China Proposes Rival Video Format 424
Richard Finney writes "Yahoo News is reporting that
the Chinese government is supporting an effort to develop a homegrown standard, called 'AVS,' for compressing digital audio and video in order to avoid paying royalties
on proprietary compression schemes.
The AVS groups website is online but in Chinese."
Go China! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Piracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
theora? (Score:2, Insightful)
Patent Policy Bites U.S.? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Chinese seem determined to avoid patent issues by developing their own chips, and now their own video formats.
The intellectual property laws that were supposed to guarantee our technology a dominant position may, in practice, be shutting U.S. companies out of future marketplaces, as tech customers seek a way around excessive royalties and restrictions.
communism and IP (Score:4, Insightful)
Now don't think I'm going so far out there. We have similar ideas here, and we at least pretend to practice them. That's the idea behind University research and stuff like that (at least before universities had the right to own the products of their research).
Here in America, I think we need more research done for the public benefit, paid with public money. There are so many intricacies to the vision I have, and I can anticipate many objections, but I'm not going to write a whole long post here. I'm just making a positive suggestion here.
Re:Yet another proprietary codec... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not yet, I think they want a truly free VIDEO format, not just a codec. All current ones have some kind of baggage on them meaning they where developed by a company that at any time may decide to start charging. Remember what happenend to the royalty free MP3 and gif formats?
I am not really sure why this is a money matter for china, unless they are planning on becoming huge content providers the cost of licensing current formats is peanuts. I think it is more political. A truly free standard would not see chinese money going to other nations who are after all their idiological enemy.
Lets just hope that they make it a truly opensource solution, would mean no DRM since DRM can only work with closed source.
You know you're an FOSS zealot when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1.2 billion (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but you bullshit the world, and pretend you're all one big free democratic nation.
Re:China better than Slashdot?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, their government is oppressive (so is ours, its just a matter of degree). And maybe it will keep them down. But if they manage to reform it, become a prosperous nation, its good news for the world.
Nuclear weapons mean they are unlikely to be conquering the globe for land, so we don't need to worry about that angle.
Probably Nationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
I admire their technical prowess, but they're not doing it with the good of humanity in mind. It's all about proving that they're not trapped in luohouzhuyi, literally "fall-behind-ism." They've failed as a communist party, so now the only thing keeping them in power is trying to prove that they're making China strong enough to resist foreign interference. That's what this project feels like to me.
Re:communism and IP (Score:1, Insightful)
In fact, I'd love to see Slashdot's ten year plan - 90% of all resources devoted to finding new compression for anime and tentacle pron videos; 10% for jagermeister production.
You damn dirty socialist hippies can bash the market economy all you want, but it works a hell of a lot better than centralized planning.
International Open Source lobbyists needed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably Nationalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Good luck to them.
Maybe they beat us out on something significant, then we can have another president drive us towards a tangible goal (I'm thinking Kennedy and moon shots here). Maybe that'll shake us out of the self-centered malaise we seem to be in...
Re:Here's to the next 5000 years of isolationism (Score:5, Insightful)
China never really has gotten over that "we are the center of the earth" mentality have they?
In my experience the USA has the same problem at times.
Interesting? (Score:1, Insightful)
You know what happens when you rely on parts of everybody else's?
You're sucked into bullshit in South America and the Middle East, because you need their oil.
China was the center of the earth for quite some time in terms of technology and civilization. So, they've been in a slump - Communism didn't help out much there.
However, they've the manpower and availible resources to thrash anyone else if they ever decided to get rid of the Communist craziness.
And they seem to be slowly moving in that direction. That should scare the shit out of every other first world nation on the planet.
Re:communism and IP (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the US government seems to like what it sees there - free markets backed with fascist social policy and is moving willy-nilly to copy them. But at least it keeps the damn dirty socialist hippies in their place, right?
Re:Probably Nationalism (Score:1, Insightful)
Exactly. After all, pure unadulterated nationalism is what got us to the moon the first time.
The space program could use a good swift kick in the arse. Frankly, I'd rather see a more 'free' society (like say, the EU, or India) give it to us, but hey, you take what you can get.
Random liberals aways give nationalism a bad name. A pity, considering it's been such a driving force with regard to technological advancement.
Fate help us if we ever do away with nations and become a united planet.. We'll just be a bunch of peace-loving non-competative fools, waiting for our sun to go nova.
Re:You know you're an FOSS zealot when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bet you'll be glad for all the stem cell research they will do, with all their aborted female foetuses, when your liver packs in 20 years from now.
It is a way to CONTROL INFORMATION (Score:2, Insightful)
if companies paid their taxes maybe it would help (Score:4, Insightful)
Taxation of profit is the promise that the government makes to the people.
Tax collectors have the most powerful range of search and siezure laws on their side.
Here in the UK a VAT collector can, with reasonable cause, turn up and any hour of the day or night and provided he is accompanied by two police officers he can enter your premises even if that means breaking in. No warrant, no judge, sieze first - ask questions later.
So why is it just that the world's most profitable companies avoid paying fair taxation?
If you believe in Democracy you believe in taxation, that's the deal.
It is not good enough to set up "the Foundation" and do public work. The will of the people is that you pay the government and we'll take care of it from there, thank you very much.
It is in this way that monopolies should not threaten their customers. Taxation is one of the checks and balances against run-away profiteering. If you had to pay 90% tax on the top end of the balance sheet then diminishing returns act as a disincentive.
The stagnant two party system that has gripped the major democracies is anti-freedom.
Dynasties are broken by internal power struggles spilling out into civil war or barbarian hordes.
Demonizing the "others", one nation under god.
But break they will and break they must.
Re:communism and IP (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I haven't made up my mind entirely yet. Of course I don't want the government, or any single entity, in charge of all creative thought and endeavours. So maybe, in the end, I believe a certain amount of government enforced monopoly, ie copyrights, patents etc., is OK. But I also think that public research, the kind that Universities do for the public good, and not for a profit, profits everyone more.
I'm sure you're wondering about incentive for creative thought. I'm sure you think that people create new drugs, etc. because it will make them rich. Well, you'd be wrong. Pharmaceutical companies hire scientists to work on a SALARY. They don't make profit off their creations. So whether these scientists work for a profitable organization or a public one, is irrelevant; they'd be doing the same work for the same money.
But if these scientists were creating drugs for a PUBLIC organization, these drugs would then be public domain, and most likely dirt cheap. Sure, the citizenry will bear the costs of development, but they won't be squeezed any more than necessary. In other words, the public is already bearing the costs of development and then some. And sort of like insurance, the sick ones won't be bearing an extraordinary amount of the load. And furthermore, we'd probably have more useful drugs, more important drugs that aren't being created because they are less profitable (vaccines is the most common example of important but less profitable drugs that are being neglected).
I understand that this article wasn't about pharmaceuticals, but I think the same principles apply. The same principles applied when DARPA (or ARPA, whatever) created internet techologies, and the same principles applied when academic institutions developed these techonologies. Not in a million years would a private corporation create something as powerful (and powerfully open) as the internet. In fact, these corporations, right now as we speak, are doing their best to close it up.
I'm not talking about centralized planning, or bureacracy. I believe in creative inspirations and moments of genius and all that. I just don't think our system is ideal.
And just to be clear, I'm not certain that we don't need any copyrights or patents at all (although that might work out nicely, I'm not positive). Certain types of projects and developments work better if there is a profit motive driving behind it, sure. But I also think we need more public funding for creative developments, because otherwise there won't be any new innovations created unless a profit can be squeezed from it.
I'd like to put it this way: certainly you agree that there are some technologies that can be developed, which have no ways of making a profit from it. Certainly not all innovations that will benefit mankind can be shoehorned into a business plan. Well, if you acknowledge that such innovations exist, innovations which benefits everyone, but no one stands to profit from, then I'm sure you'd be in favor of a certain level of public funding for these innovations.
I am not a communist, or a socialist, and I'm definitely not a hippie. I think market economies are great...for things like grain or steel or coal. I'm not convinced that communism or socialism is a good thing (in fact, I'm inclined to think its not). But I do think that there is a huge, obvious, and non-arbitrary division between physical goods (which can be exhausted) and the products of creative thought (which cannot).
Re:Chinese PEOPLE won't make money (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I know many people's definition of "fair share" vary, and I'm not going to pretentiously claim what the Founding Fathers would have wanted, but it seems that an increasing number of people believe that simply existing inside our borders entitles them to a share of the country's collective wealth.
There used to be a time when people relied upon hard work, innovation, and ambition to achieve success, rather than expect it to be handed to them. Both corporations and individuals are prone to this new entitlement mentality, and it's the working stiffs that are getting screwed.
Re:6 billion people (Score:3, Insightful)
Ermmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's just say that your local media is more likely to tell you that another country is Bad(tm) then tell you about the stuff your own country is up to.
I'm not condoning any form of human rights abuse, I'd really like to live in a nice, happy, peaceful world, but let's face it; the west is not exactly utopia either. I saw a post around here the other day from a chinese
Re:You know you're an FOSS zealot when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, when some engineers in China do something good and useful, like create a new, free video standard, one should cheer them on for that and encourage them. That doesn't amount to a wholesale endorsement of the Chinese government or their political system.
The US has plenty of human rights, social, and economic problems itself and plenty of historical baggage. You should worry about that before you are in a position to single-handedly condemn a country of a billion inhabitants.
Re:Piracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Probably Nationalism (Score:3, Insightful)
What country does anything for the good of humanity?
Typical American mentality (Score:2, Insightful)
This must be an old trick to get modded...
For god's sake, all of us know China's human right record. Your daily TV newsprogram mentions it once every week just to make sure no one is missing that particular dose of history(and they would also add China is a communist nation, but they would never mention the actual definition of communism).
For a change, how about tell us something we don't already know, like the progress they are making?
Or we could talk about something you might not be too familiar with, like our own human rights record. Don't forget, we used to be a segregated society, and look how long it took us to get out of that system.
Re:You know you're an FOSS zealot when... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please. It's not like they (we) endorced the effort. Besides, if you were murdered, wouldn't you at least want that to somehow benfit man-kind rather than it being an empty death? I know I would. Many people donate their bodies to science. If they are murdered, should they be prevented from allowing others to benefit from their death. What about organ donors? I'm so tired of hearing about these obtuse and illogical moral grounds that surround that body of knowledge. It makes no sense, certainly not on moral grounds, to say the least.
And the US shipped all the nazi guys designing V-1s and V-2s (more terrorist devices than weapons) off to build ICBMs, to protect the land of the free.
So, we should imprision all weapon designers? You do realize that almost all of the research that the V1 and V2 were based on, had the foundation laid by a US researcher? Right? Should he of been killed too? Imprisioned? The nukes used at the end of WWII, one could argue, were much more of a terorist weapon than the V1 and V2. Should all of them of been shot or imprisioned, following the war?
Supporting research after some other jerk has got their hands dirty and killed some folk to get their answers (and taken the blame) is what we do in the 'civilised' west.
You do realize that much of the world is healthier, having taken that research. One can just as easily argue that it would of been a crime against humanity to not only make those deaths meaningless, but to destroy research which has gone on to help humanity.
You do realize that much of the world is healthier, having taken that research. One can just as easily argue that it would of been a crime against humanity to not only make those deaths meaningless, but to destroy research which has gone on to help humanity.
Both of which are currently legal. Even if you object on moral grounds, it rather foolish to do so. If they are available, because of abortion, it would be morally wrong to ignore a source or valuable research. Attempting to tie the two together is pretty silly. If we follow that logic, doctors and researches should no longer get bodies to learn and/or research.
The moral high ground you seem to be standing on seems more delusional than anything else I've seen before. If you have such morales, I assume you've never gone to the doctor. If you have, I don't think we have anything else to talk about.
Re:Ermmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Our government makes some colossal blunders - every government does. But to compare the United States (the largest foreign aid contributor in the world) to a country like China is ridiculous.
Did you compare AI's report on the U.S. to their report on China [amnesty.org]? Don't bother answering, because I know you didn't.
The highlights of the U.S. report consists of the detention of 600 foreign nationals arrested in military combat (boo fucking hoo) and the fact that we still exercise the death penalty. The China report details the systematic detention of TENS OF THOUSANDS of Chinese citizens for expressing dissenting opinions. "Torture and ill-treatment remained widespread and appeared to increase".
If you were a Chinese citizen and had posted the same comment, you could very possibly wind up in prison.
Get a fucking grip. No, better, move to China.
Re:Probably Nationalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because there are long-term payoffs from the high technology that would need to be developed for such a trip to succeed. Plus, China is quite wise to get millions of Chinese kids excited about space. That will put them far ahead of the US kids, excited about Pokemon.
There is a program to build a navy to rival the US's.
If you saw a potentially hostile and unpredictable country attacking countries for economic reasons the way the US has been, you'd want to deter them as well. This is not patriotism, this is simple self-protection. In addition to all this, they are going full steam ahead on a nuclear warheards program that will eventually be able to completely destroy the USA, even after our missile defense is in place. At this point, all China can do is nuke a few dozen US cities, and that might not be deterrent enough.
There was their version of linux
No one can fail to see why this is good for all Chinese-speaking people of the world - and by extention, for all people in general. Everybody benefits when the Microsoft monopoly is broken, and a billion Chinese Linux users would do much to contribute to this good thing.
What China is resisting is foreign occupation. They are trying to maintain their autonomy in a world where the USA is in a position to control just about everything and everyone. To find fault with that is very hard for me to understand. I'm glad that not everyone is just laying down before us.
Re:You know you're an FOSS zealot when... (Score:2, Insightful)
What is your definition of a "terrorist weapon"? True, they were more frightening then they were dangerous as far as deaths, but that hardly makes them a terrorist weapon.
BTW, it is agreed by many that the rocket programs were a poor use of German resources. If the Germans used that money and effort for more conventional weapons, and put their jet technology to better use, the war probably would have lasted longer. Hitler was overly obsessed with "offensive toys", ignoring good defensive ideas.
Mod parent down. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patent Policy Bites U.S.? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I'm worried about are submarine patents that ought not to have been granted in the first place that may have been missed by the patent search/licensing agreements. I'm thinking of something tangential, like LZW in GIF.
We won't know about them until after Theora becomes widely accepted and popular for a number of years, then a lawyer somewhere will smell blood.