Slashdot Mirror

Whoops. But it doesn't matter: you still have to pay a license fee for decoding. Check out:
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html.

IIRC, Red Hat doesn't come with any precompiled MP3 players for exactly this reason.

As far as I'm concerned, this is all a good reason to switch to Ogg Vorbis, just as the licensing crap was a sufficient reason to switch from GIF to PNG back when that was under patent protection. The superiority of the format was a bonus.

While technically, not stolen, I just never paid the license fee to encode my CD collection to MP3 using LAME.

My hardware music player can only do MP3 and WMA, otherwise I would've used OGG.

Really though, it won't matter. If the Induce Act gets passed, we can kiss all of our iPods and similar devices goodbye.

Yet another proprietary mp3 file. Are the BBC going to include a Fraunhofer Institute MP3 licence for every listener? I somehow doubt it. With Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora why is the BBC still clinging to these legacy formats? The beeb also promote Macromedia Shockwave Flash over SVG animations.

Proprietary "Apple QuickTime" clandestine format. Whats wrong with supporting modern formats like Ogg Theora BBC?

The BBC used to run BBC ogg vorbis streams. Sadly they have canceled these now. You can contact the BBC through their BBC GNU/Linux help page, and also the BBC Radio 4 Feedback Programme which is broadcast at 13:00 each Friday, if you too would like the BBC Ogg Vorbis radio services to restart.

Well, of course microsoft won't license MP3.

That's why you can't listen to MP3 in Windows Media Player.

Btw, you can look at the prices here and here.

Well, of course microsoft won't license MP3.

That's why you can't listen to MP3 in Windows Media Player.

Btw, you can look at the prices here and here.

OK - how's this?

Back in April, Slashdot reported the announcement of a Universal 3D File Format by Intel, Microsoft & others - to be "as open as MP3". Of course, that's not all that open. And this turns out to be the sneaky part. There is a real open standard already - X3D is ISO-ratified, royalty-free, and has multiple open source implementations. U3D is "going to be submitted to ISO" - one day - but right now they're talking to ECMA, which allows royalty-bearing patents.
I found this article by Tony Parisi, co-chair of the X3D Working Group a fascinating insider's picture of the standards wars, along with insights into what it takes to release an online game, what really killed VRML, and why open standards do (and don't) matter.
I mean, a royalty-bearing, pseudo-open universal 3D format from Intel and Microsoft? Sorry, guys. That trick doesn't work anymore


BTW, I need to get a life.

The iPod acts like a regular hard drive in an enclosure. There is no need to have iTunes or even a Mac or a Windows box. You can access the filesystem directly and copy your files over.

As far as I know, though an iPod unit's hard drive will store any files, its music player will recognize only those files that have been added to the player's database. Last time I checked, Apple provides no Linux software to update the database nor technical specifications to help the free software community create such software. I'm not so sure that the reverse engineers who developed and published GNUpod will always be able to keep up with the database format changes that come with each new version of iPod firmware.

There are freely available m4a and mp3 encoders out there

It's illegal to use LAME in the United States of America because nobody paid RCA. AAC (the codec used in .m4a files) is also patented. What other lossy format can the iPod play, and no, I don't mean severely downsampled mono AIFF/WAV?

how exactly does the iPod lock you into any platform you don't want to use?

Does the iTunes software run under Wine?

What DRM, aside from the music store?

There exist exclusive rights other than copyrights, such as the trade secret rights and anti-circumvention rights encumbering the format of the internal database and the patent rights encumbering both lossy codecs that the iPod can play.

Who honestly cares about or uses Ogg?

I care. Some media activists care. All artists definitely should care. And, most importantly, some great hackers care as well.

Seriously, as much as I constantly feel insulted by the bloody ignorance of profanum vulgus, or unwashed masses, if you will--please don't mind if I take offence to you outrageously ignorant remark--I don't really care who cares about the software I use--be it Debian, OpenBSD, EROS, PostgreSQL, Perl 6 or Ogg Vorbis--as long as the developers care. We don't need large user base to break even, now do we?

Music is very important to me, almost as important as the freedom I have. And it's not about the price, mind you. I write it listening to another version of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor, Op. 23, I couldn't resist to buy today on a new and expensive CD with all the money I had. I don't care about the proce of free software. For me it's all about freedom. I do believe quite a few people think that way.

Really. I have yet to even contemplate it. Sure I have the codec on my machine, but I haven't used it. Nothing is out there in the format that I am interested in or have even ran across accidently. I like portability of my music so I use MP3. [..] I have no intention of recording anything into the format, so it would be a poor choice for me to use it. How many people is it a good choice for? Why?

Actually, the reason is quite simple.

Audible range compression is for the mortals.

What would I do with my big huge ears!?

Give me my uncompressed music



(Have you paid $0.75 for your mp3 decoder!?!?)

MP3 is a defacto open standard.
MP3 is insanely expensive.
AAC is an open standard.
MPEG4 AAC is also expensive.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I thought patents applicable to software algorithms (e.g. RSA, GIF, and MP3) could be filed for in European countries.

For example, here are some of Fraunhofer's patents that are relevant to MP3:
(da list)

Does the term "software patent" refer only to things like translucent windows, and not include more technical matters like MP3 and RSA?

Or is the idea (I hope!) that such patents would no longer be allowed? Or maybe that the EU would just not pressure all of its members to respect them?

Interesting that they would choose two lossy media formats as models for comparison.

Would one really notice slight noise in the coordinates of points of a mesh or in texel color values?

Frankly, I'm more worried about this from the article:

the intention is to create a way of encoding 3D data as freely available as MP3 for audio

MP3 is not free. Will Intel or one of Intel's licensors pull a Unisys after this format has become popular? Apparently, the 3D Industry Forum's FAQ page doesn't even contain the word "patent".

Not only did they pick two lossy formats to use as examples, both MP3 and JPEG are patent-encumbered formats. (The validity of the Forgent patent on a piece of JPEG is a bit of a still-contested issue... but I'll leave that to others to discuss.) If you want to write a program using either of those formats, you're going to have to pay the toll.

Let's hope U3D is able to stay clear of such entanglements. Having a patent involved in a file format makes it questionable if FOSS can legally use the format.

I'm a hobbiest musician

What measures do you take to to make sure that your songs are in fact original and not subconsciously pirated from a song you may have heard on the radio?

and I have never heard of OGG VORBIS and have been encoding everything, no exception in MP3 since 1999.

Have you paid for 1. the patented MP3 encoder and 2. the right to distribute your works in Fraunhofer's patented format?

Apparently, MPEG-1 audio layer 3 decoding costs $15,000 for the first 20,000 units shipped in each fiscal year and 0.75 USD for each additional unit. That's part of cost of goods sold; the cost to the end user would also have to include the administrative cost of dealing with Thomson, the distributor's mark-up, and the dealer's mark-up. Mark-up increases with price in part because the cost of insuring the merchandise against damage or theft increases with price. And then multiply that by the number of patented formats included in the firmware, noticing that MPEG-4 AAC may in fact cost much more than MP3.

Why would one want OGGs anyway?

• I haven't paid for an MP3 encoder, and I'm not going to play that game. (Yes, Thompson/Fraunhofer could theoretically pull a patent out of their portfolio that affects Vorbis, but they haven't yet)
• Foobar2000 and Opie-Player 2 are the players I use.

Show me a free (costs nothing, free of encumberances like patent and EULA issues, etc)

As an avid WNYC listener and member, I applaud the choice to move away from Windows Media format. However, MP3 is a patented format that is not Free (as in Freedom). I am sure that I am in the minority here, but I can't help but feel that in some way I am being slighted. In my opinion, the principles involved in my choice to use Free Software on my computer are much akin to the reasons I choose to listen to Public Radio.

mp3licensing.com states:

"A license is needed for commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) use of mp3/mp3PRO in broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or for use of mp3/mp3PRO on physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like)."

"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."

How does this apply to WNYC? I for one prefer not to have my contributions to be used to pay support this kind of thing, when it is against my social and political ideals. Especially when there are free (as in beer and speech) alternatives such as the Xiph project.

It is my hope to not second guess the current decision to standardize on MP3, but to perhaps begin a dialogue for openness in media formats in the future of public radio. For now I can live with MP3. I will have to compromise and add non-free software to my computer, for now.

ATRAC3plus is a Sony proprietary standard, with all this complex licensing issues this entails, hence it's unlikely anyone else will be using this technology, particularly in the free/open source software community. Sony are somewhat canny about releasing details of the licensing, so I haven't found anything more detailed about their licensing strategy than this. This paper also gives some peripheral insight.

Shouldn't they be streaming some mpeg audio format that you can listen to on ANY platform without some proprietary client?

Small nit: MPEG audio itself is proprietary and expensive, but s/mpeg/ogg/g and your question remains valid.

But more importantly, have you considered that copyright owners may charge less in royalties for transmissions thought to be "hard" to record?

Does this mean we have to use it? All my old MP3s will work just fine.

One word: patents. They can start enforcing them whenever they want. (See www.mp3licensing.com.) Remember Unisys patent on LZW compression? All my old GIFs was working just fine too, which didn't mean I could keep using them. Fortunately, now with zlib, PNG and Ogg Vorbis, this is not an issue this time.

Does anyone understand logic here? If you're lzw compressed gifs can't be displayed anymore, it's because no one thought it was worth paying the royalty.

Two words: free software.

If you have a licensed player to play an mp3 file, you can play any file, no matter how old. See the difference? Why does this shit get modded up?

Nine words: You haven't read this and this, have you?

Does this mean we have to use it? All my old MP3s will work just fine.

One word: patents. They can start enforcing them whenever they want. (See www.mp3licensing.com.) Remember Unisys patent on LZW compression? All my old GIFs was working just fine too, which didn't mean I could keep using them. Fortunately, now with zlib, PNG and Ogg Vorbis, this is not an issue this time.

Does anyone understand logic here? If you're lzw compressed gifs can't be displayed anymore, it's because no one thought it was worth paying the royalty.

Two words: free software.

If you have a licensed player to play an mp3 file, you can play any file, no matter how old. See the difference? Why does this shit get modded up?

Nine words: You haven't read this and this, have you?

Does this mean we have to use it? All my old MP3s will work just fine.

One word: patents. They can start enforcing them whenever they want. (See www.mp3licensing.com.) Remember Unisys patent on LZW compression? All my old GIFs was working just fine too, which didn't mean I could keep using them. Fortunately, now with zlib, PNG and Ogg Vorbis, this is not an issue this time.

Does anyone understand logic here? If you're lzw compressed gifs can't be displayed anymore, it's because no one thought it was worth paying the royalty.

Two words: free software.

If you have a licensed player to play an mp3 file, you can play any file, no matter how old. See the difference? Why does this shit get modded up?

Nine words: You haven't read this and this, have you?

mp3 in not unrestricted. You have to license it and pay royalties. See here.

Hi Ogg, nice to meet you, i just broke up with MP3, want to go out?

MP3? I know her. She is such a bitch!

Seriously though, this news is exactly why Ogg Vorbis was created in the first place. I was always asking my friends to read Why artists should be using Ogg Vorbis by Daniel James. For them this is not news, this is not news at all, it is just a boring, predictable consequence of the stupid inertia giving them momentum. Nothing more.

Does this mean we have to use it? All my old MP3s will work just fine.

One word: patents. They can start enforcing them whenever they want. (See www.mp3licensing.com.) Remember Unisys patent on LZW compression? All my old GIFs was working just fine too, which didn't mean I could keep using them. Fortunately, now with zlib, PNG and Ogg Vorbis, this is not an issue this time.

1. * Primarily, no expensive license issues.

Keep in mind that expensive (for a manufacturer) is not the same for individuals. The per-unit cost for a hardware MP3 decoder of commercial software is seventy five cents (USD) .

Personally, I'd be fine with an OGG + FLAC only portable player though a buck isn't going to make or break my decision on what player to get. I won't consider one that does not support OGG and (as a bonus) FLAC, though, as these are the important codecs for me.

File formats are nothing but file formats.

File formats are often patented. I remember a few people who used to troll Slashdot, making semi-founded claims that MP3s were illegal, using sites like this as evidence.

No, the problem is the complete lack of respect for his intellectual property rights

I do not lack respect for the basic ideas of copyrights. Neither do I lack respect for the basic ideas of patents. (The details of their implementation in the United States, on the other hand...) However, I do lack respect for the use of the misguided generalization of "intellectual property," which lumps copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and publicity rights together as if they were anything like one another. The thinking behind "intellectual property" rhetoric can cause only confusion. So if you want to say "copyright," say "copyright."

Unlike the situation under DMCA, which attempts to block reverse engineering on copyright grounds, and may be subject to overturn on the basis of fair use precedents, reverse engineering of patented techniques has always been illegal and the case law all supports that.

Actually, reverse engineering of patented techniques has always been not only legal but pretty much pointless, since the whole point of the patent law is to have the detailed explaination publicly available for people to study so everyone could be able to implement the idea as son as the patent expires.

I can't find the links, but IIRC, at least one open source program for converting between different media formats, has withdrawn support for WMA because MS threatened them with a patent infringement lawsuit. The only real defense against an existing patent is to invalidate it in court, which can be a VERY expensive undertaking.

The same is the case with MP3. See mp3/mp3PRO Patent and Software Licensing Information. From the developer FAQ:

I want to support mp3/mp3PRO in my products. Do I need a license?

Yes. ['nuff said...] As for practically any important technology (and particularly for publicly established standards), you should know that patent rights for mp3 exist. Both Fraunhofer IIS-A and Thomson have done important work to develop mp3 audio compression (before and after it became part of the ISO/IEC MPEG standards). This work has resulted in many inventions and several patents, covering the mp3 standard. Although others may also hold patents, Fraunhofer IIS-A and Thomson have an important portfolio of patents related to mp3. [...]

That's why LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder but a GPLed patch against the dist10 ISO demonstration source, otherwise it would be just as illegal as a GPLed WMA encoder. In other words, MP3 is as evil as WMA. That's why artists should be using Ogg Vorbis.

Unlike the situation under DMCA, which attempts to block reverse engineering on copyright grounds, and may be subject to overturn on the basis of fair use precedents, reverse engineering of patented techniques has always been illegal and the case law all supports that.

Actually, reverse engineering of patented techniques has always been not only legal but pretty much pointless, since the whole point of the patent law is to have the detailed explaination publicly available for people to study so everyone could be able to implement the idea as son as the patent expires.

I can't find the links, but IIRC, at least one open source program for converting between different media formats, has withdrawn support for WMA because MS threatened them with a patent infringement lawsuit. The only real defense against an existing patent is to invalidate it in court, which can be a VERY expensive undertaking.

The same is the case with MP3. See mp3/mp3PRO Patent and Software Licensing Information. From the developer FAQ:

I want to support mp3/mp3PRO in my products. Do I need a license?

Yes. ['nuff said...] As for practically any important technology (and particularly for publicly established standards), you should know that patent rights for mp3 exist. Both Fraunhofer IIS-A and Thomson have done important work to develop mp3 audio compression (before and after it became part of the ISO/IEC MPEG standards). This work has resulted in many inventions and several patents, covering the mp3 standard. Although others may also hold patents, Fraunhofer IIS-A and Thomson have an important portfolio of patents related to mp3. [...]

That's why LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder but a GPLed patch against the dist10 ISO demonstration source, otherwise it would be just as illegal as a GPLed WMA encoder. In other words, MP3 is as evil as WMA. That's why artists should be using Ogg Vorbis.

AAC is an open format. MP3 is an open format.

Not in the United States.

You can get an unlimited world license (see Royalty Rates).

Actually, Apple won't start making a profit on this until they sell several songs to each downloader of the iTunes software. Remember that because it includes mp3 and AAC encoders, they've got to pay Fraunhofer $2.50 for each download (that's assuming that they're not getting a volume discount), and Dolby about 12 cents.

The market has chosen MP3 and Apple have still gone down a proprietary path.

MP3 is just as proprietary as AAC, and the same fingers (Fraunhofer's) are in the MPEG patent licensing pie.

Everything plays with open-source Freeamp/Zinf. If you care.

I think Magnatune's idea is a fine one, and I look foward to being able to preview their music. But right now I would have to violate US patent law to do it. I don't have a license for playing MP3s and I want to do so with my Free Software system but still be able to leverage the freedoms of Free Software. The MP3 decoders available to me (such as LAME) don't appear to be a legal option for US users without MP3 patent licenses (such as me).

It's an interesting conundrum:

• I want to hear good music and abide by the law.
• I want to preview music before purchasing it.
• The MP3 format is popular, but I'm guessing most United States GNU/Linux users are violating US patent law by distributing and using LAME.

So, Magnatune's offer is asking me to violate patent law to take advantage of Magnatune's generous copyright licensing. I asked Magnatune if they would consider Ogg Vorbis tracks for previewing (their plan page talks about "allow[ing] purchasers to download highest-quality VBRs as well as WAV files, and Ogg Vorbis files." with no word on Ogg Vorbis preview tracks).

Wrong.

I can download MusicMatch Jukebox for free, and it encodes to MP3.

Isn't that adware? If not, doesn't it lock up after a couple dozen encodes, forcing users to upgrade to the "Plus" version? I haven't used MusicMatch Jukebox, so I'm just parroting the restrictions that have come with some other MP3 encoding programs. And why does the documentation call 128 kbps "CD quality"?

Mac users get iTunes for free, and it encodes to MP3.

The iTunes MP3 encoder is not free(beer) but rather included in the price of Mac OS X.

There is no reason for Windows Media Player, which is also free, not to encode to MP3.

As with Apple, Microsoft could include an MP3 encoder license in the Windows XP package, but then that would increase the price it has to charge OEMs by a few U.S. dollars per copy.

MP3 is useful only for one purpose: transcoding higher-bitrate .ogg files down to a lower bitrate for use on pocket MP3 players. (Transcoding down doesn't introduce nearly as many extra artifacts as transcoding to similar bitrates.)

I think the grandparent is referring to the fact that the MP3 standard is patented by Fraunhofer IIS and licensed by Thompson, in a "non-open-source" kind of way.

It seems odd that they'd use a patent-encumbered format. You're required to use a licensed encoder and player. So the information is still not "freely" accessible to the general public. I'd like to see them switch to Ogg Vorbis.

Ah yes, the GIF patent. That stopped any free software using GIFs.

Your description glosses over a number of pertinant details. Unisys and IBM were both issued patents covering a compression algorithm commonly used in GIFs (U.S. patents 4,558,302 and 4,814,746, respectively). This presented a problem for those who wanted to deal in the patented algorithm because it meant there were two organizations to deal with to comply, not just one. Generally, as patent law is "harmonized", it becomes easier for corporations (who hold the vast majority of patents) to prevent the spread of Free Software worldwide.

If either IBM or Unisys decided to not issue a license to Free Software developers, issue licenses that depend on a per-unit charge, or place limits on how implementations can use the covered idea (so-called "field-of-use restrictions"), we all lose.

As BurnAllGIFs.org describes, Unisys changed the terms on licensing and can do it again. Software patents in general and this patent in particular contribute to an uncertain playing field on which to distribute software that no reasonable person would dismiss so quickly.

The MP3 patent's licensing terms don't even prohibit legal Free Software implementations - you pay a one-off licensing fee, and you're fine. There seem seem to be plenty.

That's not completely true and it doesn't accurately describe the situation in front of us now. According to mp3licensing.com, which details the licensing fees to distribute MP3 software, "[a] per unit royalty is taken on mp3/mp3PRO products and applications, such as ripping software, jukebox applications, mp3/mp3PRO-enabled CD/DVD players and portable mp3/mp3PRO players." Per-unit fees are incompatible with Free Software licensing because Free Software can be shared and modified freely, so there are no legal Free Software MP3 encoders. For decoders, one should look at the one-time license fee. The amount of money paid to Thomson depends on what is being licensed. The one-time fees start at US$50,000. How many of the programs you listed have paid the appropriate one-time fee to Thomson so they can legally distribute their programs in countries that honor U.S. software patents?

The reality is, those patents haven't killed MP3 or GIFs.

Nor were they meant to--quite to the contrary, leveraging the patents is done after the ideas described in the patents are in widespread use. Discovering a new format is patent-encumbered takes the shine off the new format. Awareness of the patents in both of the cases you talk about were raised after the public had widely used them. That's one of the ways patent holders make money. What's more socially relevant is what effect this has on the users, not some measure of popularity of a format.

RedHat received some press for removing MP3 decoding software from its GNU/Linux distribution. RedHat GNU/Linux is a very popular GNU/Linux distribution. So that means a lot of RedHat users lose unless they obtain a patent license or infringe upon Thomson's patent.

The effect on the users is what RMS' talk on this subject focuses on as well (approximately 17m into the talk, according to the transcript). RMS tells the story of a compression algorithm that was about to be used in a compression program but couldn't be used because a patent had been issued covering the very same algorithm. RMS learned of this patent a week before that program was set to debut. I doubt that is the only time a program "died before it was born" (quoting RMS' description of the program that implemented the patented algorithm).

I think you are glossing over some of the key points that make software patents so unpalatable to all but the richest businesses.with extant patents which they want to leverage against the public, or enough money so they can cross-license with the patent holder.

"The bend over one. AAC is here, baby, and it's free for anybody to use. iTunes is on every Mac, and there are some non-Mac implementations out there for anybody who happens to be perverse enough to want to use one."

Industry needs to settle itself on a media, and MP3 seems to be acceptable.

You are thinking small.

Why can't all the cool new devices support MP3 -- and Ogg Vorbis? Ogg is very close to free: no license fees for Ogg, free reference sources for Ogg decoders (including Tremor, the integer-math only decoder), a little bit more ROM space used on the device. There are already devices that decode both MP3 and Windows Media audio files.

If you had a small band, and you wanted to sell compressed songs online, which would you rather use: MP3, where you will have to pay a minimum of $2000 per year, or Ogg Vorbis, where you will have to pay a maximum of $0? (That small band may not have to pay anything this year since the MP3 licensing authority waives the royalty for "entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00." But they could change the rules at any time. They own MP3 and they can charge whatever they want.)

People had to choose between VHS and Betamax because it is not possible to make a device that can play both. (Well, you could, but it would be large and expensive so few would buy it.) Ogg Vorbis may become huge overnight, or it may be a niche product forever, but the costs of rolling it out are so small that it will happen.

steveha

If you or your company would like more information about licensing MP3 and MP3Pro audio technology, please visit Thomson's Licensing Website for more information. They would be more than happy to help you take advantage of MP3 audio's unchallenged market capitalization.

Thank you.

Remember if you didn't pay anything for your mp3 ripping software your infriging on (can't remember companies name, tompson maybe?) copyright.

Close. You're thinking of patents owned by Fraunhofer Gesellschaft that are managed in the United States by Thomson Multimedia d/b/a RCA. See also MP3 Licensing.

The GIF patent expires on June 30, 2003

Not if Unisys bands together with Fraunhofer, Charlie Northrup, and big pharmaceutical manufacturers and demands that the U.S. Congress enact a Cher Patent Term Harmonization Act.

that's only a month away

Try two months, which is more than enough for intense lobbying. How long did it take to get USAPATRIOT passed?

Are you all so busy sweating over the piracy of copyrighted works that you walked right into a patent minefield without realizing it?

if someone puts a patent in my face I just laugh and code around it

Then do you think you can implement an LZW encoder by the end of May (i.e. before the U.S. patent runs out on June 21), without infringing U.S. Patent 4,558,302? What about an MP3 encoder that doesn't infringe any of these?

Will offer mp3 in high quality. Propriatory players do not cut it

Didn't you just contradict yourself? If you want a non-proprietary lossy audio format with hardware support, Ogg's pretty much the way to go.

Charging $2 or even $1 per song is NOT CHEAP. Cheap is 25c to maybe 50c depending on the song.

I don't think a US$0.25 per song price point would be realistic. It costs US$0.08 per downloaded song just to pay the songwriter, and not only will that increase in step with the Consumer Price Index, but it can be even higher outside the U.S.

I find $1 per song REALLY CHEAP. An album costs $14 new at Best Buy or $7 used at a local pawn shop. If it has three good songs and nine senseless filler, it can be cheaper to buy the good songs at $1 per than to spend $7 on an album, even after figuring in music downloading's share of the marginal cost of high-speed Internet access vs. dial-up Internet access.

Ahh, but you forget how few countries accept the idea that code can be patented.

Ahh, but you forget how much of the global gross domestic product is tied up in countries that allow patents on algorithms running on generic computers. For instance, Fraunhofer holds patents on MP3 in Germany, most of the rest of Western Europe, Canada, the USA, Korea, and Japan.

But converting CDs to MP3 is a drag

MP3 maybe, because licensed encoders cost money and use of LAME is illegal in many jurisdictions, but it's dead easy to reproduce a phonorecord in Compact Disc Digital Audio format to Ogg Vorbis format. Under Windows, use CDex.

1. Open CDex.
2. (First time only) Options > Settings. In the Encoder pane, choose Ogg Vorbis and set your quality factor. In the Remote CDDB pane, enter anonymous_coward@slashdot.org into "E-mail address". Click OK.
3. Insert your CD.
4. Get the track names: CDDB > Read Remote CDDB
5. Select all tracks and click the (mislabeled) MP3 button on the right side.
6. Eject your CD and close CDex.

Now you can play your .ogg files in AOL's Winamp 2.80 or later.