this is what is being published: Content Royaltie

this is what is being published:
Content Royalties Though there are content royalties for MPEG-2 and H.264 in the MPEG LA patent pools, the HEVC group inexplicably decided not to pursue content royalties for HEVC. HEVCAdvance is charging .5%, plus the 25% non-compliance penalty for those who don't pay voluntarily. The royalty applies to pay-per-view and subscription services, plus video that's advertising supported like ESPN or CNN. I ran some numbers for a Streaming Media story on HEVCAdvance. For a $4.00 movie downloaded from Amazon Prime or M-Go, the royalty would be two cents, right in line with MPEG-2/H.264 content royalties. In a Netflix scenario, for a $10/month subscriber who watches 10% of video that uses HEVC, the royalty would only apply to 10% of the subscription price, so the royalty would be about half a penny ($0.005). Assuming the $10 subscriber watches 100% HEVC, the royalty would be a nickel. HEVCAdvance expects the royalty to be calculated on gross numbers, not on a per-subscriber basis. For an advertising supported site, if HEVC was 30% of all video distributed, the calculation would be 30% x total video-related advertising revenue x .005. In this scenario, if video-related advertising revenue was $1 billion, the royalty would be $1,000,000,000 x .3 x .005, or $1.5 million, a far cry from the $120 million Apple is staring at. My colleague Dan Rayburn pointed out that computing the content royalties could require data that web publishers may not currently have, along with several other major objections, some covered here, some not. All that said, the content royalties are more modest and better grounded in precedent than the hardware royalties, so a FRAND challenge doesn't seem as imminent, though I have not spoken with any vendors who will be impacted by the royalty. - See more at: http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/blogs/...qoV2H.dpuf