Slashdot Mirror

Redhat (or any other distro) could solve that by a one time unlimited fee payment, I think it is 60 thousand dollars, then they could legally do the MP3 playback thing, although you don't get the source.

Yes, check this page out

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html

Yes, it isn't pure, I would also bet that 99% of folks who run linux have a few bits and bytes of impure code on their systems already.

Now I have no idea on the video drivers from the big two, other than you need the binary blobs to run the latest and even then they sorta sucketh. There are a few open source driver projects, but they get little support or notice, including the complete video card project here

http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=About OpenGraphics&PHPSESSID=f1b5ef6703ea1d97e80ffec79dd f088e

It's nothing to do with MPEG, no, since there are open source codecs available; this was about the win32 codecs package. If the DLLs were open source, then the developers would've properly ported them, so that anyone can use them, not just i386 users (AMD64 or PPC users can't use the win32 codecs).

I don't know the exact MP3 issue, especially not at this time of night, but the MP3 licensing site doesn't seem to mention any exemptions, on a brief, extremely tired glance.

No open formats such as mp3; excuse: piracy.

Since when was MP3 an "open format?"

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html

Below is the reason why Ubuntu lacks media support for closed codecs "out of the box."

A single example will be used- MP3's.

The group that holds the patent on MP3's demands that for each player with MP3 support a 75 cent fee must be paid:

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

It might not seem like a lot, but when the distro is free then even such a small fee is too much. The only other option is to pay a large one time fee that could otherwise pay a developer to work on Ubuntu for a whole year! So it costs money to distribute software that pays MP3s.

If Ubuntu ignored this, it could be sued in nations like the U.S. where this patent is valid. Either Ubuntu would have to pay up or the developers could never set foot in a country with such patent laws ever again (not reasonable). So because it costs money, Ubuntu has no MP3 support.

Now take this situation, and multiply it times every type of restricted software out there (that isn't a free like OGG) and you see what the situation is. So in order to spend money on developers, not laywers, Ubuntu has to avoid touching these codecs. Even an easier way to install them such as "click here to install" would make Ubuntu an accessory to a crime in many nations.

This is why its important to support open codecs and standards. But Ubuntu can't provide restricted software, or make it any easier because of the law.

And this is the award winning, "User Friendly" distro? Treating your users like idiots, but making them have "guru" skills just to play an mp3 is "friendly"? Good thing the average user only plays vorbis files, eh?

Fuck their "philosophy." Gnome not only does not do what I want it to do but appears to go out of its way to set up roadblocks to keep me from doing it.

PC software applications which incorporate mp3/mp3PRO decoding (player decoder) and software applications incorporating mp3/mp3PRO encoding capabilities (encoder, ripper, recorder, jukebox):
mp3 patent-only license
This patent-only license is needed in case the mp3 software is developed in-house or licensed from a third party
Decoder: US$ 0.75 per unit or US$ 50 000.00 one-time paid-up
Encoder/Codec: US$ 2.50 per unit

Not really. Sony and Phillips had ATRAC in their minidisc and Phillips had PASC in the DCC back in 1992

If the patent system in the late 80's was as screwed up as it is today

As it was, they had to patent an implementation of it, not the idea of it.

Let's face it. The system is broken, everybody knows it, the big companies just like it because it lets them lock down huge portions of the technical universe and not have any competition. Its essentially locking the world into keritsu's where only huge companies have the resources to play, because they've been smart enough to get the patent laws tilted in their favor.

Without any details, I can't really help you with the network connection, but ...

I also tried to play some mp3s on it and none of the audio players installed would recognize the file. I've since read that I may need to install additional software to get those programs to use mp3s. WTF? Something that minor, playing an mp3 file, shouldn't be that big a hassle.

The algorithms used in MP3 are patented by the Fraunhofer IIS. For this reason, many Linux distros simply don't include MP3 support to avoid licensing issues and possible lawsuits. There's really nothing in the world Linux programmers can do except wait for the patent to expire. If you want, you can pay Fraunhofer $0.75 for a license.

Or, you can do what I do. When I get ahold of an mp3, I run it through the command-line decoder that Fraunhofer provides (free as in beer, but proprietary), and then encode it to FLAC (not Ogg, because I don't want to convert from one lossy format to another lossy format). Kind of ironic that I'm using Fraunhofer's own tool to avoid playing MP3, but yeah ... IMHO, setting MP3 as the "standard" lossy audio codec is one of the ISO's biggest mistakes ever, given all the patent issues.

Anyhow, in short, the MP3 issue you're running into has nothing to do with how good Linux is; it has to do with the legal issues surrounding MP3s.

It's still a patented extortion encumbered format. Screw that.

More: http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/index.html

Yeah, I sure want to convert all my things into an extortion format to play via my DRM promo program, instead of enjoying any kind of freedom. Sheesh.

Yes.

This explains why Microsoft would need to pay royalties. Even LAME is not exempt (at least in Germany & the USA) - the whole reason for its original name ("LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder") is to help avoid the patent issues around mp3 encoding.

This explains why Microsoft would need to pay royalties. Even LAME is not exempt (at least in Germany & the USA) - the whole reason for its original name ("LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder") is to help avoid the patent issues around mp3 encoding.

it will help legitimize the online music industry

It will help legitimize DRM! We don't need more extortion schemes, we need Freedom!

Do not support this. It's bad, even when Apple does it, mmkay? Slippery slopes and all that...

• while doing housework
• while cycling on a hometrainer
• sometimes in the bathtub (though I am more likely to read if the book wasn't expensive)
• and since my player has a sleep timer: especially as bedtime story until I fall asleep :-)
• also: if you have to be in the hospital and a) you can't really use your eyes due to the operation or b) you can't sleep for days because you are sweating like hell for an unknown reason or c) if your roommate snores (though it doesn't help much..)

Don't you only pay a royalty to Thomson et al if you make a device/piece of software which can encode MP3s? So MP3 decoders are not subject to a fee-paying license, and neither are the MP3s either.

Since virtually no-one in the world has an OGG portable player (the market I'd imagine that this guy is interested in - would you want to sit at your desk/laptop to hear a book?), it makes sense to stick with MP3.

I was almost correct, but at the same time quite wrong - no fee is payable if the activity is non-commercial. So maybe he has a fee to pay, but maybe that is offset by the sheer number of MP3 players. see here. "However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00."

Boo because they come from Fraunhofer.

Is this not the same Fraunhofer that collects royalties for their MP3 patents? They are obviously just playing with all the cash.

No, the message is muddied by the cobranding of F/OSS software and propoganda throughout the site.

And the idea that Ogg isn't supported natively on either Mac nor the PC is a perfect example of why this is a bad idea.

Do I know how much licensing for MP3 usage is? Sure -- if you are making less than $100k a year, its absolutely free. Its not worth Fraunhofer / Thompson's time for anything less.

If you are making over this amount, then we are talking a royalty rate of 2%. Thats right, if you are bringing in over $100k, you might have to pay a small token amount in royalties. I don't know about you, but I pay a *LOT* more than that for my licensing / taxes / software for my online business (I have worked for the music industry in the past, and still do consulting within this area...$2k ain't much if you want to be taken seriously).

So $10k? Where did you get that number? Obviously not from folks that license the product:

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html

If you are worried about royalities (and want to stay unencumbered by DRM), take a serious look at AAC. The only charge there are for encoders / decoders. It looks as though your site is already encouraging an assbackward software package to encode into OGG on the client side...so why not just use iTunes to do the conversion -- that too is free. I know there are several free encoders on the Linux side as well (because I had to batch transcode several gigs of waves over to this and it was faster to just use a spare linux box and let it do this in the background).

But if you want to see the royalty rates on AAC, take a look at Dolby's site:

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/lice nseFAQ.html

As for being able to play music -- I can't play it without a wierd format that isn't supported by my hardware. At least all my current hardware can play WAV / MP3 / AIF / AAC all without having to transcode it. So, yes, it matters, because I can't hear it. I didn't buy from the iTMS either until it was supported by a large (more than 10%) of the players sold.

But yeah, its part of my job to know this stuff. Again, I agree with your commitment to open source, but don't take it as a religion. Use the best tool for the purpose. Otherwise, it looks at those you are more about promoting F/OSS than you are promoting another means to an end for musicians -- which again is a noble cause. Why don't you do an experiment? Set your store up to sell both Ogg and MP3 (or AAC) and tell the end use they have to pick which format before buying (give them the choice to download all 3 if they want once the experiment is over) and stop the experiment just before $99999 in sales (or whatever you hit for the year) and see what sold the most. You might be surprised...hell, if ya published it, *I* might be surprised.

Sorry if my last post seemed antagonistic in any way -- I didn't mean it that way, but the "Since you seem to know everything about online music though" comment seems as though I was. No, I understand the marketting of musicians and this is one of the reasons the big industry is starting to fail -- they are more about marketting themselves and promoting what is good for the industry but not necessarily what is good for the artist. And this is exactly what I see when I visited the site.

Focus on the musicians and nothing more....

Link it properly for Google: Extortion Fee ;-)

Maybe in the US...

No software patents in the rest of the world.

http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents/index.html

I counted at least 33 different countries.

I hope these companies can prove there are enough free mp3's and paid mp3/wma services available that such taxation isn't required.

Unfortunately, there are no free MP3s.

http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

I hope these companies can prove there are enough free mp3's and paid mp3/wma services available that such taxation isn't required.

Unfortunately, there are no free MP3s.

http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

You don't want to support the extortion scheme now do you?

Both are closed formats. To the best of my knowledge, the only way to play wma files under Linux/BSD is to use Microsoft's DLL files which is illegal (Though if you have a legal copy of Windows I suppose that is a grey area. I and many other Linux users, however, do not own or use Windows). MP3 support requires a license fee http://mp3licensing.com/ OGG is an open standard with no strings or restrictions.

The reason why your "porn, MP3s and NTFS" aren't supported without extra downloads is because of patents/lack of specifications.

I don't blame you for not knowing this because if you aren't going to go off and write this stuff yourself then it is deadly boring and tedious but it doesn't stop it being true.

MP3s are patented. The worry is if someone produces software to make or play MP3s they have pay royalties or risk being sued. This would ramp up the cost of Linux.

Porn. I have no idea what format your porn is in (I'm guessing it's video). Let's say it's some sort of MPEG4 video (this covers WMF too). MPEG4 is patented too and you need to pay royalties if you produce software that plays or makes them. This would ramp up the cost of Linux.

NTFS writing is off because it is dangerous/limited and can quite easily destroy the partition. This is mostly because NTFS has no documentation outside of MS. It may also be patented by MS. Licencing it would ramp up the cost of Linux.

By the time a company has paid for all these things and passed the cost to its customers (remember your distro can't possibly be free in either sense now) you have something more expensive than Windows which still doesn't run Windows programs. Why wouldn't you just use Windows?

The only system that could possibly win the game of being more Windows than Windows is MacOS and that comes with implicit expectation that you won't try and do things like read NTFS partitions or run Windows software outside of an emulator.

There are a number of patents under the mp3 licensing group http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents/index.html. Some look like they might expire soon, I'd welcome corrections if I am wrong.

The essential MP3 patent is listed on that page as "internal no. P3912605", which corresponds to US Patent 5,579,430. That one was filed in April 1990 and should expire in April 2010.

I think it is 20 years after date of application for patent. There are a number of patents under the mp3 licensing group http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents/index.html. Some look like they might expire soon, I'd welcome corrections if I am wrong.

I don't know about lawsuits, but this article touches upon the cease and desist letters they sent out. Such a move *could* have killed MP3s, except that Thomson's licensing is very reasonable.

For one, you don't need a license for "private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00."

Beyond that, their royalty rates are as little as $0.75 per copy, or a one time fee of $50-60K.

They make some vague claims, such as "we believe [the patent owners] are serving papers right now." Note the fact that they have no concrete examples of this happening. They just believe it is. Then: "it's believed that one Website Owner has recently settled out of court for several millions." Once again, no concrete example. Just a belief that this has happened.

But great scams always include a grain of truth, this one being that MP3's patent is owned by Thomson, and they have set licensing terms.

So my question is, does anyone KNOW of Thomson actually suing anyone or gearing up for a rash of suits as the spammers claim? And this is not "I believe they are" or "a friend knows a guy whose sister's boyfriend's cousin's hairdresser's uncle got sued by Thomson while removing a gerbil from Richard Gere's butt." Does anyone have any concrete info on Thomson enforcing their patents?

- Greg

Maybe that will happen when:

A. Debian does it or

B: We have more people working on the Universe packages. Till now we have to make do.

I do realize that there is a Synaptic option for editing repositories. The problem is that it is simply a convoluted way of editing it by hand. All I should have to do is make a menu selection. The unsupportedness issue strikes me as foolish. A "Warning: Unsupported Repositories" message would be all that it would take to clear things up. This may in fact even clear up other problems -- I saw nothing about support in the guides on the web that recommended editing sources.list.

Thats because the guides are unsupported too. This is actually getting resolved in the future- it is being worked out so that the backport repo (the biggest line to add to the sources.list) and the Guide will be made official and soon things might be a little more together. Ubuntu is VERY new (we have not even had two releases yet) so the kinks are being worked out. I promise that this is a concern though.

And given that you seem to be the answer guy, there was one Ubuntu problem that I forgot to include. Multimedia support. I couldn't play an MP3 without installing new software, to say nothing about avi files. Is that going to be changed in a future release?

No...that will never happen. Why? It costs 75 cents per player to legally distribute a product that can play MP3s. Ubuntu has already shipped over 1 million CDs (who knows how many downloaded) and at those rates the foundation would be broke within a few years. There is the option of the "pay once" fee...but that would be more an option for rhythmbox than Ubuntu. Plus the cost of that upfront fee is enough to pay another developer for a whole year- something that would improve Ubuntu a lot more. The best we will do is maybe one day have a script that installs the Real Player (aka the legal Linux MP3 player)- unless you have $60,000 you are willing to donate. As far as the other codecs go- Ubuntu will include those the day when copyright disappears and it can't get in trouble for legally distributing the codecs (so never).

I actually didn't know that distribution of software mp3 decoders required a license, I just checked http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html and found out that it does. License costs are $0.75 per user or $50,000 to $60,000 for an unlimited license for software decoders.

From memory I installed some mp3 package from the Debian repository so I can now play mp3's with Ubuntu. I agree its easy to do (as long as you know the name of the thing you need, which is another small-yet-annoying thing with Linux based systems), but my point is why do I have to? In this case it's license restrictions which I can accept when I'm spending $0 on the product.

Nothing is preventing anyone from paying the one-time license fee for MP3 decoding. According to mp3licensing.com this one-time license fee is "US$ 50 000.00 - US$ 60 000.00". But there are some problems with that plan:

• This license fee only covers MP3 decoding, not MP3 encoding. Nowadays people want to make compressed audio files, not just play them. At best, this only covers half of what users want to do.
• The license fee is potentially incompatible with free software. It's possible that the license one pays for states that it does not apply to software which is licensed to share and modify. I don't know if this is the case, I've never read the license text for the one-time paid up MP3 decoder license, but it would be within the patent holder's power to do such a thing. Fraunhofer could decide to simply not license any free software distributor for an MP3 decoder license. Either would be a simple and effective showstopper for any free software MP3 player.
• Eventually, the patents covering MP3 will expire everywhere in the world. At this point, you'll probably see MP3 encoders and decoders popping up in all free software and open source OSes. Ogg Vorbis will still be technically superior. Thus, the more time that passes, the more expensive any one-time license fee becomes because this fee grants one legal permission to do something one can do now (with better quality and tagging information) for no license fee. Paying this much money for something we don't strictly need is hard to justify to investors and small businesses.

That's a lot of money for a free software project to raise or justify paying just to cave in to popularity. And the money would be paid to underscore something that should not exist in the first place (software patents) and would give users no reason to investigate using something we should be using instead (Ogg Vorbis).

These reasons are legal difficulties - namely MP3 codec distribution issues (it is not free, when you distribute more than 100000 copies you need to pay Philips AFAIK)

You have to pay to Thomson, which collects for the various patent holders (apparently Fraunhofer, Thomson and Coding Technologies). And judging from their roality rates, you pay from the first unit.

SuSE is now US based (Novell) and they need to be legal.

Well, they also had to 'be legal' as a German company. They even had to comply with US law if they wanted to do business in the USA (which they did). Maybe the concerns (or awareness? Or pressure?) just got bigger.

My distro of choice is Fedora - it also comes without some multimedia support - but adding it is as simple as adding one line to config file and issuing one command.

At least for MP3s, you don't even have to add a line to a config file with SuSE 9.3. Just run Yast Online Update, select the multimedia packages and you are done.

Fraunhofer's patent does not dictate what you, the end user, can do with your mp3s.

Bands can't sell MP3 files without paying 2.0% of related revenue to Thomson.

LAME (mentioned because many websites in 1997-1998 said it was "grey area" legality)

The LAME encoder is still well within that gray area in jurisdictions where these patents apply.

No. I have an iPod, and it plays DRM-free MP3s just fine, thanks. Admittedly, Ogg Vorbis support would be nice

MP3s aren't DRM-free. Look at all the exclusive rights that are managed by legit MP3 implementations. Consider switching to an iRiver player when your iPod player's battery breaks down, as iRiver players have a Tremor decoder to support Ogg Vorbis.

No one is forcing you to use iTunes or get an iPod, and this isn't a Microsoft Windows sort of case--you can still get pretty much any music that would be available on pieces of circular plastic that are compatible with a whole lot of things.

A lot of recordings available on iTMS are out of print on CD.

The algorithms used to make and decode MP3s are patented by Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (licenses are paid through Thomson). Thus, in countries which observe software patents (such as the US), any implementation of those algorithms cannot be legally distributed without paying a patent license fee. Fraunhofer and Thomson claim that the relevant patents apply in many countries besides the US (warning: this page lists patents you might not wish to become familiar with). The patent holder determines what the fee is and they can change the fee at any time or refuse to issue a license to a particular would-be licensee. Most patent holding corporations tie the license fee to the number of copies of programs distributed (which means such payment schemes are incompatible with free software).

mp3licensing.com, the site which lists the license schedule, lists a one-time payment for the MP3 decoder (between US$50,000 and US$60,000), but as far as I know, nobody has paid that fee. The encoder has no one-time fee, and thus cannot be legally distributed as free software in countries where software patents exist.

I suspect that in some years when these patents have expired, there will be a lot of GNU/Linux distributions picking up support to make and play MP3 files. Ogg Vorbis will still be a better option on technical grounds, however. If you're encoding human spoken voice, consider Speex with or without the Ogg container. I'm very impressed with what it can do in such a small file.

The algorithms used to make and decode MP3s are patented by Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (licenses are paid through Thomson). Thus, in countries which observe software patents (such as the US), any implementation of those algorithms cannot be legally distributed without paying a patent license fee. Fraunhofer and Thomson claim that the relevant patents apply in many countries besides the US (warning: this page lists patents you might not wish to become familiar with). The patent holder determines what the fee is and they can change the fee at any time or refuse to issue a license to a particular would-be licensee. Most patent holding corporations tie the license fee to the number of copies of programs distributed (which means such payment schemes are incompatible with free software).

mp3licensing.com, the site which lists the license schedule, lists a one-time payment for the MP3 decoder (between US$50,000 and US$60,000), but as far as I know, nobody has paid that fee. The encoder has no one-time fee, and thus cannot be legally distributed as free software in countries where software patents exist.

I suspect that in some years when these patents have expired, there will be a lot of GNU/Linux distributions picking up support to make and play MP3 files. Ogg Vorbis will still be a better option on technical grounds, however. If you're encoding human spoken voice, consider Speex with or without the Ogg container. I'm very impressed with what it can do in such a small file.

There is Rhythmbox and Totem Movie Player and both have important plug-ins/codecs missing for playing MPEGs or MP3s and there's no other MP3 player.

This seems like a bad thing at first blush, but it's a good thing that Ubuntu is not distributing software that some users can't redistribute (notably, users in countries burdened with software patents, like US users).

It's a real hassle to not be able to double-click on a file and have it do the right thing immediately, but there is a good reason for not including MP3 software: (for those who aren't aware of this) MP3 is patent-encumbered. In some countries all implementations of MP3 are covered by patents held by the Fraunhofer corporation and patent licenses are acquired through Thomson. If you want to merely share a verbatim copy of a GPL'd MP3 player with your friend (again, in some countries), you need a license.

This restriction makes the software non-free for some users, despite the license. This is why free software proponents endorse the use of unencumbered protocols and file formats to do the same job. Ogg Vorbis is a fine replacement and most reviews I've read say that the Vorbis codec sounds better than MP3, or can sound just as bad but with a smaller file size. Have a friend set up a blind test for you and figure out what you like.

There are restrictions on various other kinds of formats too, and there are unencumbered replacements for most of them.

"Non-commercial software developers can license a CDDB/mp3PRO decoding/mp3-encoding package on a royalty-free basis, and commercial applications will have access to royalty-free mp3PRO decoding. Links"

http://www.mp3licensing.com/mp3/mp3pro.html

It always bugged me that everyone got all weird about the licensing thing. Did anyone take the time to ask the licensor? Or at least read all the fine print on the website? Mp3Pro is their big gun right now, its mp3 compatible and it clearly states on the licensors website that non-commercial developers can get a royalty-free CDDB/mp3PRO decoding/mp3-encoding license.

Can we stop with the disinformation now?

Um, the people who have the patents are the ones that made the standard. They didn't have to publish it at all if they didn't want to.

What would be the point of a patent system if you were allowed to keep the technology hidden?

And as far as Linux end-users are concerned, there is no issue with MP3 for end-users. If you read that whole page, you will see this blurb many times

no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities

Only if you are in the USA and are encoding/decoding MP3s for certain commercial purposes (as Thomson explicitly let you do it for personal use) does this patent apply to you.

Sure, their site says that end users don't need a license, but does using an unlicensed decoder expose you as well? Or is there also an exemption for people who develop decoders for their own personal use?

For someone who doesn't want to participate in patent civil disobedience, isn't it just as unethical to use an unlicensed decoder as it is to release your own decoder and ignore the licensing?

I agree about the likelihood of a lawsuit from Thomson, but I think the availability of a legal alternative makes Linux a more attractive solution for those who want to live on the right side of the law.

That information is from 1998.

Try to find any royalty-free arrangement here:

http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html

I couldn't find any.

However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.

Seems pretty clear that the patent-holder does not want to go after end-users using MP3 for non-commercial uses.

There are several patents related to MP3 listed here. MPEG.org has a FAQ about licensing.

no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.

Also, does anyone know were the patent on decoding is so we can check whether it is valid (in the USA--it is obviously invalid in the free (i.e.: non-US) world)?

And, if you don't want to be sued, use a free and better lossy format (e.g.: Ogg Vorbis for music or Ogg Speex for speech).

But the question is: Did McGuyver pay his mp3 patent licensing fees?

So... say I go out and buy a Philips Brand DVD Player. Plays DivX, WMA files, mp3's, VCD. On my PC, I have tons of songs I've bought from Apple's ITMS that I'd like to be able to play on this DVD player. But I can't. So the solution to my problem is to sue Apple because the device I bought can't play Apple's AAC files (Regardless of Apple's licensing Fairplay or not)?

Did I ever say that? No, I didn't.

Let's ask a better question. Is there any legitimate technical reason that this DVD player can't play iTMS songs? No.

Is there a legal reason? YES! Apple refused to license the ability to play iTMS songs unless it fits their greater agenda.

Let's look at another company that licenses its technology. Fraunhofer offers a per decoder/encoder license to anyone willing to pay their fees. You don't have to ask permission to license, just pay them and they are happy. They even have clauses for broadcasting licenses excluding non-profit uses from having to pay.
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html

How about an even more ambiguous technology, ordinary CDs. Every CD bearing the Compact Disc logo has to be licensed from Philips. Now have you EVER seen any optical drive that couldn't read ordinary CDs? Unless it was some kind of magneto-optical drive, or a GameCube, I doubt it.
http://www.licensing.philips.com/licensees/patent/ cd/documents869.html

There is a fundamental difference between these two technologies and Fairplay, however. Both CDs and MP3s are actual technologies and not just some arbitrary code to scramble data so that only people Apple wants to can use it. The point however, is that these companies for the most part are willing to license to any company who wants to use their technology in a product. The fact that countless devices and applications can play CDs and MP3s is proof of that. THIS is what Apple should be doing, not artificially restricting developers based solely on their whims.

To address the rest of your qualms, you may not realize just how confusing DRM is to non technical people, sure it's obvious to us that songs bough from music stores pretty much won't work anywhere that the music store doesn't approve of, but I doubt normal people realize this. Think about it, only very recently have companies started artificially restricting how consumers use the products they buy. Cassette tapes could be played in ANY cassette player, Vinyl could be played on ANY turntable, CDs could be played in ANY CD player and even in things that aren't exclusively a CD player. These technologies were all incompatible between each other for OBVIOUS physical reasons, but where all STANDARDS amongst themselves. There were no special cassettes that would only play in a special player that I was aware of. You may even be aware of the RIAA EQ curve for turntables that cuts high end and boosts bass since when mastering vinyl they reduce the bass to prevent the needle from jumping off the record. This EQ curve was consistent from amplifier to amplifier because there was a STANDARD.

Sure, not knowing what the license agreement says isn't much of an excuse, but who REALLY reads those things? I know for a fact that very very few do. No company advertises "ONLY WORKS WHERE WE TELL YOU IT WORKS" or "NOT COMPATIABLE WITH ANYTHING" people just assume that it will work in obvious places because that is how it has ALWAYS been. This lawsuit is a result of this assumption, hopefully people will start realizing how much of a hassle DRM can be for them and start rejecting it. Unfortunuanly, Apple is legally coverd by that license (and I NEVER said otherwise), HOWEVER I still hope that he wins this case so that companies are forced to stop bullshitting people.

As for de-facto standards, I hardly believe that Real or MS are unbiased enough to comment on such things. You said it yourself, people are flocking to iTunes.

It's a real shame hat some people honestly think that MP3s are illegal now.

They are, unless you've paid up to distribute them. Many non-commercial entities can't afford the minimum annual royalty.