Of course they pay, only if you do not make any money from a site which serves h264 video are you (currently) allowed to do so for free. Google makes money from Youtube, as do any other video provider site out there with even an ad banner. Why do you think Google spend so much money developing their own video codec to begin with?
You are deluded, h264 isn't free and neither will h265 be, it's not even covered by the 'free unless you make any money' promise as of yet.
Yes the encoder is currently very slow, same goes for the h265 encoders out now, it will not 'take a couple of years to improve speed' though, optimization was pointless until the bitstream had been finalized, which it has now and optimizations are underway.
It's already better than x264 for HD content in many tests, you seem utterly clueless:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...37#post1636137
And it has been improved further since this test was done.
Again, a h265 based image format could never replace jpeg on the web, in order to replace jpeg you have to have something everybody can use without paying royalties, and unless MPEGLA gives perpetual royalty free rights to use h265 technology for image compression (not likely!) there's no way it will be used online. Currently this mainly leaves webp, which is better than jpeg and png in most tests I've done, but even so it would likely have to be much better still in order to gain traction as jpeg is simply 'good enough' for people and works everywhere in anything.