact they have a vested interest in not doing so - by forcing Theora to do the necessary patent research themselves they increase their costs.
Theora's strategy of "allowing" patent holders to report issues is naively unrealistic, for this reason.
It proves nothing.Now, Theora's rhetoric may well be enough to convince a Linux desktop user that the codec doesn't have patent issues, but convincing (say) YouTube that they will never be sued by a 3rd-party for using Theora is a completely different ballgame.
MPEG-LA has a far, far better story on this front, and if the worst happens I suspect a judge would look more kindly on a company that has paid royalties in good faith to a licensing organization, versus one that has avoided paying royalties based on weak assurances from a developer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645224</id>
	<title>Re:Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1269713160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...and this guy has a do it yourself kit in the form of a shell script.</p></div></blockquote><p>Aw, man!  And I was hoping he had written a codec as a shell script!  That would be freaking awesome.  (Of course, he'd also probably have to write a shell that precompiles shell scripts into native code, but....)</p><p>Ooh.  I know what I'm going to do today.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and this guy has a do it yourself kit in the form of a shell script.Aw , man !
And I was hoping he had written a codec as a shell script !
That would be freaking awesome .
( Of course , he 'd also probably have to write a shell that precompiles shell scripts into native code , but.... ) Ooh .
I know what I 'm going to do today .
: -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and this guy has a do it yourself kit in the form of a shell script.Aw, man!
And I was hoping he had written a codec as a shell script!
That would be freaking awesome.
(Of course, he'd also probably have to write a shell that precompiles shell scripts into native code, but....)Ooh.
I know what I'm going to do today.
:-D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644260</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269700980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... End this, make a stand, Ogg Vorbis or you don't get to play.  Period.</p></div><p>The problem is, I'm afraid you'll get your wish. The Mozilla Foundation is going whole-hog on Ogg (Theora, not Vorbis, whatever) and will die for its principles.</p><p>And it <i>will</i> die. Because Theora has already lost, at least for the foreseeable future. YouTube and Vimeo are already going with h.264. Other browsers are going with h.264. Firefox will be all alone on its moral high ground, and users (who care little for philosophy or religion in software) will desert it. Firefox simply does not have enough influence to carry the entire web along with it in this fight.</p><p>The Mozilla Foundation needs to find a way to live with a world of h.264 video. Maybe a separate library that's a an "optional" install, whatever, but come up with a plan. Otherwise, Firefox will become an irrelevant project, and the FOSS community will lose its most visible and influential citizen.</p><p>If Mozilla.org sacrifices Firefox on the altar of video codecs, it would do far more damage to the idea of a free and open Internet than the proliferation of h.264 will</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... End this , make a stand , Ogg Vorbis or you do n't get to play .
Period.The problem is , I 'm afraid you 'll get your wish .
The Mozilla Foundation is going whole-hog on Ogg ( Theora , not Vorbis , whatever ) and will die for its principles.And it will die .
Because Theora has already lost , at least for the foreseeable future .
YouTube and Vimeo are already going with h.264 .
Other browsers are going with h.264 .
Firefox will be all alone on its moral high ground , and users ( who care little for philosophy or religion in software ) will desert it .
Firefox simply does not have enough influence to carry the entire web along with it in this fight.The Mozilla Foundation needs to find a way to live with a world of h.264 video .
Maybe a separate library that 's a an " optional " install , whatever , but come up with a plan .
Otherwise , Firefox will become an irrelevant project , and the FOSS community will lose its most visible and influential citizen.If Mozilla.org sacrifices Firefox on the altar of video codecs , it would do far more damage to the idea of a free and open Internet than the proliferation of h.264 will</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... End this, make a stand, Ogg Vorbis or you don't get to play.
Period.The problem is, I'm afraid you'll get your wish.
The Mozilla Foundation is going whole-hog on Ogg (Theora, not Vorbis, whatever) and will die for its principles.And it will die.
Because Theora has already lost, at least for the foreseeable future.
YouTube and Vimeo are already going with h.264.
Other browsers are going with h.264.
Firefox will be all alone on its moral high ground, and users (who care little for philosophy or religion in software) will desert it.
Firefox simply does not have enough influence to carry the entire web along with it in this fight.The Mozilla Foundation needs to find a way to live with a world of h.264 video.
Maybe a separate library that's a an "optional" install, whatever, but come up with a plan.
Otherwise, Firefox will become an irrelevant project, and the FOSS community will lose its most visible and influential citizen.If Mozilla.org sacrifices Firefox on the altar of video codecs, it would do far more damage to the idea of a free and open Internet than the proliferation of h.264 will
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644214</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1269700500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla support for a <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=422540" title="mozilla.org">GStreamer backend</a> [mozilla.org] is being written. Doesn't that solve the issue of H.264 support?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla support for a GStreamer backend [ mozilla.org ] is being written .
Does n't that solve the issue of H.264 support ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla support for a GStreamer backend [mozilla.org] is being written.
Doesn't that solve the issue of H.264 support?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31651740</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269781200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern consumer electronics devices have one video codec burned into hardware, and that is MPEG-4 H.264.</p><p>Ever try loading one into Microsoft Movie Maker on Windows XP?</p><p>The most popular movie editor on the most popular operating system on the planet does not understand it. Even on a machine with Windows Media Player that can play it.</p><p>Is that a licensing issue? Does it have to be licensed for each app that uses it? Crazy! Does it have to be licensed for each core of each processor for each app? Or for each I/O port?</p><p>How about something with a free license?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern consumer electronics devices have one video codec burned into hardware , and that is MPEG-4 H.264.Ever try loading one into Microsoft Movie Maker on Windows XP ? The most popular movie editor on the most popular operating system on the planet does not understand it .
Even on a machine with Windows Media Player that can play it.Is that a licensing issue ?
Does it have to be licensed for each app that uses it ?
Crazy ! Does it have to be licensed for each core of each processor for each app ?
Or for each I/O port ? How about something with a free license ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern consumer electronics devices have one video codec burned into hardware, and that is MPEG-4 H.264.Ever try loading one into Microsoft Movie Maker on Windows XP?The most popular movie editor on the most popular operating system on the planet does not understand it.
Even on a machine with Windows Media Player that can play it.Is that a licensing issue?
Does it have to be licensed for each app that uses it?
Crazy! Does it have to be licensed for each core of each processor for each app?
Or for each I/O port?How about something with a free license?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644204</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269700440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But in this case, the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make.</p></div><p>Will the aliens (or Apple personnel) who have kidnapped please return him unharmed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But in this case , the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make.Will the aliens ( or Apple personnel ) who have kidnapped please return him unharmed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in this case, the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make.Will the aliens (or Apple personnel) who have kidnapped please return him unharmed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646402</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269778740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you imagine that Mozilla was saying "we can't support UTF-8" that is the same as them not supporting H.264. The UTF-8 text is already out there, and there's no other technology to replace it, and that is the same with H.264 video. A Web browser that can't play YouTube is not a Web browser.</p></div><p>YouTube isn't played in the web browser today. It's played in a Flash applet. Flash is not "the web" and it never can be. It's a closed system that takes a free ride on the open protocols and open formats of the internet. And that's the core of the entire issue, isn't it. Without open, royalty-free video, video will <b>never</b> be played within the browser. It will be constrained to closed frameworks and closed libraries which you can't use without paying a toll (even if the <i>implementations</i> of those libraries are open source, you can't use them without paying that toll). That's a problem. That's not the web.</p><p>But you don't want the web. You're proposing a closed system control by a very concentrated collection of corporate interests for the sake of what you view as pragmatism. That isn't pragmatic and it's a very short sighted perspective. It just builds a network that limits competition and entry to new developers for new platforms because to get anywhere they have to overcome the price barriers you want to erect.</p><p>I don't want an Internet that's a patchwork of fiefdoms. I want a open, competitive network and open formats are the best way to build it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you imagine that Mozilla was saying " we ca n't support UTF-8 " that is the same as them not supporting H.264 .
The UTF-8 text is already out there , and there 's no other technology to replace it , and that is the same with H.264 video .
A Web browser that ca n't play YouTube is not a Web browser.YouTube is n't played in the web browser today .
It 's played in a Flash applet .
Flash is not " the web " and it never can be .
It 's a closed system that takes a free ride on the open protocols and open formats of the internet .
And that 's the core of the entire issue , is n't it .
Without open , royalty-free video , video will never be played within the browser .
It will be constrained to closed frameworks and closed libraries which you ca n't use without paying a toll ( even if the implementations of those libraries are open source , you ca n't use them without paying that toll ) .
That 's a problem .
That 's not the web.But you do n't want the web .
You 're proposing a closed system control by a very concentrated collection of corporate interests for the sake of what you view as pragmatism .
That is n't pragmatic and it 's a very short sighted perspective .
It just builds a network that limits competition and entry to new developers for new platforms because to get anywhere they have to overcome the price barriers you want to erect.I do n't want an Internet that 's a patchwork of fiefdoms .
I want a open , competitive network and open formats are the best way to build it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you imagine that Mozilla was saying "we can't support UTF-8" that is the same as them not supporting H.264.
The UTF-8 text is already out there, and there's no other technology to replace it, and that is the same with H.264 video.
A Web browser that can't play YouTube is not a Web browser.YouTube isn't played in the web browser today.
It's played in a Flash applet.
Flash is not "the web" and it never can be.
It's a closed system that takes a free ride on the open protocols and open formats of the internet.
And that's the core of the entire issue, isn't it.
Without open, royalty-free video, video will never be played within the browser.
It will be constrained to closed frameworks and closed libraries which you can't use without paying a toll (even if the implementations of those libraries are open source, you can't use them without paying that toll).
That's a problem.
That's not the web.But you don't want the web.
You're proposing a closed system control by a very concentrated collection of corporate interests for the sake of what you view as pragmatism.
That isn't pragmatic and it's a very short sighted perspective.
It just builds a network that limits competition and entry to new developers for new platforms because to get anywhere they have to overcome the price barriers you want to erect.I don't want an Internet that's a patchwork of fiefdoms.
I want a open, competitive network and open formats are the best way to build it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644368</id>
	<title>Re:When h.264 isn't h.264.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269702240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>full h.264 is so gobsmackingly processor intensive that even a high end multi-core desktop with hardware assist can have a decently hard time of keeping up with it</p></div><p>Not true... recent AMD and nvidia cards do full decoding of h264. In fact, my friend's 1.6 GHz Atom system, with the nvidia ion chipset, has no trouble playing 1080p h264, with only about 9\% CPU usage. With my own GTX260 card, I can play 1080p with 0-1\% CPU usage. I have a large collection of videos from widely varying sources, and I've yet to come across any yet that don't play just fine using a player that supports my 260's hardware acceleration.</p><p>So while h264 certainly IS very CPU-intensive, you're just dead wrong when it comes to hardware-assist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>full h.264 is so gobsmackingly processor intensive that even a high end multi-core desktop with hardware assist can have a decently hard time of keeping up with itNot true... recent AMD and nvidia cards do full decoding of h264 .
In fact , my friend 's 1.6 GHz Atom system , with the nvidia ion chipset , has no trouble playing 1080p h264 , with only about 9 \ % CPU usage .
With my own GTX260 card , I can play 1080p with 0-1 \ % CPU usage .
I have a large collection of videos from widely varying sources , and I 've yet to come across any yet that do n't play just fine using a player that supports my 260 's hardware acceleration.So while h264 certainly IS very CPU-intensive , you 're just dead wrong when it comes to hardware-assist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>full h.264 is so gobsmackingly processor intensive that even a high end multi-core desktop with hardware assist can have a decently hard time of keeping up with itNot true... recent AMD and nvidia cards do full decoding of h264.
In fact, my friend's 1.6 GHz Atom system, with the nvidia ion chipset, has no trouble playing 1080p h264, with only about 9\% CPU usage.
With my own GTX260 card, I can play 1080p with 0-1\% CPU usage.
I have a large collection of videos from widely varying sources, and I've yet to come across any yet that don't play just fine using a player that supports my 260's hardware acceleration.So while h264 certainly IS very CPU-intensive, you're just dead wrong when it comes to hardware-assist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646448</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269779820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you imagine that Mozilla was saying "we can't support UTF-8" that is the same as them not supporting H.264."<br>No it's not. This is not a technical problem. It's a licensing problem and some web-browsers just can't support H.264 in it's current state. Regardless of how many times people repeat the mantra about H.264 it doesn't make any different until the licensing issues go away. If you don't have a free software browser and the money / incentive dries up to keep pushing HTML forward ( like it did with IE 6) then you end up in exactly the situation we are now moving away from it.</p><p>Theora can be made better, theora can be added to hardware and H.264 can theoretically be licensed in a compatible manner. The problem is that only the first two options seem to have anyone working on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you imagine that Mozilla was saying " we ca n't support UTF-8 " that is the same as them not supporting H.264 .
" No it 's not .
This is not a technical problem .
It 's a licensing problem and some web-browsers just ca n't support H.264 in it 's current state .
Regardless of how many times people repeat the mantra about H.264 it does n't make any different until the licensing issues go away .
If you do n't have a free software browser and the money / incentive dries up to keep pushing HTML forward ( like it did with IE 6 ) then you end up in exactly the situation we are now moving away from it.Theora can be made better , theora can be added to hardware and H.264 can theoretically be licensed in a compatible manner .
The problem is that only the first two options seem to have anyone working on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you imagine that Mozilla was saying "we can't support UTF-8" that is the same as them not supporting H.264.
"No it's not.
This is not a technical problem.
It's a licensing problem and some web-browsers just can't support H.264 in it's current state.
Regardless of how many times people repeat the mantra about H.264 it doesn't make any different until the licensing issues go away.
If you don't have a free software browser and the money / incentive dries up to keep pushing HTML forward ( like it did with IE 6) then you end up in exactly the situation we are now moving away from it.Theora can be made better, theora can be added to hardware and H.264 can theoretically be licensed in a compatible manner.
The problem is that only the first two options seem to have anyone working on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645798</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269808560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for how to actually implement it, Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign "non-free" repositories. The details on how you do that are highly flexible. Mozilla seems to like over-engineering things, so I'm sure they can come up with a Clever Codec Plugin Scheme to automate this, as long as the actual codec is 1) a separate project, and 2) developed outside the org.</p></div><p>There is a patch that enables loading of video codecs via GStreamer for Firefox, the same way Opera (10.50+) does it. This is a solution in a sense that browser can ship with a legal Theora implementation out of the box, but users (and, more importantly, distros) can plug in other "unfree" codecs if they like them, or if they cannot avoid them.</p><p>So what's the problem with the patch? They don't want it in the mainline tree. Apparently, giving users a choice on what codec they'd like to use (even if it's tilted towards Theora, which is supplied out of the box) is not in accordance with Mozilla's stance on "unfree" codecs. They've got too big of an axe to grind, and they don't want to give up on that, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for how to actually implement it , Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign " non-free " repositories .
The details on how you do that are highly flexible .
Mozilla seems to like over-engineering things , so I 'm sure they can come up with a Clever Codec Plugin Scheme to automate this , as long as the actual codec is 1 ) a separate project , and 2 ) developed outside the org.There is a patch that enables loading of video codecs via GStreamer for Firefox , the same way Opera ( 10.50 + ) does it .
This is a solution in a sense that browser can ship with a legal Theora implementation out of the box , but users ( and , more importantly , distros ) can plug in other " unfree " codecs if they like them , or if they can not avoid them.So what 's the problem with the patch ?
They do n't want it in the mainline tree .
Apparently , giving users a choice on what codec they 'd like to use ( even if it 's tilted towards Theora , which is supplied out of the box ) is not in accordance with Mozilla 's stance on " unfree " codecs .
They 've got too big of an axe to grind , and they do n't want to give up on that , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for how to actually implement it, Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign "non-free" repositories.
The details on how you do that are highly flexible.
Mozilla seems to like over-engineering things, so I'm sure they can come up with a Clever Codec Plugin Scheme to automate this, as long as the actual codec is 1) a separate project, and 2) developed outside the org.There is a patch that enables loading of video codecs via GStreamer for Firefox, the same way Opera (10.50+) does it.
This is a solution in a sense that browser can ship with a legal Theora implementation out of the box, but users (and, more importantly, distros) can plug in other "unfree" codecs if they like them, or if they cannot avoid them.So what's the problem with the patch?
They don't want it in the mainline tree.
Apparently, giving users a choice on what codec they'd like to use (even if it's tilted towards Theora, which is supplied out of the box) is not in accordance with Mozilla's stance on "unfree" codecs.
They've got too big of an axe to grind, and they don't want to give up on that, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644390</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269702660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what so many have failed to see: for Theora to gain any traction it has to be BETTER than H.264.  Right now it's not.  H.264 is technically superior and the licensing terms aren't outrageous.  It's been a couple years, but the cap was about $3M per year.  The mozilla foundation had revenues last year of $70M.  I'm not sure where they spend all their money, but this may be case where they're going to put up or shut up.</p><p>People only care that their browser if free (in as beer) and works with all the popular sites.  The moment that FireFox no longer works for Youtube, the average users will rapidly replace it with Chrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what so many have failed to see : for Theora to gain any traction it has to be BETTER than H.264 .
Right now it 's not .
H.264 is technically superior and the licensing terms are n't outrageous .
It 's been a couple years , but the cap was about $ 3M per year .
The mozilla foundation had revenues last year of $ 70M .
I 'm not sure where they spend all their money , but this may be case where they 're going to put up or shut up.People only care that their browser if free ( in as beer ) and works with all the popular sites .
The moment that FireFox no longer works for Youtube , the average users will rapidly replace it with Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what so many have failed to see: for Theora to gain any traction it has to be BETTER than H.264.
Right now it's not.
H.264 is technically superior and the licensing terms aren't outrageous.
It's been a couple years, but the cap was about $3M per year.
The mozilla foundation had revenues last year of $70M.
I'm not sure where they spend all their money, but this may be case where they're going to put up or shut up.People only care that their browser if free (in as beer) and works with all the popular sites.
The moment that FireFox no longer works for Youtube, the average users will rapidly replace it with Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644562</id>
	<title>Compression? Who needs it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269704760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soon lossy compression will be irrelevant.</p><p>I demand full resolution video without lossy compression. Screw the compressors.</p><p>Bandwidth and storage capacity will soon make lossy irrelevant even at HD * N scales.</p><p>I want the FULL resolution that the cameras recorded.</p><p>If you don't then enjoy your pixalated movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soon lossy compression will be irrelevant.I demand full resolution video without lossy compression .
Screw the compressors.Bandwidth and storage capacity will soon make lossy irrelevant even at HD * N scales.I want the FULL resolution that the cameras recorded.If you do n't then enjoy your pixalated movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soon lossy compression will be irrelevant.I demand full resolution video without lossy compression.
Screw the compressors.Bandwidth and storage capacity will soon make lossy irrelevant even at HD * N scales.I want the FULL resolution that the cameras recorded.If you don't then enjoy your pixalated movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645134</id>
	<title>Re:Compression? Who needs it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269711660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and BMP will become the de-facto image standard of the web any day now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and BMP will become the de-facto image standard of the web any day now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and BMP will become the de-facto image standard of the web any day now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644124</id>
	<title>When h.264 isn't h.264.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269699600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Today, people have data in H.264 format. A lot of data. "</p><p>And a lot of it totally useless.   You see-- full h.264 is so gobsmackingly processor intensive that even a high end multi-core desktop with hardware assist can have a decently hard time of keeping up with it.   More importantly some of the features in h.264 are incredibly hostile to fast hardware implementation: For example, the arithmetic coder is purely serial and can't be made to operate in parallel, so the only way to make it fast is to run it at a high clock speed and high clock speed means high power.</p><p>Because of this many "h.264" devices, like the iphone,  only support an exceptionally watered down profile called baseline.  Most of the technical features h264 has over theora are gone in baseline, b-frames and multiple references, the arithmetic coder, adaptive quantization, 8x8 transform, etc.</p><p>So when you have a "h.264" file you really have no clue when it will play... and if its a "well encoded" file it probably will not play in many places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Today , people have data in H.264 format .
A lot of data .
" And a lot of it totally useless .
You see-- full h.264 is so gobsmackingly processor intensive that even a high end multi-core desktop with hardware assist can have a decently hard time of keeping up with it .
More importantly some of the features in h.264 are incredibly hostile to fast hardware implementation : For example , the arithmetic coder is purely serial and ca n't be made to operate in parallel , so the only way to make it fast is to run it at a high clock speed and high clock speed means high power.Because of this many " h.264 " devices , like the iphone , only support an exceptionally watered down profile called baseline .
Most of the technical features h264 has over theora are gone in baseline , b-frames and multiple references , the arithmetic coder , adaptive quantization , 8x8 transform , etc.So when you have a " h.264 " file you really have no clue when it will play... and if its a " well encoded " file it probably will not play in many places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Today, people have data in H.264 format.
A lot of data.
"And a lot of it totally useless.
You see-- full h.264 is so gobsmackingly processor intensive that even a high end multi-core desktop with hardware assist can have a decently hard time of keeping up with it.
More importantly some of the features in h.264 are incredibly hostile to fast hardware implementation: For example, the arithmetic coder is purely serial and can't be made to operate in parallel, so the only way to make it fast is to run it at a high clock speed and high clock speed means high power.Because of this many "h.264" devices, like the iphone,  only support an exceptionally watered down profile called baseline.
Most of the technical features h264 has over theora are gone in baseline, b-frames and multiple references, the arithmetic coder, adaptive quantization, 8x8 transform, etc.So when you have a "h.264" file you really have no clue when it will play... and if its a "well encoded" file it probably will not play in many places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644516</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1269704220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like PNG vs Gif, why do we have to pick one or the other?</p></div><p>Because it's impossible to create a free software distribution containing a browser that plays both H.264 and Theora and distribute copies in Slashdot's home country.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>every other format the hardware support has become largely irrelevant as processors have gotten faster.</p></div><p>Consider this: MPEG-2 is still relevant because all the advances in DVD players' processors have gone into upscaling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like PNG vs Gif , why do we have to pick one or the other ? Because it 's impossible to create a free software distribution containing a browser that plays both H.264 and Theora and distribute copies in Slashdot 's home country.every other format the hardware support has become largely irrelevant as processors have gotten faster.Consider this : MPEG-2 is still relevant because all the advances in DVD players ' processors have gone into upscaling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like PNG vs Gif, why do we have to pick one or the other?Because it's impossible to create a free software distribution containing a browser that plays both H.264 and Theora and distribute copies in Slashdot's home country.every other format the hardware support has become largely irrelevant as processors have gotten faster.Consider this: MPEG-2 is still relevant because all the advances in DVD players' processors have gone into upscaling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</id>
	<title>It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Endymion</author>
	<datestamp>1269697920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love Free Software. I really do. I normally piss-off people with my fairly hard-line GNU/RMS attitude towards software. In most cases, I will drop features so I can run the Free version of something, and all of my code is GPL3.</p><p>But in this case, the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make. H.264 has won, and it won years ago. Now, an argument can be made that making a stand is important. But in this case, there is a pragmatic and strategic reason not to: taking a moral stand with Theora will damage <i>other</i> things, namely HTML5 and potentially Firefox itself.</p><p>PNG won out in the end over GIF, mostly, because it had better features. But what enabled that win was that they could both be used <i>at the same time</i>. If early Mozilla branches simply <i>removed</i> GIF support, the browser would have been dead in the water. Nobody would use it, because the images people already have were in GIF format. Only because both formats were supported could Mozilla be even <i>considered</i> by most people.</p><p>Today, people have data in H.264 format. A lot of data. A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly. This data is not going to vanish, and people will want to play it. Firefox can choose to support that, or they can choose to become less relevant over time. Chrome <i>is</i> getting surprisingly strong uptake, and IE (ack) is getting much less offensive as time goes on. (aside: this competition is pretty awesome - browsers were starting to stagnate for a few years, and the rush for new features has been revived)</p><p>Playing people's data and being compatible with most modern and future hardware is the <i>pragmatic</i> reason to support H.264; the <i>strategic</i> reason is that the moral stand is not about video codecs! It's about removing <i>Flash</i> and related proprietary solutions. Playing the SAME video stream (a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp4 in H.264 format) in flash or the &lt;video&gt; tag is neutral as far as codecs go, but it opens up the idea of a Free player.</p><p>The battle over codes needs to be left for another day.</p><p>As for how to actually implement it, Mozilla <i>et al</i> needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign "non-free" repositories. The details on how you do that are highly flexible. Mozilla seems to like over-engineering things, so I'm sure they can come up with a Clever Codec Plugin Scheme to automate this, as long as the actual codec is 1) a separate project, and 2) developed outside the org.</p><p>Please - I love firefox, and this video issue is the <i>one</i> issue that could break them in the long-run. People like their YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love Free Software .
I really do .
I normally piss-off people with my fairly hard-line GNU/RMS attitude towards software .
In most cases , I will drop features so I can run the Free version of something , and all of my code is GPL3.But in this case , the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make .
H.264 has won , and it won years ago .
Now , an argument can be made that making a stand is important .
But in this case , there is a pragmatic and strategic reason not to : taking a moral stand with Theora will damage other things , namely HTML5 and potentially Firefox itself.PNG won out in the end over GIF , mostly , because it had better features .
But what enabled that win was that they could both be used at the same time .
If early Mozilla branches simply removed GIF support , the browser would have been dead in the water .
Nobody would use it , because the images people already have were in GIF format .
Only because both formats were supported could Mozilla be even considered by most people.Today , people have data in H.264 format .
A lot of data .
A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly .
This data is not going to vanish , and people will want to play it .
Firefox can choose to support that , or they can choose to become less relevant over time .
Chrome is getting surprisingly strong uptake , and IE ( ack ) is getting much less offensive as time goes on .
( aside : this competition is pretty awesome - browsers were starting to stagnate for a few years , and the rush for new features has been revived ) Playing people 's data and being compatible with most modern and future hardware is the pragmatic reason to support H.264 ; the strategic reason is that the moral stand is not about video codecs !
It 's about removing Flash and related proprietary solutions .
Playing the SAME video stream ( a .mp4 in H.264 format ) in flash or the tag is neutral as far as codecs go , but it opens up the idea of a Free player.The battle over codes needs to be left for another day.As for how to actually implement it , Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign " non-free " repositories .
The details on how you do that are highly flexible .
Mozilla seems to like over-engineering things , so I 'm sure they can come up with a Clever Codec Plugin Scheme to automate this , as long as the actual codec is 1 ) a separate project , and 2 ) developed outside the org.Please - I love firefox , and this video issue is the one issue that could break them in the long-run .
People like their YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love Free Software.
I really do.
I normally piss-off people with my fairly hard-line GNU/RMS attitude towards software.
In most cases, I will drop features so I can run the Free version of something, and all of my code is GPL3.But in this case, the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make.
H.264 has won, and it won years ago.
Now, an argument can be made that making a stand is important.
But in this case, there is a pragmatic and strategic reason not to: taking a moral stand with Theora will damage other things, namely HTML5 and potentially Firefox itself.PNG won out in the end over GIF, mostly, because it had better features.
But what enabled that win was that they could both be used at the same time.
If early Mozilla branches simply removed GIF support, the browser would have been dead in the water.
Nobody would use it, because the images people already have were in GIF format.
Only because both formats were supported could Mozilla be even considered by most people.Today, people have data in H.264 format.
A lot of data.
A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly.
This data is not going to vanish, and people will want to play it.
Firefox can choose to support that, or they can choose to become less relevant over time.
Chrome is getting surprisingly strong uptake, and IE (ack) is getting much less offensive as time goes on.
(aside: this competition is pretty awesome - browsers were starting to stagnate for a few years, and the rush for new features has been revived)Playing people's data and being compatible with most modern and future hardware is the pragmatic reason to support H.264; the strategic reason is that the moral stand is not about video codecs!
It's about removing Flash and related proprietary solutions.
Playing the SAME video stream (a .mp4 in H.264 format) in flash or the  tag is neutral as far as codecs go, but it opens up the idea of a Free player.The battle over codes needs to be left for another day.As for how to actually implement it, Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign "non-free" repositories.
The details on how you do that are highly flexible.
Mozilla seems to like over-engineering things, so I'm sure they can come up with a Clever Codec Plugin Scheme to automate this, as long as the actual codec is 1) a separate project, and 2) developed outside the org.Please - I love firefox, and this video issue is the one issue that could break them in the long-run.
People like their YouTube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31653896</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1269804240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The battle over codes needs to be left for another day</p></div> </blockquote><p>I totally agree.  There are two battles to be won here in order to win the war. The first battle (flash<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.vs. HTML5) has to be fought and won first to get rid of flash.  This sets the stage for the next fight.  The second (Theora<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.vs. H.264) can only be fought if enough browsers in circulation at the time have built in support for Theora <b>as well as</b> H.264.</p><p>If Mozilla refuse to support H.264 then one of two things will happen:</p><p>1)  In order to support the Firefox customer base, content providers will stick to using H.264 based Flash video.  The HTML5 video tag doesn't get used much and Theora doesn't even get a sniff.</p><p>2)  Content providers don't give a fig about supporting Firefox and move with the times to HTML5 video.   Windows users who've switched from IE to Firefox will look elsewhere when they discover they can't view the content they want and the Firefox customer base will shrink.  Some of those will go to Chrome, but IE9 looks like it could be a strong contender and is likely to grab some back.   The number of Theora capable browsers in circulation will go down and Theora won't stand a chance.</p><p>The best solution is for Mozilla to support H.264 at this time and strive for a situation where Firefox + Chrome + Opera market share is sufficient that using Theora becomes a viable option for content providers.  If Mozilla don't do this Theora is sunk.</p><blockquote><div><p> as long as the actual codec is 1) a separate project, and 2) developed outside the org</p></div> </blockquote><p>Or they could just buy a license.  It's not like they don't have the money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The battle over codes needs to be left for another day I totally agree .
There are two battles to be won here in order to win the war .
The first battle ( flash .vs .
HTML5 ) has to be fought and won first to get rid of flash .
This sets the stage for the next fight .
The second ( Theora .vs .
H.264 ) can only be fought if enough browsers in circulation at the time have built in support for Theora as well as H.264.If Mozilla refuse to support H.264 then one of two things will happen : 1 ) In order to support the Firefox customer base , content providers will stick to using H.264 based Flash video .
The HTML5 video tag does n't get used much and Theora does n't even get a sniff.2 ) Content providers do n't give a fig about supporting Firefox and move with the times to HTML5 video .
Windows users who 've switched from IE to Firefox will look elsewhere when they discover they ca n't view the content they want and the Firefox customer base will shrink .
Some of those will go to Chrome , but IE9 looks like it could be a strong contender and is likely to grab some back .
The number of Theora capable browsers in circulation will go down and Theora wo n't stand a chance.The best solution is for Mozilla to support H.264 at this time and strive for a situation where Firefox + Chrome + Opera market share is sufficient that using Theora becomes a viable option for content providers .
If Mozilla do n't do this Theora is sunk .
as long as the actual codec is 1 ) a separate project , and 2 ) developed outside the org Or they could just buy a license .
It 's not like they do n't have the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The battle over codes needs to be left for another day I totally agree.
There are two battles to be won here in order to win the war.
The first battle (flash .vs.
HTML5) has to be fought and won first to get rid of flash.
This sets the stage for the next fight.
The second (Theora .vs.
H.264) can only be fought if enough browsers in circulation at the time have built in support for Theora as well as H.264.If Mozilla refuse to support H.264 then one of two things will happen:1)  In order to support the Firefox customer base, content providers will stick to using H.264 based Flash video.
The HTML5 video tag doesn't get used much and Theora doesn't even get a sniff.2)  Content providers don't give a fig about supporting Firefox and move with the times to HTML5 video.
Windows users who've switched from IE to Firefox will look elsewhere when they discover they can't view the content they want and the Firefox customer base will shrink.
Some of those will go to Chrome, but IE9 looks like it could be a strong contender and is likely to grab some back.
The number of Theora capable browsers in circulation will go down and Theora won't stand a chance.The best solution is for Mozilla to support H.264 at this time and strive for a situation where Firefox + Chrome + Opera market share is sufficient that using Theora becomes a viable option for content providers.
If Mozilla don't do this Theora is sunk.
as long as the actual codec is 1) a separate project, and 2) developed outside the org Or they could just buy a license.
It's not like they don't have the money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644722</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269706920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you love free software at all. You keep droning on the same fatalistic "H.264 is already more popular, the battle is already lost, so the entire computing world should just bend over and take it in the ass, with all the disadvantages that brings" argument.</p><p>Trying to skirt around the issue by letting the end-users violate the patent on their own is an excellent way of turning open source into just the kind of patent bomb that proprietary vendors love to pretend it is to dissuade their customers from choosing it.</p><p>In the long term, the only way to stop this racketeering is a better patent system. Shorter term, there are things people can do to take responsibility;<br>- Distribute your videos in an open format. There's lots of content yet to be made, a small head start means little.<br>- Make more devices support open formats. Write codecs for platforms that lack them.<br>- Improve the open formats. There's open source encoders, and there's still years of work to be done on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you love free software at all .
You keep droning on the same fatalistic " H.264 is already more popular , the battle is already lost , so the entire computing world should just bend over and take it in the ass , with all the disadvantages that brings " argument.Trying to skirt around the issue by letting the end-users violate the patent on their own is an excellent way of turning open source into just the kind of patent bomb that proprietary vendors love to pretend it is to dissuade their customers from choosing it.In the long term , the only way to stop this racketeering is a better patent system .
Shorter term , there are things people can do to take responsibility ; - Distribute your videos in an open format .
There 's lots of content yet to be made , a small head start means little.- Make more devices support open formats .
Write codecs for platforms that lack them.- Improve the open formats .
There 's open source encoders , and there 's still years of work to be done on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you love free software at all.
You keep droning on the same fatalistic "H.264 is already more popular, the battle is already lost, so the entire computing world should just bend over and take it in the ass, with all the disadvantages that brings" argument.Trying to skirt around the issue by letting the end-users violate the patent on their own is an excellent way of turning open source into just the kind of patent bomb that proprietary vendors love to pretend it is to dissuade their customers from choosing it.In the long term, the only way to stop this racketeering is a better patent system.
Shorter term, there are things people can do to take responsibility;- Distribute your videos in an open format.
There's lots of content yet to be made, a small head start means little.- Make more devices support open formats.
Write codecs for platforms that lack them.- Improve the open formats.
There's open source encoders, and there's still years of work to be done on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645568</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Paul Jakma</author>
	<datestamp>1269718140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 to this.</p><p>HTML5 even with H.264, is much much better than the situation today where Flash is used to deliver video. Essentially there are *2* independent dimensions to this battle:</p><p>A) The codec<br>B) The delivery technology</p><p>With Flash, you've got unfree, proprietary technology for both dimensions. With HTML5 you fix at least one of these dimensions, regardless of the codec.</p><p>These are mostly separate battles and it's a huge, *huge*, **huge** mistake for any free software and/or open web advocates to delay or hinder HTML5 implementation because of the codecs. And that includes nobbling your HTML5 implementation by not making it easy to support H.264 (e.g. not using an underlying video playing system that at least supports codec plugins). All this does is perpetuate Flash, and hence further entrench H.264 - which is often used as the codec for flash-delivered video.</p><p>Get HTML5 out now, and make sure it can avail of as many, if not all, of the video codecs your users' systems support. Any delay on principles relating to codecs is a massive own goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 to this.HTML5 even with H.264 , is much much better than the situation today where Flash is used to deliver video .
Essentially there are * 2 * independent dimensions to this battle : A ) The codecB ) The delivery technologyWith Flash , you 've got unfree , proprietary technology for both dimensions .
With HTML5 you fix at least one of these dimensions , regardless of the codec.These are mostly separate battles and it 's a huge , * huge * , * * huge * * mistake for any free software and/or open web advocates to delay or hinder HTML5 implementation because of the codecs .
And that includes nobbling your HTML5 implementation by not making it easy to support H.264 ( e.g .
not using an underlying video playing system that at least supports codec plugins ) .
All this does is perpetuate Flash , and hence further entrench H.264 - which is often used as the codec for flash-delivered video.Get HTML5 out now , and make sure it can avail of as many , if not all , of the video codecs your users ' systems support .
Any delay on principles relating to codecs is a massive own goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 to this.HTML5 even with H.264, is much much better than the situation today where Flash is used to deliver video.
Essentially there are *2* independent dimensions to this battle:A) The codecB) The delivery technologyWith Flash, you've got unfree, proprietary technology for both dimensions.
With HTML5 you fix at least one of these dimensions, regardless of the codec.These are mostly separate battles and it's a huge, *huge*, **huge** mistake for any free software and/or open web advocates to delay or hinder HTML5 implementation because of the codecs.
And that includes nobbling your HTML5 implementation by not making it easy to support H.264 (e.g.
not using an underlying video playing system that at least supports codec plugins).
All this does is perpetuate Flash, and hence further entrench H.264 - which is often used as the codec for flash-delivered video.Get HTML5 out now, and make sure it can avail of as many, if not all, of the video codecs your users' systems support.
Any delay on principles relating to codecs is a massive own goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644650</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1269705960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two reasons. Unisys did not ask non-commercial and non-profit applications to pay GIF (actually LZW) patent royalties. Also, a free software library, libungif, was available for decompression which did not infringe in the patents. A browser only needs to decompress the files. Either reason made Mozilla non-liable for patent royalties. This is not the case with H.264. Best they could do would be to support some generic plugin format or system codec facility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two reasons .
Unisys did not ask non-commercial and non-profit applications to pay GIF ( actually LZW ) patent royalties .
Also , a free software library , libungif , was available for decompression which did not infringe in the patents .
A browser only needs to decompress the files .
Either reason made Mozilla non-liable for patent royalties .
This is not the case with H.264 .
Best they could do would be to support some generic plugin format or system codec facility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two reasons.
Unisys did not ask non-commercial and non-profit applications to pay GIF (actually LZW) patent royalties.
Also, a free software library, libungif, was available for decompression which did not infringe in the patents.
A browser only needs to decompress the files.
Either reason made Mozilla non-liable for patent royalties.
This is not the case with H.264.
Best they could do would be to support some generic plugin format or system codec facility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31647058</id>
	<title>Newsflash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269789720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the only site on the Internet that still believes there is a debate here. H.264 has won, and Theora has lost. If your software's licensing scheme doesn't allow you to play H.264 video, it sounds like you have a choice to make:</p><p>a) continue running said software (and lack video features), or<br>b) use different software.</p><p>If Internet video is as important to you as you seem to imply it is, I think you'll choose (b) above. Otherwise... have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the only site on the Internet that still believes there is a debate here .
H.264 has won , and Theora has lost .
If your software 's licensing scheme does n't allow you to play H.264 video , it sounds like you have a choice to make : a ) continue running said software ( and lack video features ) , orb ) use different software.If Internet video is as important to you as you seem to imply it is , I think you 'll choose ( b ) above .
Otherwise... have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the only site on the Internet that still believes there is a debate here.
H.264 has won, and Theora has lost.
If your software's licensing scheme doesn't allow you to play H.264 video, it sounds like you have a choice to make:a) continue running said software (and lack video features), orb) use different software.If Internet video is as important to you as you seem to imply it is, I think you'll choose (b) above.
Otherwise... have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644712</id>
	<title>Good post ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269706860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the VHS vs. BetaMAX format war, quality has NOTHING to do with it.  It has to do with how a technology is adopted in the marketplace.  Whether you like it or not, 'superior' technologies die in the marketplace all the time (sticking with a media theme: record players, reel-to-reel tape decks, 8-tracks, etc.), or are supplanted by newer, superior technologies.  Crying over it after it's happened is just pissing in the wind.</p><p>Theora may be a really good codec for video, but it's not the end-all-be-all of video codecs, and neither is H.264 (MPEG-4). In a few years there will be a newer, more superior codec that will be introduced that will supplant BOTH of them and the pissing will begin all over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the VHS vs. BetaMAX format war , quality has NOTHING to do with it .
It has to do with how a technology is adopted in the marketplace .
Whether you like it or not , 'superior ' technologies die in the marketplace all the time ( sticking with a media theme : record players , reel-to-reel tape decks , 8-tracks , etc .
) , or are supplanted by newer , superior technologies .
Crying over it after it 's happened is just pissing in the wind.Theora may be a really good codec for video , but it 's not the end-all-be-all of video codecs , and neither is H.264 ( MPEG-4 ) .
In a few years there will be a newer , more superior codec that will be introduced that will supplant BOTH of them and the pissing will begin all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the VHS vs. BetaMAX format war, quality has NOTHING to do with it.
It has to do with how a technology is adopted in the marketplace.
Whether you like it or not, 'superior' technologies die in the marketplace all the time (sticking with a media theme: record players, reel-to-reel tape decks, 8-tracks, etc.
), or are supplanted by newer, superior technologies.
Crying over it after it's happened is just pissing in the wind.Theora may be a really good codec for video, but it's not the end-all-be-all of video codecs, and neither is H.264 (MPEG-4).
In a few years there will be a newer, more superior codec that will be introduced that will supplant BOTH of them and the pissing will begin all over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644070</id>
	<title>Re:Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>lyml</author>
	<datestamp>1269698940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guy at xiph is retarded, sure in the "random" frame he is showing it's hard to tell a difference but watch the two actual videos side by side at the same time. The superiority of h264 is obvious.
<br> <br>
In particular when there is white text overlay on the film, the compression artifacts of theora becomes very visible.
<br> <br>
Look at (for example) 21s and 26s into the movie and then try to say with a straight face that theora is better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy at xiph is retarded , sure in the " random " frame he is showing it 's hard to tell a difference but watch the two actual videos side by side at the same time .
The superiority of h264 is obvious .
In particular when there is white text overlay on the film , the compression artifacts of theora becomes very visible .
Look at ( for example ) 21s and 26s into the movie and then try to say with a straight face that theora is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy at xiph is retarded, sure in the "random" frame he is showing it's hard to tell a difference but watch the two actual videos side by side at the same time.
The superiority of h264 is obvious.
In particular when there is white text overlay on the film, the compression artifacts of theora becomes very visible.
Look at (for example) 21s and 26s into the movie and then try to say with a straight face that theora is better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644848</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269708360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Today, people have data in H.264 format. A lot of data. A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly. This data is not going to vanish, and people will want to play it.</p></div><p>No-one is saying that you must never, ever use anything but the One True Codec. What is being said is that, FOR THE WEB, there should be a codec, and that codec should be patent-free.</p><p>And as for all of that data in H.264 format right now? It's not on the web (in the sense that people talking about codecs for the HTML5 mean). Nothing is lost, by using another codec. Theora is not fighting to remove the entrenched H.264 from all of existence; it is competing with H.264 in an arena where neither are anywhere near entrenched, and neither more than the other. Horses for courses.</p><p>If Theora "won" and became the de jure standard (AND that standard was obeyed), then eventually, yeah, H.264 might - after a decade or so - vanish from everywhere. Simply because of the benefits of sticking with one format over multiple.</p><p>And as for your "non-free repositories" idea; that's exactly what we have now. You want to decode QuickTime? Install QuickTime. You want Windows Media? Install Windows Media Player. You're missing the point entirely, because having no universal standard is the same has having no standard - that's what standard means!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , people have data in H.264 format .
A lot of data .
A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly .
This data is not going to vanish , and people will want to play it.No-one is saying that you must never , ever use anything but the One True Codec .
What is being said is that , FOR THE WEB , there should be a codec , and that codec should be patent-free.And as for all of that data in H.264 format right now ?
It 's not on the web ( in the sense that people talking about codecs for the HTML5 mean ) .
Nothing is lost , by using another codec .
Theora is not fighting to remove the entrenched H.264 from all of existence ; it is competing with H.264 in an arena where neither are anywhere near entrenched , and neither more than the other .
Horses for courses.If Theora " won " and became the de jure standard ( AND that standard was obeyed ) , then eventually , yeah , H.264 might - after a decade or so - vanish from everywhere .
Simply because of the benefits of sticking with one format over multiple.And as for your " non-free repositories " idea ; that 's exactly what we have now .
You want to decode QuickTime ?
Install QuickTime .
You want Windows Media ?
Install Windows Media Player .
You 're missing the point entirely , because having no universal standard is the same has having no standard - that 's what standard means !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, people have data in H.264 format.
A lot of data.
A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly.
This data is not going to vanish, and people will want to play it.No-one is saying that you must never, ever use anything but the One True Codec.
What is being said is that, FOR THE WEB, there should be a codec, and that codec should be patent-free.And as for all of that data in H.264 format right now?
It's not on the web (in the sense that people talking about codecs for the HTML5 mean).
Nothing is lost, by using another codec.
Theora is not fighting to remove the entrenched H.264 from all of existence; it is competing with H.264 in an arena where neither are anywhere near entrenched, and neither more than the other.
Horses for courses.If Theora "won" and became the de jure standard (AND that standard was obeyed), then eventually, yeah, H.264 might - after a decade or so - vanish from everywhere.
Simply because of the benefits of sticking with one format over multiple.And as for your "non-free repositories" idea; that's exactly what we have now.
You want to decode QuickTime?
Install QuickTime.
You want Windows Media?
Install Windows Media Player.
You're missing the point entirely, because having no universal standard is the same has having no standard - that's what standard means!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645016</id>
	<title>Re:Compression? Who needs it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269710220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, the parent was probably joking, but there is a grain of truth: as more internet bandwidth becomes available, squeezing another 10\% from the codec becomes less important; as more CPU becomes available, straightforward implementation can end up beating funky patented algorithms. In fact, we see that already with VoIP, which is slowly moving towards simple, free codecs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , the parent was probably joking , but there is a grain of truth : as more internet bandwidth becomes available , squeezing another 10 \ % from the codec becomes less important ; as more CPU becomes available , straightforward implementation can end up beating funky patented algorithms .
In fact , we see that already with VoIP , which is slowly moving towards simple , free codecs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, the parent was probably joking, but there is a grain of truth: as more internet bandwidth becomes available, squeezing another 10\% from the codec becomes less important; as more CPU becomes available, straightforward implementation can end up beating funky patented algorithms.
In fact, we see that already with VoIP, which is slowly moving towards simple, free codecs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644420</id>
	<title>Mr. Horn, you're mucking FUD &amp; I'm calling you</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1269702960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article <a href="http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=11746" title="streamingmedia.com">here</a> [streamingmedia.com], MPEG LA CEO Larry Horn said this (emphasis mine):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In addition, no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free. Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and <em>many of the essential patents may be the same</em> as those that are essential to AVC/H.264. Therefore, users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others, too.</p></div><p>When asked directly about the MPEG patent holders:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Ozer:</b> It sounds like you are saying that some of your patent holders own patents that are used in Ogg. Is that correct?</p><p><b>Horn:</b> We believe that there are patent holders who do.</p></div><p>Okay, Horn: Who are the patent holders and what the patent numbers?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Ozer:</b> It sounds like you&rsquo;ll be coming out and basically saying that to use Ogg, you need to license it from MPEG LA. Is that correct?</p><p><b>Horn:</b> That is not what we said. We said no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free.</p></div><p>Ummmm... You're just spreading FUD and trying to be coy about it. But you just look like a smarmy used-car salesman. I call bullshit.</p><p>I have a good deal of respect for people like Monty who get this kind of shit thrown at them day-in and day-out from whatever <em>weak-willed, money-over-morals, cardboard-cutout figurehead</em> the MPEG-LA props up today to go and do their dirty work.</p><p>Mr. Horn, your arguments are hollow and your acts of fear-mongering are unbecoming of any man. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call your actions reprehensible had you not <em>graduated from Yale</em> and then gone on to <em>get a J.D. from Columbia</em>. I mean, honestly, is the <em>quantity of cash</em> they're throwing at you so large that you can <em>pile it on top of your morals like steel weights in a flower press</em>, keeping your inner sense of honor pressed down <em>so it doesn't jump up and kick your ass for being a manipulative and deceitful businessman</em>?</p><p>Show us the patents or shut up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article here [ streamingmedia.com ] , MPEG LA CEO Larry Horn said this ( emphasis mine ) : In addition , no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free .
Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology , and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264 .
Therefore , users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others , too.When asked directly about the MPEG patent holders : Ozer : It sounds like you are saying that some of your patent holders own patents that are used in Ogg .
Is that correct ? Horn : We believe that there are patent holders who do.Okay , Horn : Who are the patent holders and what the patent numbers ?
Ozer : It sounds like you    ll be coming out and basically saying that to use Ogg , you need to license it from MPEG LA .
Is that correct ? Horn : That is not what we said .
We said no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free.Ummmm... You 're just spreading FUD and trying to be coy about it .
But you just look like a smarmy used-car salesman .
I call bullshit.I have a good deal of respect for people like Monty who get this kind of shit thrown at them day-in and day-out from whatever weak-willed , money-over-morals , cardboard-cutout figurehead the MPEG-LA props up today to go and do their dirty work.Mr .
Horn , your arguments are hollow and your acts of fear-mongering are unbecoming of any man .
I 'm not sure I 'd go so far as to call your actions reprehensible had you not graduated from Yale and then gone on to get a J.D .
from Columbia .
I mean , honestly , is the quantity of cash they 're throwing at you so large that you can pile it on top of your morals like steel weights in a flower press , keeping your inner sense of honor pressed down so it does n't jump up and kick your ass for being a manipulative and deceitful businessman ? Show us the patents or shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article here [streamingmedia.com], MPEG LA CEO Larry Horn said this (emphasis mine):In addition, no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free.
Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264.
Therefore, users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others, too.When asked directly about the MPEG patent holders: Ozer: It sounds like you are saying that some of your patent holders own patents that are used in Ogg.
Is that correct?Horn: We believe that there are patent holders who do.Okay, Horn: Who are the patent holders and what the patent numbers?
Ozer: It sounds like you’ll be coming out and basically saying that to use Ogg, you need to license it from MPEG LA.
Is that correct?Horn: That is not what we said.
We said no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free.Ummmm... You're just spreading FUD and trying to be coy about it.
But you just look like a smarmy used-car salesman.
I call bullshit.I have a good deal of respect for people like Monty who get this kind of shit thrown at them day-in and day-out from whatever weak-willed, money-over-morals, cardboard-cutout figurehead the MPEG-LA props up today to go and do their dirty work.Mr.
Horn, your arguments are hollow and your acts of fear-mongering are unbecoming of any man.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call your actions reprehensible had you not graduated from Yale and then gone on to get a J.D.
from Columbia.
I mean, honestly, is the quantity of cash they're throwing at you so large that you can pile it on top of your morals like steel weights in a flower press, keeping your inner sense of honor pressed down so it doesn't jump up and kick your ass for being a manipulative and deceitful businessman?Show us the patents or shut up.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31652434</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>omfgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1269788340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you propose open source vendors like Mozilla address the fact that they cannot legally implement the apparent standard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you propose open source vendors like Mozilla address the fact that they can not legally implement the apparent standard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you propose open source vendors like Mozilla address the fact that they cannot legally implement the apparent standard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31652416</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>omfgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1269788160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Why on Earth does HTML5 need to even specify the codec?</p></div></blockquote><p> Because leaving it unspecified nullifies the value of a standard video tag, encourages continued fragmentation of web content, and leaves a door wide open for some vendors to force other vendors to choose between violating the law or preventing their users from accessing a wide range of Internet content.</p><p>In short, because it forces open source vendors like Mozilla to forego interoperability with the web. With no codec [which can be legally and practically implemented by every vendor] specified, the de facto standard (h.264) is unavailable to about a quarter of web users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on Earth does HTML5 need to even specify the codec ?
Because leaving it unspecified nullifies the value of a standard video tag , encourages continued fragmentation of web content , and leaves a door wide open for some vendors to force other vendors to choose between violating the law or preventing their users from accessing a wide range of Internet content.In short , because it forces open source vendors like Mozilla to forego interoperability with the web .
With no codec [ which can be legally and practically implemented by every vendor ] specified , the de facto standard ( h.264 ) is unavailable to about a quarter of web users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why on Earth does HTML5 need to even specify the codec?
Because leaving it unspecified nullifies the value of a standard video tag, encourages continued fragmentation of web content, and leaves a door wide open for some vendors to force other vendors to choose between violating the law or preventing their users from accessing a wide range of Internet content.In short, because it forces open source vendors like Mozilla to forego interoperability with the web.
With no codec [which can be legally and practically implemented by every vendor] specified, the de facto standard (h.264) is unavailable to about a quarter of web users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646080</id>
	<title>Youtube with html5 works in epiphany.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269771060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Epiphany has been able to play HTML5 videos in youtube for several months now, and I never understood why firefox was lagging behind. Is the epiphany project vulnerable to law suits? Is the gstreamer project vulnerable to law suits?  Which project is breaking the patent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Epiphany has been able to play HTML5 videos in youtube for several months now , and I never understood why firefox was lagging behind .
Is the epiphany project vulnerable to law suits ?
Is the gstreamer project vulnerable to law suits ?
Which project is breaking the patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epiphany has been able to play HTML5 videos in youtube for several months now, and I never understood why firefox was lagging behind.
Is the epiphany project vulnerable to law suits?
Is the gstreamer project vulnerable to law suits?
Which project is breaking the patent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644342</id>
	<title>Re:When h.264 isn't h.264.</title>
	<author>camcorder</author>
	<datestamp>1269701820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please mod AC up. A very good summary of what's broken with H.264. With Theora you have only single profile, which is very efficient, and way better than H.264 baseline technically. Just because patent lobby enforces a codec, it does not make their trap magically superior to others. There're facts, proof of concept videos comparing both H.264 and Theora. How come people are so blind, and parroting FUD of how H.264 is so cool and Theora lost the race. There's no race, and there's a usable, well implemented codec. I'm pretty sure if IE, Chrome and Opera support Theora on them, in less than five years amount of time, Theora content on the Internet will outnumber any other video codecs exist online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please mod AC up .
A very good summary of what 's broken with H.264 .
With Theora you have only single profile , which is very efficient , and way better than H.264 baseline technically .
Just because patent lobby enforces a codec , it does not make their trap magically superior to others .
There 're facts , proof of concept videos comparing both H.264 and Theora .
How come people are so blind , and parroting FUD of how H.264 is so cool and Theora lost the race .
There 's no race , and there 's a usable , well implemented codec .
I 'm pretty sure if IE , Chrome and Opera support Theora on them , in less than five years amount of time , Theora content on the Internet will outnumber any other video codecs exist online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please mod AC up.
A very good summary of what's broken with H.264.
With Theora you have only single profile, which is very efficient, and way better than H.264 baseline technically.
Just because patent lobby enforces a codec, it does not make their trap magically superior to others.
There're facts, proof of concept videos comparing both H.264 and Theora.
How come people are so blind, and parroting FUD of how H.264 is so cool and Theora lost the race.
There's no race, and there's a usable, well implemented codec.
I'm pretty sure if IE, Chrome and Opera support Theora on them, in less than five years amount of time, Theora content on the Internet will outnumber any other video codecs exist online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31650896</id>
	<title>Dancing kitten : Does quality really matters ?</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1269774720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and both codecs will be basically used to post on Youtube and Dailymotion:<br>recordings of dancing kittens, taken with camera-phone, and which have gone through several stage of destructive re-compression set at atrociously low quality levels.<br>To the point that the result is filled with artefacts. And MPEG-1 could have achieved a good-enough quality on similar bitrate.</p><p>In my opinion, the whole debate about codec quality is irrelevant given the current main usage of videos.<br>It will only become important once HD TV channels streaming HD contents on their websites get *really* widespread.</p><p>By then, I really, really hope that some newer, disruptively better and patent free codec emerges. Big supporters of open web such as Google have the technical and financial capability of making such thing happen. I'm still looking in the general direction of wavelets, but perhaps there are other better stuff.</p><p>Until then Theora is a good enough stop-gag measure, that will provide a nice alternative for the subset of the market which specifically needs a patent-free solution. Even if that means storing 2 copies of the video media (most websites actually store much more different versions). Even if the second Theora copy is actually at *lower bitrate* than the first "HQ H.264" copy.<br>Bad quality video (of dancing kittens) is better than no video at all or continued reliance on 3rd party closed software for the open-source crowd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and both codecs will be basically used to post on Youtube and Dailymotion : recordings of dancing kittens , taken with camera-phone , and which have gone through several stage of destructive re-compression set at atrociously low quality levels.To the point that the result is filled with artefacts .
And MPEG-1 could have achieved a good-enough quality on similar bitrate.In my opinion , the whole debate about codec quality is irrelevant given the current main usage of videos.It will only become important once HD TV channels streaming HD contents on their websites get * really * widespread.By then , I really , really hope that some newer , disruptively better and patent free codec emerges .
Big supporters of open web such as Google have the technical and financial capability of making such thing happen .
I 'm still looking in the general direction of wavelets , but perhaps there are other better stuff.Until then Theora is a good enough stop-gag measure , that will provide a nice alternative for the subset of the market which specifically needs a patent-free solution .
Even if that means storing 2 copies of the video media ( most websites actually store much more different versions ) .
Even if the second Theora copy is actually at * lower bitrate * than the first " HQ H.264 " copy.Bad quality video ( of dancing kittens ) is better than no video at all or continued reliance on 3rd party closed software for the open-source crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and both codecs will be basically used to post on Youtube and Dailymotion:recordings of dancing kittens, taken with camera-phone, and which have gone through several stage of destructive re-compression set at atrociously low quality levels.To the point that the result is filled with artefacts.
And MPEG-1 could have achieved a good-enough quality on similar bitrate.In my opinion, the whole debate about codec quality is irrelevant given the current main usage of videos.It will only become important once HD TV channels streaming HD contents on their websites get *really* widespread.By then, I really, really hope that some newer, disruptively better and patent free codec emerges.
Big supporters of open web such as Google have the technical and financial capability of making such thing happen.
I'm still looking in the general direction of wavelets, but perhaps there are other better stuff.Until then Theora is a good enough stop-gag measure, that will provide a nice alternative for the subset of the market which specifically needs a patent-free solution.
Even if that means storing 2 copies of the video media (most websites actually store much more different versions).
Even if the second Theora copy is actually at *lower bitrate* than the first "HQ H.264" copy.Bad quality video (of dancing kittens) is better than no video at all or continued reliance on 3rd party closed software for the open-source crowd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643932</id>
	<title>Re:Theora vs. H.264</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1269697320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how the they both be equal when MPEG-LA has already announced that they will seek all users, (end users, software distributors, and hardware people ) will each required to buy a license to view H.264 The current free period ends in 2016.</p><p>That sounds like a patent threat all buy itself.</p><p>that is how I took their announcement that  they were extending their free licensing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how the they both be equal when MPEG-LA has already announced that they will seek all users , ( end users , software distributors , and hardware people ) will each required to buy a license to view H.264 The current free period ends in 2016.That sounds like a patent threat all buy itself.that is how I took their announcement that they were extending their free licensing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how the they both be equal when MPEG-LA has already announced that they will seek all users, (end users, software distributors, and hardware people ) will each required to buy a license to view H.264 The current free period ends in 2016.That sounds like a patent threat all buy itself.that is how I took their announcement that  they were extending their free licensing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644258</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269700980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a lot of statements in your post, but not a lot of argument or information.</p><p>Why is this about H.264 OR Theora?  Why isn't it about H.264 AND Theora?  Like PNG vs Gif, why do we have to pick one or the other?</p><p>You seem to think H.264 having "won" is a forgone conclusion.  Your only arguments seems to be hardware support, and the "lots of data" point.  How is that a sustainable situation?  Hardware support is nice and all, but every other format the hardware support has become largely irrelevant as processors have gotten faster.</p><p>No, the big issue here is the stupid software patents.  Arguing about which one is less likely to anger the patent trolls misses the point.  When patent trolls are holding everyone hostage don't start arguing about which hostage is least likely to be taken out and shot first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of statements in your post , but not a lot of argument or information.Why is this about H.264 OR Theora ?
Why is n't it about H.264 AND Theora ?
Like PNG vs Gif , why do we have to pick one or the other ? You seem to think H.264 having " won " is a forgone conclusion .
Your only arguments seems to be hardware support , and the " lots of data " point .
How is that a sustainable situation ?
Hardware support is nice and all , but every other format the hardware support has become largely irrelevant as processors have gotten faster.No , the big issue here is the stupid software patents .
Arguing about which one is less likely to anger the patent trolls misses the point .
When patent trolls are holding everyone hostage do n't start arguing about which hostage is least likely to be taken out and shot first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of statements in your post, but not a lot of argument or information.Why is this about H.264 OR Theora?
Why isn't it about H.264 AND Theora?
Like PNG vs Gif, why do we have to pick one or the other?You seem to think H.264 having "won" is a forgone conclusion.
Your only arguments seems to be hardware support, and the "lots of data" point.
How is that a sustainable situation?
Hardware support is nice and all, but every other format the hardware support has become largely irrelevant as processors have gotten faster.No, the big issue here is the stupid software patents.
Arguing about which one is less likely to anger the patent trolls misses the point.
When patent trolls are holding everyone hostage don't start arguing about which hostage is least likely to be taken out and shot first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644136</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269699780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How I wish the debate could end with this lengthy and insightful comment. Firefox's stand amounts to sound and fury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How I wish the debate could end with this lengthy and insightful comment .
Firefox 's stand amounts to sound and fury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How I wish the debate could end with this lengthy and insightful comment.
Firefox's stand amounts to sound and fury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646760</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Drakonik</author>
	<datestamp>1269785760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooooooo...H.264 needs to be the standard because it's the standard? Your argument is kinda cyclical. IE6 used to be the ubiquitous.  used to be acceptable to use. Why aren't they anymore? Because something better came along. Tech isn't good just because it's universally supported. It just makes it hard to transition away from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooooooo...H.264 needs to be the standard because it 's the standard ?
Your argument is kinda cyclical .
IE6 used to be the ubiquitous .
used to be acceptable to use .
Why are n't they anymore ?
Because something better came along .
Tech is n't good just because it 's universally supported .
It just makes it hard to transition away from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooooooo...H.264 needs to be the standard because it's the standard?
Your argument is kinda cyclical.
IE6 used to be the ubiquitous.
used to be acceptable to use.
Why aren't they anymore?
Because something better came along.
Tech isn't good just because it's universally supported.
It just makes it hard to transition away from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645980</id>
	<title>Re:Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1269768720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats funny. Most of the xiph folks think h264 is better under many of its profiles (search the recent posts on the mailing list). However most also think  that  at youtube quality the difference (if any) is not worth the license issues.
<br> <br>
And licensing is far more about what you have to sign than pay. Everyone cries bloody murder with the nvidia binary blobs bundled with a linux distribution. Yet the fact is that in some countries having h264 bundled is illegal and redistribution  terms from 3rd parties (aka GPL) is a license that MPEG-LA will never ever issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats funny .
Most of the xiph folks think h264 is better under many of its profiles ( search the recent posts on the mailing list ) .
However most also think that at youtube quality the difference ( if any ) is not worth the license issues .
And licensing is far more about what you have to sign than pay .
Everyone cries bloody murder with the nvidia binary blobs bundled with a linux distribution .
Yet the fact is that in some countries having h264 bundled is illegal and redistribution terms from 3rd parties ( aka GPL ) is a license that MPEG-LA will never ever issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats funny.
Most of the xiph folks think h264 is better under many of its profiles (search the recent posts on the mailing list).
However most also think  that  at youtube quality the difference (if any) is not worth the license issues.
And licensing is far more about what you have to sign than pay.
Everyone cries bloody murder with the nvidia binary blobs bundled with a linux distribution.
Yet the fact is that in some countries having h264 bundled is illegal and redistribution  terms from 3rd parties (aka GPL) is a license that MPEG-LA will never ever issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</id>
	<title>Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>discord5</author>
	<datestamp>1269697380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So before someone starts the whole "which codec is better" flamewar again: <a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html" title="xiph.org">someone at xiph thinks theora is better</a> [xiph.org], <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/02/ogg-theora-vs-h264-head-to-head-comparisons.ars" title="arstechnica.com">ars thinks h264 is better</a> [arstechnica.com], and <a href="http://keyj.s2000.ws/?p=356" title="s2000.ws">this guy has a do it yourself kit in the form of a shell script</a> [s2000.ws].</p><p>Have fun arguing, as the past few articles have been quite fruitful in that area. Sadly few have realized (despite it being the main focus of most of those articles, but hey, who reads those) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So before someone starts the whole " which codec is better " flamewar again : someone at xiph thinks theora is better [ xiph.org ] , ars thinks h264 is better [ arstechnica.com ] , and this guy has a do it yourself kit in the form of a shell script [ s2000.ws ] .Have fun arguing , as the past few articles have been quite fruitful in that area .
Sadly few have realized ( despite it being the main focus of most of those articles , but hey , who reads those ) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So before someone starts the whole "which codec is better" flamewar again: someone at xiph thinks theora is better [xiph.org], ars thinks h264 is better [arstechnica.com], and this guy has a do it yourself kit in the form of a shell script [s2000.ws].Have fun arguing, as the past few articles have been quite fruitful in that area.
Sadly few have realized (despite it being the main focus of most of those articles, but hey, who reads those) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644248</id>
	<title>Re:Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1269700860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There really isn't any argument dude, as pretty much anybody with eyes can tell that Theora is about equal to <strong> <em>H.263</em></strong>  but H.264 kicks its ass. That is why the  FSF put out that <a href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/google-free-on2-vp8-for-youtube" title="fsf.org">open letter</a> [fsf.org] to Google to free VP8 which does kick ass compared to H.264, at least IMHO. Of course I personally think they are wasting their time, as Google keeps the best stuff for themselves (like their in house file system) and I don't see them giving up the ON2 tech.</p><p> Of course the elephant in the room is hardware acceleration. Every box I build, even the cheapest duals, comes with H.26x, WMV 7-9, and MPG 2 as well as Xvid/DivX accelerated out of the box and believe me it does make a BIG difference to user experience. Video is smoother, the machine is more responsive, and even with the lowest Radeon onboards it is just better for the user. And that doesn't count all the mobile devices coming out from PMPs to cell phones with built in H.264 and ZERO support for Theora. Does Theora even have hardware acceleration yet on <em>any platform</em> at all?</p><p>

As someone who deal with end users all day I can say that patents don't mean squat to Joe Public, all he cares about is does it work, is it easy, and is it convenient, and just as MP3 won against FLAC and Vorbis so too do I predict that H.264 will win this battle, if the battle isn't already won which I personally believe it is. Sorry FOSS guys, but you really should have jumped on hardware acceleration and been in talks with manufacturers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There really is n't any argument dude , as pretty much anybody with eyes can tell that Theora is about equal to H.263 but H.264 kicks its ass .
That is why the FSF put out that open letter [ fsf.org ] to Google to free VP8 which does kick ass compared to H.264 , at least IMHO .
Of course I personally think they are wasting their time , as Google keeps the best stuff for themselves ( like their in house file system ) and I do n't see them giving up the ON2 tech .
Of course the elephant in the room is hardware acceleration .
Every box I build , even the cheapest duals , comes with H.26x , WMV 7-9 , and MPG 2 as well as Xvid/DivX accelerated out of the box and believe me it does make a BIG difference to user experience .
Video is smoother , the machine is more responsive , and even with the lowest Radeon onboards it is just better for the user .
And that does n't count all the mobile devices coming out from PMPs to cell phones with built in H.264 and ZERO support for Theora .
Does Theora even have hardware acceleration yet on any platform at all ?
As someone who deal with end users all day I can say that patents do n't mean squat to Joe Public , all he cares about is does it work , is it easy , and is it convenient , and just as MP3 won against FLAC and Vorbis so too do I predict that H.264 will win this battle , if the battle is n't already won which I personally believe it is .
Sorry FOSS guys , but you really should have jumped on hardware acceleration and been in talks with manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There really isn't any argument dude, as pretty much anybody with eyes can tell that Theora is about equal to  H.263  but H.264 kicks its ass.
That is why the  FSF put out that open letter [fsf.org] to Google to free VP8 which does kick ass compared to H.264, at least IMHO.
Of course I personally think they are wasting their time, as Google keeps the best stuff for themselves (like their in house file system) and I don't see them giving up the ON2 tech.
Of course the elephant in the room is hardware acceleration.
Every box I build, even the cheapest duals, comes with H.26x, WMV 7-9, and MPG 2 as well as Xvid/DivX accelerated out of the box and believe me it does make a BIG difference to user experience.
Video is smoother, the machine is more responsive, and even with the lowest Radeon onboards it is just better for the user.
And that doesn't count all the mobile devices coming out from PMPs to cell phones with built in H.264 and ZERO support for Theora.
Does Theora even have hardware acceleration yet on any platform at all?
As someone who deal with end users all day I can say that patents don't mean squat to Joe Public, all he cares about is does it work, is it easy, and is it convenient, and just as MP3 won against FLAC and Vorbis so too do I predict that H.264 will win this battle, if the battle isn't already won which I personally believe it is.
Sorry FOSS guys, but you really should have jumped on hardware acceleration and been in talks with manufacturers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644832</id>
	<title>Re:Mr. Horn, you're mucking FUD &amp; I'm calling</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1269708120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you misread his stance.  This isn't like saying &lt;cue italian mafia accent&gt; "Hey, if you sell our competitors products, you <em>*might*</em> find some trouble..." His point is simply that in today's age, all software encroaches on some patent somewhere.  He is right about that.  Should it scare people away from Theora?  Probably not.  Theora is still going to be less patent-encumbered than h.264, but it probably isn't 100\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you misread his stance .
This is n't like saying " Hey , if you sell our competitors products , you * might * find some trouble... " His point is simply that in today 's age , all software encroaches on some patent somewhere .
He is right about that .
Should it scare people away from Theora ?
Probably not .
Theora is still going to be less patent-encumbered than h.264 , but it probably is n't 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you misread his stance.
This isn't like saying  "Hey, if you sell our competitors products, you *might* find some trouble..." His point is simply that in today's age, all software encroaches on some patent somewhere.
He is right about that.
Should it scare people away from Theora?
Probably not.
Theora is still going to be less patent-encumbered than h.264, but it probably isn't 100\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643860</id>
	<title>Patent risks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269696660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to get rid off patent risks <a href="http://stopsoftwarepatents.eu/" title="stopsoftwarepatents.eu">abolish software patenting</a> [stopsoftwarepatents.eu] of technical standards, embrace open standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to get rid off patent risks abolish software patenting [ stopsoftwarepatents.eu ] of technical standards , embrace open standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to get rid off patent risks abolish software patenting [stopsoftwarepatents.eu] of technical standards, embrace open standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31648352</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269799800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML5, today, does *not* specify a codec.<br>Whether or not it needs to specify one is in theory the subject of debate.<br>However, please understand that, technically, today it doesn't.<br>It's believed that HTML5 could be finalized without specifying a codec.<br>I also believe that HTML5 will be successful in any event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 , today , does * not * specify a codec.Whether or not it needs to specify one is in theory the subject of debate.However , please understand that , technically , today it does n't.It 's believed that HTML5 could be finalized without specifying a codec.I also believe that HTML5 will be successful in any event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5, today, does *not* specify a codec.Whether or not it needs to specify one is in theory the subject of debate.However, please understand that, technically, today it doesn't.It's believed that HTML5 could be finalized without specifying a codec.I also believe that HTML5 will be successful in any event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644822</id>
	<title>Re:Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269708060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>VP8 which does kick ass compared to H.264, at least IMHO</p></div><p>And where do you get your Humble Opinion about VP8 from? How did you get to test a codec nobody else has ever even seen?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>VP8 which does kick ass compared to H.264 , at least IMHOAnd where do you get your Humble Opinion about VP8 from ?
How did you get to test a codec nobody else has ever even seen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VP8 which does kick ass compared to H.264, at least IMHOAnd where do you get your Humble Opinion about VP8 from?
How did you get to test a codec nobody else has ever even seen?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978</id>
	<title>Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269697980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this person thinks just because it, like any other technology, has the capacity to be sued by patent trolls makes it worse?</p><p>Look, it's plain and simple: web technologies should be open and free.  H.264 is not, despite all claims of "people can use it" and "well, it's better".  That means nothing.  Ogg Theora is open and free, H.264 is not.  End of discussion, period.</p><p>Anyone that disagrees either does not understand the importance of using open and free technologies to power the Internet (imagine what would happen if HTML was patent-encumbered as H.264 is!) or a simple troll that has a motivation for him and/or his company to control the web.</p><p>This is a simple, solved issue, but the problem is that the misinformed and the greedy people are dragging it out.  End this, make a stand, Ogg Vorbis or you don't get to play.  Period.</p><p>AC because mods on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are largely the people I describe, and I don't want these people to drag my karma down just because they don't like the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this person thinks just because it , like any other technology , has the capacity to be sued by patent trolls makes it worse ? Look , it 's plain and simple : web technologies should be open and free .
H.264 is not , despite all claims of " people can use it " and " well , it 's better " .
That means nothing .
Ogg Theora is open and free , H.264 is not .
End of discussion , period.Anyone that disagrees either does not understand the importance of using open and free technologies to power the Internet ( imagine what would happen if HTML was patent-encumbered as H.264 is !
) or a simple troll that has a motivation for him and/or his company to control the web.This is a simple , solved issue , but the problem is that the misinformed and the greedy people are dragging it out .
End this , make a stand , Ogg Vorbis or you do n't get to play .
Period.AC because mods on / .
are largely the people I describe , and I do n't want these people to drag my karma down just because they do n't like the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this person thinks just because it, like any other technology, has the capacity to be sued by patent trolls makes it worse?Look, it's plain and simple: web technologies should be open and free.
H.264 is not, despite all claims of "people can use it" and "well, it's better".
That means nothing.
Ogg Theora is open and free, H.264 is not.
End of discussion, period.Anyone that disagrees either does not understand the importance of using open and free technologies to power the Internet (imagine what would happen if HTML was patent-encumbered as H.264 is!
) or a simple troll that has a motivation for him and/or his company to control the web.This is a simple, solved issue, but the problem is that the misinformed and the greedy people are dragging it out.
End this, make a stand, Ogg Vorbis or you don't get to play.
Period.AC because mods on /.
are largely the people I describe, and I don't want these people to drag my karma down just because they don't like the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646502</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269781020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] h.264 [...] will not be free starting at the end of the year.</p></div><p>They changed that: "On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.", from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC#Patent\_licensing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] h.264 [ ... ] will not be free starting at the end of the year.They changed that : " On February 2 , 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31 , 2015 .
" , from Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] h.264 [...] will not be free starting at the end of the year.They changed that: "On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.
", from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644952</id>
	<title>Re:Mr. Horn, you're mucking FUD &amp; I'm calling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are key facts that pop out in the article:</p><p>* xiph sent letters and got no responses. They interpret the lack of response to mean a lack of violation. The real world doesn't work that way. Lawyers are deployed strategically, and it may not be in the patent holder's interest to respond to a letter.</p><p>* MPEG-LA's credibility is low, because they license patents. However, you could just as easily say that theora's credibility is just as low, because they have just as much incentive to denigrate the claims of the MPEG-LA.</p><p>* why the reference to Apple? It's like a gratuitous call-out to apple h8trs. The MPEG-LA is more than Apple. Is Apple really the new M$?</p><p>The validity of patents are determined in the courts. You can send all the letters you want, but it's in the courtroom where the rubber meets the road. Your belief, or lack of belief, has no bearing on the validity or lack of validity of a patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are key facts that pop out in the article : * xiph sent letters and got no responses .
They interpret the lack of response to mean a lack of violation .
The real world does n't work that way .
Lawyers are deployed strategically , and it may not be in the patent holder 's interest to respond to a letter .
* MPEG-LA 's credibility is low , because they license patents .
However , you could just as easily say that theora 's credibility is just as low , because they have just as much incentive to denigrate the claims of the MPEG-LA .
* why the reference to Apple ?
It 's like a gratuitous call-out to apple h8trs .
The MPEG-LA is more than Apple .
Is Apple really the new M $ ? The validity of patents are determined in the courts .
You can send all the letters you want , but it 's in the courtroom where the rubber meets the road .
Your belief , or lack of belief , has no bearing on the validity or lack of validity of a patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are key facts that pop out in the article:* xiph sent letters and got no responses.
They interpret the lack of response to mean a lack of violation.
The real world doesn't work that way.
Lawyers are deployed strategically, and it may not be in the patent holder's interest to respond to a letter.
* MPEG-LA's credibility is low, because they license patents.
However, you could just as easily say that theora's credibility is just as low, because they have just as much incentive to denigrate the claims of the MPEG-LA.
* why the reference to Apple?
It's like a gratuitous call-out to apple h8trs.
The MPEG-LA is more than Apple.
Is Apple really the new M$?The validity of patents are determined in the courts.
You can send all the letters you want, but it's in the courtroom where the rubber meets the road.
Your belief, or lack of belief, has no bearing on the validity or lack of validity of a patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646200</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269774060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For the same reason we standardize markup around W3C HTML5, we standardize video around MPEG-4 H.264.</p></div><p>There is a huge difference, one is an open an unencumbered standard, the other a profitable monopoly for a cartel. We should standardize around something open like what W3C does and Theora is closest to that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same reason we standardize markup around W3C HTML5 , we standardize video around MPEG-4 H.264.There is a huge difference , one is an open an unencumbered standard , the other a profitable monopoly for a cartel .
We should standardize around something open like what W3C does and Theora is closest to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same reason we standardize markup around W3C HTML5, we standardize video around MPEG-4 H.264.There is a huge difference, one is an open an unencumbered standard, the other a profitable monopoly for a cartel.
We should standardize around something open like what W3C does and Theora is closest to that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644878</id>
	<title>Re:Compression? Who needs it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269708720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, a typical HD camera can spit out 100MB per second, which would just about saturate a 1Gbps Ethernet link and fill a 1TB hard drive in 3 hours.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , a typical HD camera can spit out 100MB per second , which would just about saturate a 1Gbps Ethernet link and fill a 1TB hard drive in 3 hours.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, a typical HD camera can spit out 100MB per second, which would just about saturate a 1Gbps Ethernet link and fill a 1TB hard drive in 3 hours.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645192</id>
	<title>What a fucked up summary!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had to read it like 3 times to figure it out... Slashdot editors are the shit all right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had to read it like 3 times to figure it out... Slashdot editors are the shit all right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had to read it like 3 times to figure it out... Slashdot editors are the shit all right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644438</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269703140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we please mod down anyone who uses any derivative of: "I'm going to be modded down because of this but..."</p><p>Do as they ask.  Keep them modded at 0.  I'm so tired of people playing such whiny victims on here.  I've never seen one of them actually modded down.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please mod down anyone who uses any derivative of : " I 'm going to be modded down because of this but... " Do as they ask .
Keep them modded at 0 .
I 'm so tired of people playing such whiny victims on here .
I 've never seen one of them actually modded down .
/rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please mod down anyone who uses any derivative of: "I'm going to be modded down because of this but..."Do as they ask.
Keep them modded at 0.
I'm so tired of people playing such whiny victims on here.
I've never seen one of them actually modded down.
/rant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644278</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269701220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone that disagrees either does not understand the importance of using open and free technologies to power the Internet (imagine what would happen if HTML was patent-encumbered as H.264 is!) or a simple troll that has a motivation for him and/or his company to control the web.</p></div><p>So if I disagree I'm either stupid or greedy? I'm all for open software, but until the zealots make their software as good as their arguments are aggressive it's not going to come close to commercial software. Not everyone is willing to go without just so open software can <i>seem</i> equal. <br> <br>
There is a lot of very good open source software, and a lot of mediocre and incomplete open source software, too. If 'open and free' was enough then open source software would be king and commercial software would be trying to catch up, but that's just not the case.

<br> <br>The issue may be solved for you, but for most of the rest of the world things aren't as black &amp; white.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone that disagrees either does not understand the importance of using open and free technologies to power the Internet ( imagine what would happen if HTML was patent-encumbered as H.264 is !
) or a simple troll that has a motivation for him and/or his company to control the web.So if I disagree I 'm either stupid or greedy ?
I 'm all for open software , but until the zealots make their software as good as their arguments are aggressive it 's not going to come close to commercial software .
Not everyone is willing to go without just so open software can seem equal .
There is a lot of very good open source software , and a lot of mediocre and incomplete open source software , too .
If 'open and free ' was enough then open source software would be king and commercial software would be trying to catch up , but that 's just not the case .
The issue may be solved for you , but for most of the rest of the world things are n't as black &amp; white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone that disagrees either does not understand the importance of using open and free technologies to power the Internet (imagine what would happen if HTML was patent-encumbered as H.264 is!
) or a simple troll that has a motivation for him and/or his company to control the web.So if I disagree I'm either stupid or greedy?
I'm all for open software, but until the zealots make their software as good as their arguments are aggressive it's not going to come close to commercial software.
Not everyone is willing to go without just so open software can seem equal.
There is a lot of very good open source software, and a lot of mediocre and incomplete open source software, too.
If 'open and free' was enough then open source software would be king and commercial software would be trying to catch up, but that's just not the case.
The issue may be solved for you, but for most of the rest of the world things aren't as black &amp; white.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644156</id>
	<title>Re:Theora vs. H.264</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269700020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how the they both be equal when MPEG-LA has already announced that they will seek all users, (end users, software distributors, and hardware people ) will each required to buy a license to view H.264 </p></div><p>2016? <i>2016</i>? By then there will be at least one - if not more - different video format that we'll be arguing about. Things are moving fast on the intertubes (except for the W3C) so I'm not worried about 2016. Technology will surpass itself given enough motive or profitability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how the they both be equal when MPEG-LA has already announced that they will seek all users , ( end users , software distributors , and hardware people ) will each required to buy a license to view H.264 2016 ?
2016 ? By then there will be at least one - if not more - different video format that we 'll be arguing about .
Things are moving fast on the intertubes ( except for the W3C ) so I 'm not worried about 2016 .
Technology will surpass itself given enough motive or profitability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how the they both be equal when MPEG-LA has already announced that they will seek all users, (end users, software distributors, and hardware people ) will each required to buy a license to view H.264 2016?
2016? By then there will be at least one - if not more - different video format that we'll be arguing about.
Things are moving fast on the intertubes (except for the W3C) so I'm not worried about 2016.
Technology will surpass itself given enough motive or profitability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31647088</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>WWWWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269790080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make. H.264 has won, and it won years ago.</p></div><p>All right, all right, H.264 won the war.</p><p>Now that there's a winner, it's <em>extremely important</em> that everyone implements it. That's the bad side of the having a standard. It's not worth anything until everyone implements it.</p><p>So, now, oh victorious winner, please answer this question: <em>How the hell can open source browsers implement H.264?</em> </p><p>You see, this debate is not about who "won" the war. <em>It's about which standard can be implemented.</em> </p><p>Yes, we know H.264 is superior. Thank you for telling us that over and over. But H.264 proponents have so far failed to explain how the hell can we implement H.264 in any shape or form without requiring weird legal trickery and mysterious booby traps from MPEG-LA's direction.</p><p>So quit harping about better quality and hardware support. We already know those things are true. Tell us how we can implement it so we can get over this ridiculous debate already.</p><p>Mozilla folks aren't "making a stand". They're just puzzled by the H.264 requirements and can't proceed until they have a clear and unambiguous solution. So please, tell them how they can implement H.264 while complying with both their own license terms and H.264's license terms. Surely now that you have the technical superiority issue settled, you can devote energy on this little legal matter, right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>taking a moral stand with Theora will damage <i>other</i> things, namely HTML5 and potentially Firefox itself.</p></div><p>And taking a pragmatic stance with H.264 will damage the ability of people who <em>are unable to take the same pragmatic stance</em> to implement the standard. Hence, HTML5 will not be implementable uniformly, so the standard suffers. Firefox will be damaged by not being able to implement H.264 <em>anyway</em>, because it's incompatible with their licensing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>PNG won out in the end over GIF, mostly, because it had better features. But what enabled that win was that they could both be used <i>at the same time</i>.  If early Mozilla branches simply <i>removed</i> GIF support, the browser would have been dead in the water.</p></div><p>Because the GIF license allowed it to be implemented if you only decode images. Had they <em>not</em> allowed it to be used anyway, <em>as is the case with H.264,</em> well...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The battle over codes needs to be left for another day.</p></div><p>"Let's just use what works <em>now,</em> and spend next 20 years living with that mistake. Everyone else is doing it, why not we?"</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As for how to actually implement it, Mozilla <i>et al</i> needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign "non-free" repositories.</p></div><p>Also known as "swept under the carpet" repositories. Also known as "download it here and we pretend we look away" repositories. Also known as "this code is for research purposes only, wink wink, nudge nudge, if you know what I mean" repositories. Also known as "we pretend that the license problem doesn't exist and sincerely hope MPEG-LA won't get greedy" repositories. Also known as "servers which cannot be hosted in some countries, thus very much building user confidence" repositories. Also known as "the user gets a big ugly disclaimer upon installation and is told that they're using these components under THEIR financial and legal risk" repositories.</p><p>So your solution is to just treat this whole thing as a skunkworks problem. "This problem cannot be solved legally, so we have to solve it illegally and let the users take the risk." This is hardly an optimal solution, and will likely blow up in someone's face - be it users, developers or the Mozilla Foundation. Anything better in mind?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make .
H.264 has won , and it won years ago.All right , all right , H.264 won the war.Now that there 's a winner , it 's extremely important that everyone implements it .
That 's the bad side of the having a standard .
It 's not worth anything until everyone implements it.So , now , oh victorious winner , please answer this question : How the hell can open source browsers implement H.264 ?
You see , this debate is not about who " won " the war .
It 's about which standard can be implemented .
Yes , we know H.264 is superior .
Thank you for telling us that over and over .
But H.264 proponents have so far failed to explain how the hell can we implement H.264 in any shape or form without requiring weird legal trickery and mysterious booby traps from MPEG-LA 's direction.So quit harping about better quality and hardware support .
We already know those things are true .
Tell us how we can implement it so we can get over this ridiculous debate already.Mozilla folks are n't " making a stand " .
They 're just puzzled by the H.264 requirements and ca n't proceed until they have a clear and unambiguous solution .
So please , tell them how they can implement H.264 while complying with both their own license terms and H.264 's license terms .
Surely now that you have the technical superiority issue settled , you can devote energy on this little legal matter , right ? taking a moral stand with Theora will damage other things , namely HTML5 and potentially Firefox itself.And taking a pragmatic stance with H.264 will damage the ability of people who are unable to take the same pragmatic stance to implement the standard .
Hence , HTML5 will not be implementable uniformly , so the standard suffers .
Firefox will be damaged by not being able to implement H.264 anyway , because it 's incompatible with their licensing.PNG won out in the end over GIF , mostly , because it had better features .
But what enabled that win was that they could both be used at the same time .
If early Mozilla branches simply removed GIF support , the browser would have been dead in the water.Because the GIF license allowed it to be implemented if you only decode images .
Had they not allowed it to be used anyway , as is the case with H.264 , well...The battle over codes needs to be left for another day .
" Let 's just use what works now , and spend next 20 years living with that mistake .
Everyone else is doing it , why not we ?
" As for how to actually implement it , Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign " non-free " repositories.Also known as " swept under the carpet " repositories .
Also known as " download it here and we pretend we look away " repositories .
Also known as " this code is for research purposes only , wink wink , nudge nudge , if you know what I mean " repositories .
Also known as " we pretend that the license problem does n't exist and sincerely hope MPEG-LA wo n't get greedy " repositories .
Also known as " servers which can not be hosted in some countries , thus very much building user confidence " repositories .
Also known as " the user gets a big ugly disclaimer upon installation and is told that they 're using these components under THEIR financial and legal risk " repositories.So your solution is to just treat this whole thing as a skunkworks problem .
" This problem can not be solved legally , so we have to solve it illegally and let the users take the risk .
" This is hardly an optimal solution , and will likely blow up in someone 's face - be it users , developers or the Mozilla Foundation .
Anything better in mind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make.
H.264 has won, and it won years ago.All right, all right, H.264 won the war.Now that there's a winner, it's extremely important that everyone implements it.
That's the bad side of the having a standard.
It's not worth anything until everyone implements it.So, now, oh victorious winner, please answer this question: How the hell can open source browsers implement H.264?
You see, this debate is not about who "won" the war.
It's about which standard can be implemented.
Yes, we know H.264 is superior.
Thank you for telling us that over and over.
But H.264 proponents have so far failed to explain how the hell can we implement H.264 in any shape or form without requiring weird legal trickery and mysterious booby traps from MPEG-LA's direction.So quit harping about better quality and hardware support.
We already know those things are true.
Tell us how we can implement it so we can get over this ridiculous debate already.Mozilla folks aren't "making a stand".
They're just puzzled by the H.264 requirements and can't proceed until they have a clear and unambiguous solution.
So please, tell them how they can implement H.264 while complying with both their own license terms and H.264's license terms.
Surely now that you have the technical superiority issue settled, you can devote energy on this little legal matter, right?taking a moral stand with Theora will damage other things, namely HTML5 and potentially Firefox itself.And taking a pragmatic stance with H.264 will damage the ability of people who are unable to take the same pragmatic stance to implement the standard.
Hence, HTML5 will not be implementable uniformly, so the standard suffers.
Firefox will be damaged by not being able to implement H.264 anyway, because it's incompatible with their licensing.PNG won out in the end over GIF, mostly, because it had better features.
But what enabled that win was that they could both be used at the same time.
If early Mozilla branches simply removed GIF support, the browser would have been dead in the water.Because the GIF license allowed it to be implemented if you only decode images.
Had they not allowed it to be used anyway, as is the case with H.264, well...The battle over codes needs to be left for another day.
"Let's just use what works now, and spend next 20 years living with that mistake.
Everyone else is doing it, why not we?
"As for how to actually implement it, Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign "non-free" repositories.Also known as "swept under the carpet" repositories.
Also known as "download it here and we pretend we look away" repositories.
Also known as "this code is for research purposes only, wink wink, nudge nudge, if you know what I mean" repositories.
Also known as "we pretend that the license problem doesn't exist and sincerely hope MPEG-LA won't get greedy" repositories.
Also known as "servers which cannot be hosted in some countries, thus very much building user confidence" repositories.
Also known as "the user gets a big ugly disclaimer upon installation and is told that they're using these components under THEIR financial and legal risk" repositories.So your solution is to just treat this whole thing as a skunkworks problem.
"This problem cannot be solved legally, so we have to solve it illegally and let the users take the risk.
" This is hardly an optimal solution, and will likely blow up in someone's face - be it users, developers or the Mozilla Foundation.
Anything better in mind?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645638</id>
	<title>Re:Mr. Horn, you're mucking FUD &amp; I'm calling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Show us the patents or shut up.</p></div><p>This is one of the big things that needs to change about the patent system. Patent holders are under no obligation to either enforce, or even show, their patents, which lets them get into e-penis fights over IP. It lets them go with non-enforcement of their technology so that it can be better adopted by being free-as-in-beer (you can even give out free-as-in-freedom code for reference implementations, as with what happened with MP3).. then when entire industries <i>require</i> the use of said technology, start litigating and requiring license fees, which people and businesses will have to pay or risk being sued into bankruptcy.</p><p>Hell, the MPEG-LA has already even said this will be their strategy.. they won't enforce the H.264 patents for a couple years so it can get better usage among the web, then they'll start requiring license fees. Any system implementer that doesn't pay will be unable to display the majority of video online, making such systems much less viable in the consumer marketplace. It's tantamount to extortion, really.</p><p>In addition, they can make FUD claims like "Ogg is patented by us", without giving any proof, so they can get license fees for <i>someone else's work</i>. It's not like Xiph.org can prove it isn't patented (you can't prove a negative), and there's way too many patents to even attempt to look through to even try to break through people's doubt. That's just all kinds of fucked up.</p><p>IMO, patent holders should be required to enforce their patents when they're made aware of violations (as is the case with copyright), and any violators need to be shown the exact patent(s) that are being violated. If they don't, then they lose the patent.</p><p>The other big thing that needs to change, IMO, is to make it so patents are not transferable. You invent the technology, it's your patent. The "highest bidder" should have no claims at all to those patents, even if you die.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Show us the patents or shut up.This is one of the big things that needs to change about the patent system .
Patent holders are under no obligation to either enforce , or even show , their patents , which lets them get into e-penis fights over IP .
It lets them go with non-enforcement of their technology so that it can be better adopted by being free-as-in-beer ( you can even give out free-as-in-freedom code for reference implementations , as with what happened with MP3 ) .. then when entire industries require the use of said technology , start litigating and requiring license fees , which people and businesses will have to pay or risk being sued into bankruptcy.Hell , the MPEG-LA has already even said this will be their strategy.. they wo n't enforce the H.264 patents for a couple years so it can get better usage among the web , then they 'll start requiring license fees .
Any system implementer that does n't pay will be unable to display the majority of video online , making such systems much less viable in the consumer marketplace .
It 's tantamount to extortion , really.In addition , they can make FUD claims like " Ogg is patented by us " , without giving any proof , so they can get license fees for someone else 's work .
It 's not like Xiph.org can prove it is n't patented ( you ca n't prove a negative ) , and there 's way too many patents to even attempt to look through to even try to break through people 's doubt .
That 's just all kinds of fucked up.IMO , patent holders should be required to enforce their patents when they 're made aware of violations ( as is the case with copyright ) , and any violators need to be shown the exact patent ( s ) that are being violated .
If they do n't , then they lose the patent.The other big thing that needs to change , IMO , is to make it so patents are not transferable .
You invent the technology , it 's your patent .
The " highest bidder " should have no claims at all to those patents , even if you die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show us the patents or shut up.This is one of the big things that needs to change about the patent system.
Patent holders are under no obligation to either enforce, or even show, their patents, which lets them get into e-penis fights over IP.
It lets them go with non-enforcement of their technology so that it can be better adopted by being free-as-in-beer (you can even give out free-as-in-freedom code for reference implementations, as with what happened with MP3).. then when entire industries require the use of said technology, start litigating and requiring license fees, which people and businesses will have to pay or risk being sued into bankruptcy.Hell, the MPEG-LA has already even said this will be their strategy.. they won't enforce the H.264 patents for a couple years so it can get better usage among the web, then they'll start requiring license fees.
Any system implementer that doesn't pay will be unable to display the majority of video online, making such systems much less viable in the consumer marketplace.
It's tantamount to extortion, really.In addition, they can make FUD claims like "Ogg is patented by us", without giving any proof, so they can get license fees for someone else's work.
It's not like Xiph.org can prove it isn't patented (you can't prove a negative), and there's way too many patents to even attempt to look through to even try to break through people's doubt.
That's just all kinds of fucked up.IMO, patent holders should be required to enforce their patents when they're made aware of violations (as is the case with copyright), and any violators need to be shown the exact patent(s) that are being violated.
If they don't, then they lose the patent.The other big thing that needs to change, IMO, is to make it so patents are not transferable.
You invent the technology, it's your patent.
The "highest bidder" should have no claims at all to those patents, even if you die.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1269714840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I don't see why this is an either / or issue.</p><p>In one word: standardization.</p><p>For the same reason we standardize markup around W3C HTML5, we standardize video around MPEG-4 H.264. We need to be able to make just one Web app and have it work on any browser from any manufacturer. We need to be able to make just one video and have it work in any video player from any manufacturer. If we don't have that, then consumers cannot choose their own preferred browser, or preferred media player. They get stuck using IE6 or Windows Media Player solely to decode nonstandard Web apps and video. It's not acceptable.</p><p>Modern consumer electronics devices have one video codec burned into hardware, and that is MPEG-4 H.264. This is almost 10 years old now. Same as DVD players all had MPEG-2. That's the reason the H.264 codec exists. If you want to publish a video that will play on iPod and other media players, iPhone and other smartphones, various set-top boxes, both FlashPlayer and QuickTime Player, both YouTube and iTunes, that is H.264. If you want to play video that was made with Flip camcorders, or Kodak camcorders, or Canon cameras, or Nikon cameras, or Panasonic cameras, or iPod/iPhone, that is H.264.</p><p>A key thing to understand is that MPEG-4 is not owned by any one company. The patents are not held by any one company. They are put into a pool and licensed equally to all comers. This puts all the consumer electronics manufacturers on equal footing. Flip is not going to cease to exist one day because a submarine patent takes all their devices off the market. The entire MPEG-4 group would address the submarine patent, all the manufacturers are protected from litigation in this way. That's just not true with Ogg.</p><p>On a Mac/PC, if you are somewhat technical, you can load all kinds of software codecs, most of which are made for authoring or some other special purpose, not made for consumer playback. Same as you can happily make Web apps for IE6 if your company uses IE6. But if you want to share Web apps with the world, you use HTML5. If you want to publish video for the world, you use H.264.</p><p>Also, you have to understand that video authoring tools all work with H.264 for many years now, and not with nonstandard formats. Where you see Ogg video, or Windows Media, or Real Media, or any other nonstandard media, they were very likely created from H.264.</p><p>This all has nothing to do with HTML5. As I said, H.264 is almost 10 years old and both YouTube and iTunes and both FlashPlayer and QuickTime Player play it. That *is* Web video. H.264 plays in Firefox today, and will play there tomorrow. HTML5 standardizes *markup* not video. So browsers now have to become video players. If Firefox doesn't want to do that, then they will see their users make an exodus for Chrome or Safari. There isn't any way to turn back time to when Ogg was current technology and rewrite history and re-encode the incredible amount of video that is stored in H.264.</p><p>If you imagine that Mozilla was saying "we can't support UTF-8" that is the same as them not supporting H.264. The UTF-8 text is already out there, and there's no other technology to replace it, and that is the same with H.264 video. A Web browser that can't play YouTube is not a Web browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I do n't see why this is an either / or issue.In one word : standardization.For the same reason we standardize markup around W3C HTML5 , we standardize video around MPEG-4 H.264 .
We need to be able to make just one Web app and have it work on any browser from any manufacturer .
We need to be able to make just one video and have it work in any video player from any manufacturer .
If we do n't have that , then consumers can not choose their own preferred browser , or preferred media player .
They get stuck using IE6 or Windows Media Player solely to decode nonstandard Web apps and video .
It 's not acceptable.Modern consumer electronics devices have one video codec burned into hardware , and that is MPEG-4 H.264 .
This is almost 10 years old now .
Same as DVD players all had MPEG-2 .
That 's the reason the H.264 codec exists .
If you want to publish a video that will play on iPod and other media players , iPhone and other smartphones , various set-top boxes , both FlashPlayer and QuickTime Player , both YouTube and iTunes , that is H.264 .
If you want to play video that was made with Flip camcorders , or Kodak camcorders , or Canon cameras , or Nikon cameras , or Panasonic cameras , or iPod/iPhone , that is H.264.A key thing to understand is that MPEG-4 is not owned by any one company .
The patents are not held by any one company .
They are put into a pool and licensed equally to all comers .
This puts all the consumer electronics manufacturers on equal footing .
Flip is not going to cease to exist one day because a submarine patent takes all their devices off the market .
The entire MPEG-4 group would address the submarine patent , all the manufacturers are protected from litigation in this way .
That 's just not true with Ogg.On a Mac/PC , if you are somewhat technical , you can load all kinds of software codecs , most of which are made for authoring or some other special purpose , not made for consumer playback .
Same as you can happily make Web apps for IE6 if your company uses IE6 .
But if you want to share Web apps with the world , you use HTML5 .
If you want to publish video for the world , you use H.264.Also , you have to understand that video authoring tools all work with H.264 for many years now , and not with nonstandard formats .
Where you see Ogg video , or Windows Media , or Real Media , or any other nonstandard media , they were very likely created from H.264.This all has nothing to do with HTML5 .
As I said , H.264 is almost 10 years old and both YouTube and iTunes and both FlashPlayer and QuickTime Player play it .
That * is * Web video .
H.264 plays in Firefox today , and will play there tomorrow .
HTML5 standardizes * markup * not video .
So browsers now have to become video players .
If Firefox does n't want to do that , then they will see their users make an exodus for Chrome or Safari .
There is n't any way to turn back time to when Ogg was current technology and rewrite history and re-encode the incredible amount of video that is stored in H.264.If you imagine that Mozilla was saying " we ca n't support UTF-8 " that is the same as them not supporting H.264 .
The UTF-8 text is already out there , and there 's no other technology to replace it , and that is the same with H.264 video .
A Web browser that ca n't play YouTube is not a Web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I don't see why this is an either / or issue.In one word: standardization.For the same reason we standardize markup around W3C HTML5, we standardize video around MPEG-4 H.264.
We need to be able to make just one Web app and have it work on any browser from any manufacturer.
We need to be able to make just one video and have it work in any video player from any manufacturer.
If we don't have that, then consumers cannot choose their own preferred browser, or preferred media player.
They get stuck using IE6 or Windows Media Player solely to decode nonstandard Web apps and video.
It's not acceptable.Modern consumer electronics devices have one video codec burned into hardware, and that is MPEG-4 H.264.
This is almost 10 years old now.
Same as DVD players all had MPEG-2.
That's the reason the H.264 codec exists.
If you want to publish a video that will play on iPod and other media players, iPhone and other smartphones, various set-top boxes, both FlashPlayer and QuickTime Player, both YouTube and iTunes, that is H.264.
If you want to play video that was made with Flip camcorders, or Kodak camcorders, or Canon cameras, or Nikon cameras, or Panasonic cameras, or iPod/iPhone, that is H.264.A key thing to understand is that MPEG-4 is not owned by any one company.
The patents are not held by any one company.
They are put into a pool and licensed equally to all comers.
This puts all the consumer electronics manufacturers on equal footing.
Flip is not going to cease to exist one day because a submarine patent takes all their devices off the market.
The entire MPEG-4 group would address the submarine patent, all the manufacturers are protected from litigation in this way.
That's just not true with Ogg.On a Mac/PC, if you are somewhat technical, you can load all kinds of software codecs, most of which are made for authoring or some other special purpose, not made for consumer playback.
Same as you can happily make Web apps for IE6 if your company uses IE6.
But if you want to share Web apps with the world, you use HTML5.
If you want to publish video for the world, you use H.264.Also, you have to understand that video authoring tools all work with H.264 for many years now, and not with nonstandard formats.
Where you see Ogg video, or Windows Media, or Real Media, or any other nonstandard media, they were very likely created from H.264.This all has nothing to do with HTML5.
As I said, H.264 is almost 10 years old and both YouTube and iTunes and both FlashPlayer and QuickTime Player play it.
That *is* Web video.
H.264 plays in Firefox today, and will play there tomorrow.
HTML5 standardizes *markup* not video.
So browsers now have to become video players.
If Firefox doesn't want to do that, then they will see their users make an exodus for Chrome or Safari.
There isn't any way to turn back time to when Ogg was current technology and rewrite history and re-encode the incredible amount of video that is stored in H.264.If you imagine that Mozilla was saying "we can't support UTF-8" that is the same as them not supporting H.264.
The UTF-8 text is already out there, and there's no other technology to replace it, and that is the same with H.264 video.
A Web browser that can't play YouTube is not a Web browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645084</id>
	<title>Re:Before someone posts only the xiph link</title>
	<author>cyberthanasis12</author>
	<datestamp>1269710880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Sadly few have realized (despite it being the main focus of most of those articles, but hey, who reads those) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.</p></div><p>You can say that again. Otherwise Windows would be in the dustbin for years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly few have realized ( despite it being the main focus of most of those articles , but hey , who reads those ) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.You can say that again .
Otherwise Windows would be in the dustbin for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sadly few have realized (despite it being the main focus of most of those articles, but hey, who reads those) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.You can say that again.
Otherwise Windows would be in the dustbin for years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646136</id>
	<title>PSNR and SSIM</title>
	<author>emanem</author>
	<datestamp>1269772260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi guys, I've use this software <a href="http://qpsnr.youlink.org/" title="youlink.org" rel="nofollow">qpsnr</a> [youlink.org] to measure PSNR/SSIM of different encodings.<br>
I thought this could be good to share!<br>
Cheers,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi guys , I 've use this software qpsnr [ youlink.org ] to measure PSNR/SSIM of different encodings .
I thought this could be good to share !
Cheers,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi guys, I've use this software qpsnr [youlink.org] to measure PSNR/SSIM of different encodings.
I thought this could be good to share!
Cheers,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646112</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1269771780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>As for how to actually implement it, Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign "non-free" repositories. The details on how you do that are highly flexible. Mozilla seems to like over-engineering things, so I'm sure they can come up with a Clever Codec Plugin Scheme to automate this, as long as the actual codec is 1) a separate project, and 2) developed outside the org.</i>
<p>
A video tag is just a specialised object tag. It should be relatively straightforward for Mozilla to define a video plugin as a specialised NPAPI plugin that implements a nsIVideoPlayer interface, declares in some way what codecs &amp; containers it supports, and fires media events through some kind of listener callback.
</p><p>
Their current stance of hardcoding to theora doesn't make much sense. IE, Safari and Chrome will all natively support h264. Flash and Silverlight already support it. Mozilla will just find itself marginalised if it doesn't do the pragmatic thing and open up the tag to other formats or at least the defacto standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As for how to actually implement it , Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign " non-free " repositories .
The details on how you do that are highly flexible .
Mozilla seems to like over-engineering things , so I 'm sure they can come up with a Clever Codec Plugin Scheme to automate this , as long as the actual codec is 1 ) a separate project , and 2 ) developed outside the org .
A video tag is just a specialised object tag .
It should be relatively straightforward for Mozilla to define a video plugin as a specialised NPAPI plugin that implements a nsIVideoPlayer interface , declares in some way what codecs &amp; containers it supports , and fires media events through some kind of listener callback .
Their current stance of hardcoding to theora does n't make much sense .
IE , Safari and Chrome will all natively support h264 .
Flash and Silverlight already support it .
Mozilla will just find itself marginalised if it does n't do the pragmatic thing and open up the tag to other formats or at least the defacto standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for how to actually implement it, Mozilla et al needs to take a cue from how distros handle MP3 and other patented codecs - foreign "non-free" repositories.
The details on how you do that are highly flexible.
Mozilla seems to like over-engineering things, so I'm sure they can come up with a Clever Codec Plugin Scheme to automate this, as long as the actual codec is 1) a separate project, and 2) developed outside the org.
A video tag is just a specialised object tag.
It should be relatively straightforward for Mozilla to define a video plugin as a specialised NPAPI plugin that implements a nsIVideoPlayer interface, declares in some way what codecs &amp; containers it supports, and fires media events through some kind of listener callback.
Their current stance of hardcoding to theora doesn't make much sense.
IE, Safari and Chrome will all natively support h264.
Flash and Silverlight already support it.
Mozilla will just find itself marginalised if it doesn't do the pragmatic thing and open up the tag to other formats or at least the defacto standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643966</id>
	<title>Thom is a jackass.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269697800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There. I said it. Why? Because he counters Gruber's arguments with identical retorts, completely failing to see beyond his own nose, failing to realize and admit that all he is doing is just pulling his end of the rope in this tug of war, instead of coming up with anything worthwhile to consider in the choice of h.264 v theora.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There .
I said it .
Why ? Because he counters Gruber 's arguments with identical retorts , completely failing to see beyond his own nose , failing to realize and admit that all he is doing is just pulling his end of the rope in this tug of war , instead of coming up with anything worthwhile to consider in the choice of h.264 v theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There.
I said it.
Why? Because he counters Gruber's arguments with identical retorts, completely failing to see beyond his own nose, failing to realize and admit that all he is doing is just pulling his end of the rope in this tug of war, instead of coming up with anything worthwhile to consider in the choice of h.264 v theora.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645718</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>brandished</author>
	<datestamp>1269807000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But in this case, the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make. H.264 has won, and it won years ago.</p> </div><p>Won what? These are two sets of compression algorithms, not two people in a race to the finish.  What your saying is equivalent to "the hammer has won, there's no need to use the screwdriver anymore".  Each codec has it's uses, there are areas where h264 would be a better choice then theora, and areas where theora would be a better choice then h264, both have there pluses and minuses.
</p><p>
Also, what makes you think the race is over or will ever end? The MPEG-LA members themselves are still researching newer compression algorithms, they didn't stop when MPEG-1 was released, when MPEG-2 was, nor when MPEG-4 Part 2 was (DivX/XviD), why do think they stopped with h264 (MPEG-4 Part 10)?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Today, people have data in H.264 format. A lot of data. A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly. This data is not going to vanish, and people will want to play it.</p></div><p>This same argument could used for dozens of other formats, most people aren't rushing out to upgrade their DVD (MPEG-2) players or "DivX Certified" devices, vendors have yet to stop producing these devices either.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>it opens up the idea of a Free player</p></div><p>No it doesn't, have you ever even tried to install Linux or BSD?  No "free" installs I've ever come across included an h264 or DivX/XviD decoder by default, I've always had to go to an "unofficial repository" to get one, or look for one of Adobe's flash builds and cross my fingers.  MPEG-LA's members have no intentions of giving up their patents or rights to enforce them. Who will support this "free player" if/when an MPEG-LA member sues them into oblivion? Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean they won't or haven't threatened to. The official XviD.org site has refused to host compiled XviD encoder/decoder binaries for years due to threats of litigation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But in this case , the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make .
H.264 has won , and it won years ago .
Won what ?
These are two sets of compression algorithms , not two people in a race to the finish .
What your saying is equivalent to " the hammer has won , there 's no need to use the screwdriver anymore " .
Each codec has it 's uses , there are areas where h264 would be a better choice then theora , and areas where theora would be a better choice then h264 , both have there pluses and minuses .
Also , what makes you think the race is over or will ever end ?
The MPEG-LA members themselves are still researching newer compression algorithms , they did n't stop when MPEG-1 was released , when MPEG-2 was , nor when MPEG-4 Part 2 was ( DivX/XviD ) , why do think they stopped with h264 ( MPEG-4 Part 10 ) ? Today , people have data in H.264 format .
A lot of data .
A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly .
This data is not going to vanish , and people will want to play it.This same argument could used for dozens of other formats , most people are n't rushing out to upgrade their DVD ( MPEG-2 ) players or " DivX Certified " devices , vendors have yet to stop producing these devices either.it opens up the idea of a Free playerNo it does n't , have you ever even tried to install Linux or BSD ?
No " free " installs I 've ever come across included an h264 or DivX/XviD decoder by default , I 've always had to go to an " unofficial repository " to get one , or look for one of Adobe 's flash builds and cross my fingers .
MPEG-LA 's members have no intentions of giving up their patents or rights to enforce them .
Who will support this " free player " if/when an MPEG-LA member sues them into oblivion ?
Just because they have n't yet does n't mean they wo n't or have n't threatened to .
The official XviD.org site has refused to host compiled XviD encoder/decoder binaries for years due to threats of litigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in this case, the so-called Free solution is the wrong choice to make.
H.264 has won, and it won years ago.
Won what?
These are two sets of compression algorithms, not two people in a race to the finish.
What your saying is equivalent to "the hammer has won, there's no need to use the screwdriver anymore".
Each codec has it's uses, there are areas where h264 would be a better choice then theora, and areas where theora would be a better choice then h264, both have there pluses and minuses.
Also, what makes you think the race is over or will ever end?
The MPEG-LA members themselves are still researching newer compression algorithms, they didn't stop when MPEG-1 was released, when MPEG-2 was, nor when MPEG-4 Part 2 was (DivX/XviD), why do think they stopped with h264 (MPEG-4 Part 10)?Today, people have data in H.264 format.
A lot of data.
A long list of hardware devices are made that support it directly.
This data is not going to vanish, and people will want to play it.This same argument could used for dozens of other formats, most people aren't rushing out to upgrade their DVD (MPEG-2) players or "DivX Certified" devices, vendors have yet to stop producing these devices either.it opens up the idea of a Free playerNo it doesn't, have you ever even tried to install Linux or BSD?
No "free" installs I've ever come across included an h264 or DivX/XviD decoder by default, I've always had to go to an "unofficial repository" to get one, or look for one of Adobe's flash builds and cross my fingers.
MPEG-LA's members have no intentions of giving up their patents or rights to enforce them.
Who will support this "free player" if/when an MPEG-LA member sues them into oblivion?
Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean they won't or haven't threatened to.
The official XviD.org site has refused to host compiled XviD encoder/decoder binaries for years due to threats of litigation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643942</id>
	<title>these don't seem like strong arguments</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1269697500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the first part, he takes Gruber's working (submarine patents) too literally. Gruber didn't mean literally patents that are applied for earlier but not granted yet. Gruber misspoke himself. Instead, he means companies who have patents that are already granted and they later will decide applies to new situation and then sue. If Theora becomes successful, it will meet with plenty of these, just as any other software success does now.</p><p>In the second part, oddly, given that he rails against strawmen, the argument creates a strawman.</p><p>The quoted response veers rapidly from addressing facts (whether Theora is within patent guidelines) to making a prediction 'I predict that MPEG LA may counter that they know groups have been pressured into licensing patents in order to use Theora.' Then it shoots down the prediction and thus claims to counter the argument. But that prediction is just a prediction, it isn't the issue at hand. And countering prediction you made up yourself doesn't necessary counter the actual argument which is that H.264 has a patent defense pool and Theora doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the first part , he takes Gruber 's working ( submarine patents ) too literally .
Gruber did n't mean literally patents that are applied for earlier but not granted yet .
Gruber misspoke himself .
Instead , he means companies who have patents that are already granted and they later will decide applies to new situation and then sue .
If Theora becomes successful , it will meet with plenty of these , just as any other software success does now.In the second part , oddly , given that he rails against strawmen , the argument creates a strawman.The quoted response veers rapidly from addressing facts ( whether Theora is within patent guidelines ) to making a prediction 'I predict that MPEG LA may counter that they know groups have been pressured into licensing patents in order to use Theora .
' Then it shoots down the prediction and thus claims to counter the argument .
But that prediction is just a prediction , it is n't the issue at hand .
And countering prediction you made up yourself does n't necessary counter the actual argument which is that H.264 has a patent defense pool and Theora does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the first part, he takes Gruber's working (submarine patents) too literally.
Gruber didn't mean literally patents that are applied for earlier but not granted yet.
Gruber misspoke himself.
Instead, he means companies who have patents that are already granted and they later will decide applies to new situation and then sue.
If Theora becomes successful, it will meet with plenty of these, just as any other software success does now.In the second part, oddly, given that he rails against strawmen, the argument creates a strawman.The quoted response veers rapidly from addressing facts (whether Theora is within patent guidelines) to making a prediction 'I predict that MPEG LA may counter that they know groups have been pressured into licensing patents in order to use Theora.
' Then it shoots down the prediction and thus claims to counter the argument.
But that prediction is just a prediction, it isn't the issue at hand.
And countering prediction you made up yourself doesn't necessary counter the actual argument which is that H.264 has a patent defense pool and Theora doesn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644178</id>
	<title>Re:It's been said, but it's important</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1269700200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Today, people have data in H.264 format. A lot of data.</p></div><p>Today, there is even more data wrapped up by Flash.  I suppose we should just be pragmatic about it all and keep using that.  Right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , people have data in H.264 format .
A lot of data.Today , there is even more data wrapped up by Flash .
I suppose we should just be pragmatic about it all and keep using that .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, people have data in H.264 format.
A lot of data.Today, there is even more data wrapped up by Flash.
I suppose we should just be pragmatic about it all and keep using that.
Right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269700500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on Earth does HTML5 need to even specify the codec? I mean the  tag doesn't specify an image format, why should  not just have a src= attribute and any video supported by the system will play in it. That way it'd be the same as the change from GIF to PNG all those years ago, where those who want to use GIF could, and those who needed / wanted the free option (which was also superior) could use it without killing support for the other.</p><p>I don't see why this is an either / or issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on Earth does HTML5 need to even specify the codec ?
I mean the tag does n't specify an image format , why should not just have a src = attribute and any video supported by the system will play in it .
That way it 'd be the same as the change from GIF to PNG all those years ago , where those who want to use GIF could , and those who needed / wanted the free option ( which was also superior ) could use it without killing support for the other.I do n't see why this is an either / or issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on Earth does HTML5 need to even specify the codec?
I mean the  tag doesn't specify an image format, why should  not just have a src= attribute and any video supported by the system will play in it.
That way it'd be the same as the change from GIF to PNG all those years ago, where those who want to use GIF could, and those who needed / wanted the free option (which was also superior) could use it without killing support for the other.I don't see why this is an either / or issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31700046</id>
	<title>Re:First Post</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1270134300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For the same reason we standardize markup around W3C HTML5, we standardize video around MPEG-4 H.264.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Not for the same reason. W3C standards are open and free. H.264 is patent-encumbered and therefore closed. It is in no way like any open web standard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same reason we standardize markup around W3C HTML5 , we standardize video around MPEG-4 H.264 .
Not for the same reason .
W3C standards are open and free .
H.264 is patent-encumbered and therefore closed .
It is in no way like any open web standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same reason we standardize markup around W3C HTML5, we standardize video around MPEG-4 H.264.
Not for the same reason.
W3C standards are open and free.
H.264 is patent-encumbered and therefore closed.
It is in no way like any open web standard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646168</id>
	<title>Luis Villa's reply to Thom</title>
	<author>formal\_entity</author>
	<datestamp>1269773100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Luis Villa (lawyer who works for Mozilla) also wrote an important rebuttal to Thom's post:
<a href="http://tieguy.org/blog/2010/03/26/more-patent-101-and-some-patent-licensing-201-advanced-class/" title="tieguy.org" rel="nofollow">http://tieguy.org/blog/2010/03/26/more-patent-101-and-some-patent-licensing-201-advanced-class/</a> [tieguy.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luis Villa ( lawyer who works for Mozilla ) also wrote an important rebuttal to Thom 's post : http : //tieguy.org/blog/2010/03/26/more-patent-101-and-some-patent-licensing-201-advanced-class/ [ tieguy.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luis Villa (lawyer who works for Mozilla) also wrote an important rebuttal to Thom's post:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2010/03/26/more-patent-101-and-some-patent-licensing-201-advanced-class/ [tieguy.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644394</id>
	<title>they never said any such thing</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1269702720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They said it will be free to end users and net streamers until 2016. They have not said what happens in 2016. Specifically, they did not say they will seek all users to buy a license in 2016.</p><p>The last time the free (end-user) license period ended was in 2010 and they extended it then. They could do the same again. Or maybe not. No one can be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They said it will be free to end users and net streamers until 2016 .
They have not said what happens in 2016 .
Specifically , they did not say they will seek all users to buy a license in 2016.The last time the free ( end-user ) license period ended was in 2010 and they extended it then .
They could do the same again .
Or maybe not .
No one can be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said it will be free to end users and net streamers until 2016.
They have not said what happens in 2016.
Specifically, they did not say they will seek all users to buy a license in 2016.The last time the free (end-user) license period ended was in 2010 and they extended it then.
They could do the same again.
Or maybe not.
No one can be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646144</id>
	<title>Can't we just watch videos and not care, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269772560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I care is price and if Theora's free nature translates to end product prices like less ads on pages where it's used, then I'll probably watch more Theora content.</p><p>If I want better quality, I use higher bitrates regardless of the codec I'm using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I care is price and if Theora 's free nature translates to end product prices like less ads on pages where it 's used , then I 'll probably watch more Theora content.If I want better quality , I use higher bitrates regardless of the codec I 'm using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I care is price and if Theora's free nature translates to end product prices like less ads on pages where it's used, then I'll probably watch more Theora content.If I want better quality, I use higher bitrates regardless of the codec I'm using.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644032</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269698460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>argh, Ogg Theora, I meant in the last bit.  I use so many audio files in Ogg Vorbis format that when I type Ogg it's hard to type out Theora over Vorbis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>argh , Ogg Theora , I meant in the last bit .
I use so many audio files in Ogg Vorbis format that when I type Ogg it 's hard to type out Theora over Vorbis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>argh, Ogg Theora, I meant in the last bit.
I use so many audio files in Ogg Vorbis format that when I type Ogg it's hard to type out Theora over Vorbis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644046</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269698640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh -- the typical "open zealot" response -- let's talk about how things "should be" so that we can avoid discussions about how things are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh -- the typical " open zealot " response -- let 's talk about how things " should be " so that we can avoid discussions about how things are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh -- the typical "open zealot" response -- let's talk about how things "should be" so that we can avoid discussions about how things are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31647566</id>
	<title>OSS is always in the wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269793980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether it is linux vs os x,  gimp vs photoshop, oggvorbis vs mp3, oggtheora vs h264, the list is endless but the reality is clear: open source as a software development methodology is broken.  It produces inferior software and does not support nearly as diverse or health a corporate ecosystem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether it is linux vs os x , gimp vs photoshop , oggvorbis vs mp3 , oggtheora vs h264 , the list is endless but the reality is clear : open source as a software development methodology is broken .
It produces inferior software and does not support nearly as diverse or health a corporate ecosystem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether it is linux vs os x,  gimp vs photoshop, oggvorbis vs mp3, oggtheora vs h264, the list is endless but the reality is clear: open source as a software development methodology is broken.
It produces inferior software and does not support nearly as diverse or health a corporate ecosystem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643950</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1269697560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do, and so should you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do , and so should you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do, and so should you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31651740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31652434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31655146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31650896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31647088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31652416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31653896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31648352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31700046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_0027209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31655146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31647088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31653896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645366
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31700046
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31652434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31651740
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646200
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646448
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31648352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31652416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31646144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31650896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31643966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_0027209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31645638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_0027209.31644952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
