Slashdot Mirror

(* Does WMA actually deliver on this promise of 1/2 filze size with superior sound? I've never messed with .WMA becase 1) Mirosoft is evil and I don't want them controlling my media and 2) MP3 is fine for me).

Wow, there's a technically informed decision. Frauenhofer isn't exactly a saint either. If you want to base your format on software politics, why aren't you using Vorbis?

--

Well, that would be anyone who has ever bought an MP3 player. Or used an MP3 encoder. Legally, you gotta pay Fraunhofer/Thompson for every player or encoder.

I'm amazed they got this far with as strict of a licence they have. Encoders like lame or bladenc are in reality, illegal to use unless you have a licence. So if you run Linux and burn MP3's, its likely you are breaking the law.

I'm surprised the Free Software community hasn't rallied more around Ogg Vorbis, given the harsh licencing of MP3.

Anyone who promotes linux and "license free software" and still promotes mp3 is a idiot. Fraunhofer-IIS has massive licensing and patents on MP3 and MP3Pro.

next time you promote your hippy ways rememeber to push Vorbis, that is the correct response.

-Jon

which for free decoders is $0.

Only on two brands of proprietary operating systems: Windows and Mac OS.

The relevent page explains it specifically:

mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users

No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users.

As was said in that post:

This is not to suggest that MP3/MP3Pro wouldn't be a whole lot better without the Fraunhofer patents for the free software and open source software communities, but Thompson and Fraunhofer aren't as closed as they're being made out to be.

They just want to be paid, and have chosen a method which doesn't help us very much.

and anyone can put together an encoder or decoder for any purpose as long as they're willing to pay the licence fees

From mp3licensing.com: "All agreements with running royalties have an annual minimum of US$ 15,000, creditable against annual royalties." What independent free software developer has $15,000 per year to spend?

which for free decoders is $0.

Only on two brands of proprietary operating systems: Windows and Mac OS.

I mean, it's not like I could just start suing people for trading mp3s, could I?

If you worked for Fraunhofer, you could, as MPEG layer 3 technology is patented. If the pirates were using Ogg Vorbis, on the other hand...

I think nobody has ever gone to the site for mp3 licensing.
You would be amazed that Thomson claims that Sonys Atrac-3, lucent's epac, also use their "patented" technology. The only reason why they havent sued these people is probably because these companies are equally big or even bigger than them. Do you really think that Thomson will close its eyes if and when vorbis comes out into the mainstream?

A patent on this type of thing is ludicrous, and I hope there are plenty of people around to challenge it. Apathy is the enemy of freedom.

They have not patented the idea of MP3 streaming. They do hold a bunch of patents for the algorithms used in MP3 encoders and decoders, however, and, thus, can dictate the license conditions at which they are gonna let you use it.

A little bit of history:
MP3 (Audio MPEG Layer 3) was originally developed back in the early 90s (I believe it was 1992, but I'm not sure) by the Fraunhoeffer Institute in Germany, which they patented. At first, I believe they allowed everyone to write encoders/decoders based on the codec for free, but later decided to charge 50 cents per each unit sold (if you don't sell your end product, you don't pay anything)with a minimum fee of $15000 per year.
At some point, Fraunhoeffer let Thomson Multimedia handle the licensing of mp3 and that's where we are at today.

A patent on this type of thing is ludicrous, and I hope there are plenty of people around to challenge it. Apathy is the enemy of freedom.

They have not patented the idea of MP3 streaming. They do hold a bunch of patents for the algorithms used in MP3 encoders and decoders, however, and, thus, can dictate the license conditions at which they are gonna let you use it.

A little bit of history:
MP3 (Audio MPEG Layer 3) was originally developed back in the early 90s (I believe it was 1992, but I'm not sure) by the Fraunhoeffer Institute in Germany, which they patented. At first, I believe they allowed everyone to write encoders/decoders based on the codec for free, but later decided to charge 50 cents per each unit sold (if you don't sell your end product, you don't pay anything)with a minimum fee of $15000 per year.
At some point, Fraunhoeffer let Thomson Multimedia handle the licensing of mp3 and that's where we are at today.

The official site for MP3 licensing details is here. As the article said, they're not actually going to release details until the 14th.

I'm not sure about DSL, but this is the same Thomson that owns RCA, GE, and the U.S. rights to the MP3 patents. Boycott Thomson's new "Stupid Card" project and support the Ogg codec projects instead.

non-proprietry formats such as MP3

MP3 is NOT non-proprietary; it's patented. The token non-proprietary free audio standard isn't MP3; it's Ogg Vorbis.

Since when is it a copyright violation to possess mp3's of cd's I own?

It's not a copyright violation under 17 USC 107, as you mention. But it is a patent violation under United States law unless the encoder publisher has paid THOMSON multimedia $15K/year or $2.50/unit sold (whichever is greater). That means you, LAME users.

According to Thomson's licensing terms, you're only allowed to play for free if it meets these 4 conditions:

• Software implmentation for "desktop" use
• Distributed free of charge
• Downloaded via the Internet
• For personal use of end-users

I've heard a number of people say that their patents only cover the encoding process. Maybe that's the case, and they're just trying to tax decoders without a leg to stand on.... but so far I've not seen a really good arguement backed up with references to the patents. If you know of one, please post a link or email me. Thanks.

According to Thomson's licensing terms, you're only allowed to play for free if it meets these 4 conditions:

• Software implmentation for "desktop" use
• Distributed free of charge
• Downloaded via the Internet
• For personal use of end-users

I've heard a number of people say that their patents only cover the encoding process. Maybe that's the case, and they're just trying to tax decoders without a leg to stand on.... but so far I've not seen a really good arguement backed up with references to the patents. If you know of one, please post a link or email me. Thanks.

According to Thomson's licensing terms, you're only allowed to play for free if it meets these 4 conditions:

• Software implmentation for "desktop" use
• Distributed free of charge
• Downloaded via the Internet
• For personal use of end-users

I've heard a number of people say that their patents only cover the encoding process. Maybe that's the case, and they're just trying to tax decoders without a leg to stand on.... but so far I've not seen a really good arguement backed up with references to the patents. If you know of one, please post a link or email me. Thanks.

For my Ph.D. research I work a lot with audio codecs and the statement that they want a 64 Kbps bitrate to sound like 128 Kbps MP3 is doubtfull. They claim the MP3PRO format to be downwards compatible, the MP3 standard does not leave any room for a 50% reduction without a giant breakthrough.

A new technology is needed such as sinusodial coding.

MP3PRO Open technology? also doubtfull.

Johan.

MP3s are an open standard.

Warning: Open does not necessarily imply free; for instance, the Apple Public Source License is not a Free Software license.

Anyone can download CDex w/ LAME for free and roll their own MP3s.

And infringe several United States patents (and foreign counterparts) in the process.

MP3 streams are already compressed. The MP3 system is your basic spectral transform-quantize-encode system. To compress the streams, re-encode them at a lower bitrate with an MP3 encoder designed for this (e.g. Fraunhofer).

Icecast requires that your MP3 files already be at the bitrate at which you will stream them (normally 32 kbps). Shoutcast, OTOH, uses a licensed MP3 codec to downsample from 192 kbps to 32 kbps, which Icecast can't do because of some stupid patent.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo.

From this url given elsewhere by another poster, I looked up all the patents that Thomson Multimedia and Fraunhofer have in the US (apparently some weren't approved in US but in other countries). With all the hub-ub about overbroad/silly patents I thought I could go read some in more detail. The list of patten numbers is:

• 5,742,735
• 5,455,833
• 5,579,430
• 5,559,834
• 5,703,999
• 5,706,309
• 5,736,943
• 5,701,346
• 4,942,607
• 5,214,742
• 5,227,990
• 5,384,811
• 5,321,729
• 4,821,260

Some interesting things I noted:

1. I know something about math (and signal processing) and I couldn't decipher what was meant by a lot of them. In other words, how can the patent office people decide if an application is a valid patent if the application is incoherent? I know that specialists are supposed to look at applications for patents in their field but they might not be up to speed about everything in their field. Yeah, they might reject it for that reason but aren't they just as likely to approve it, thinking "maybe I'm just stupid/ignorant about this sub-field."
2. They seem to be fairly specific (although specificity doesn't necessarily mean something is patentable).
3. These "ominous words" were found at the end of patent #5,579,430, titled "Digital encoding process":
   • Although the invention has been described and illustrated in detail, it is to be clearly understood that the same is by way of illustration and example, and is not to be taken by way of limitation. The spirit and scope of the present invention are to be limited only by the terms of the appended claims.
   Since most of the patents I found did not specify that the encoded signal had to be audio, this seems like they have a patent on any use of whatever their algorithms are trying to do (which I found not very clear...) In other words, it is almost like somebody patented a specific hash table function (I'm sure someone has) and then patented it specifically for application X, but didn't rule out the possibility of "owning" it in any application that uses hash functions.

4. All of the above must be taken with at grain of salt because the legal-ese in the patents (especially the beginnings where the claims are listed) is very weird and I had trouble deciphering what kind of math they were getting at. Not to mention one could spend days if not weeks reading them all and all supplemental material. Overall it looks like Ogg would have to include some very specific algorithms to be infringing (unless just the fact that the patents claim to patent one method of doing a certain type/part of encoding signals is enough to claim infringement--i.e. one form of encoding algorithm counts as owning them all...but that doesn't seem very reasonable.)

   Rachael

Fraunhofer owns patents on damn near everything
sound related. Everything they do is cross patented. It's a research lab. This is how they
make money. They're extremely good at it. If .ogg hits them in the pocket, expect litigation.

Here's a list of their patents pertaining to MP3.
http://mp3licensing.com/patents.html

The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.

It looks like the ISP has more of a beef with Fraunhofer and Thomson, the owners of the MP3 patents rather than with the RIAA. In this case, the workaround is to use the free(speech) OggVorbis format.

File Format = Felony

More like File Format = Civil Liability when MP3 is licensed and Vorbis isn't.

Someone please slap these stupid reporters that think anything mp3 is illegal.

At least LAME is illegal. MP3 the format is encumbered by patents. Software encoder developers must pay USD$15,000 for the first 6,000 units shipped yearly and USD$2.50 for each additional unit. Per-unit royalties are incompatible with free software. Switch to Vorbis today; most peer-to-peer file-sharing services support it now anyway.

http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/swenc.h tml
mp3 Software Encoders
(patents-only)
If you have developed your own implementation of an mp3 encoder or if you have licensed such an implementation from a third party, you need a patent-only license.
US$ 2.50 per unit US$ 15,000 annual minimum, payable upon signature and each following year in January, fully creditable against annual sales.

And I've certainly dl'd MP3's over 56kbps.

But you can't create them in the United States and several other countries without buying licensed software from a software firm that pays the MP3 encoder software patent license royalties, which are currently USD$15,000 for the first 6,000 units shipped yearly and USD$2.50 for each additional unit. This is why official LAME binaries will not be released before around 2010 (good thing what happened to copyright duration hasn't (yet) happened to patent duration). BTW, to compile LAME on Win32, get GCC for Windows.

If you think licensing fees are the problem, it's time for you to upgrade.

I agree totally. After having upgraded from MP3 to OggVorbis, the only MP3 files I encode are Wrapster archives containing .ogg files.

I bought MP3Enc years ago from them, but was not notified that I owed them anything for every song that I ripped and encoded for myself. Or is that only applicable if you use it to distribute music?

Well, you're probably okay. If you purchased a legal copy of a licensed encoder, then the patent license is already covered there.

Most Free Software projects, however, cannot afford the $15,000/yr minimum, though, so the licensing fees fall on the individual user instead.

As for MP3 distribution, that's kind of complicated. Nonprofit distrbution should be okay... it depends on how you read it. Again, see mp3licensing.com for the exact details.

Release your material in MP3 and other open formats.

I think our friends @ Fraunhofer might have something to say about just how FREE (gratis & libre) our MP3s are. Lets remember our friends at Ogg Vorbis and what is really free.

**"and other" implies that MP3 *is* open. So spare yourself the poor argument that I misunderstood them.

Compressing audio with the MP3 algorithm, storing such files, and playing them back is certainly not illegal.

If you don't have a license from Fraunhofer/Thomson, making, using, or selling MP3 files is patent infringement.

This is like boycotting JPeGs

No, it's more like boycotting GIFs. MP3 is patented.

MP3 is patented. Use of any encoder not licensed by Fraunhofer/Thomson (who is probably already in bed with RIAA by now) is patent infringement.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

I mean, if its in MP3 format, then i guess it should automatically be made illeagal [sic] right?

If you're not an MP3 patent licensee, yes. But there's always the patent-free Vorbis codec.

For a player that fits into the world envisioned by Thomson & Fraunhofer IIS-A, it's really not that expensive to make a cool MP3 player...
<shameless plug>
...like this one that I've been working on lately.
</shameless plug>

Until then, I will continue scouting for mp3 hosting sites to let _them_ deal with the risk of this kind of squeeze- if there are any out there which don't have insane clickthrough contracts. I'm a dangerous client- I can read. *g* I swear, too many of these damned contracts and agreements seem to assume the artist doesn't have a functioning brain...

or rather let the artists and the open source community work together to create a an electronic marketplace that does not involve the riaa.

MP3.com fits every aspect of your comment except the "open source" aspect, which cannot be filled legally until one of these happens:

• MPEG audio layer 3 patents run out around 2010, at which point LAME becomes non-infringing, or
• MP3.com begins offering .ogg (Vorbis codec) format audio files (which sound as good as a 50% higher bitrate .mp3).

Even if you own the copyright, distributing MP3 files of your own work can be illegal. OGG files, on the other hand...
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

any old joe can encode using ... low bit rate blade/lame ... but if I can get Frau. encoded mp3's

Remember, the LAME encoder is thought to be as good as Fraunhofer's and it's Free (but may be illegal because certain necessary and irreplaceable algorithms for creating MP3 data are patented).

Thomson Multimedia controls MP3 patent licensing. If the RIAA wants to stop MPEG Audio Layer 3, it could just work with Thomson to get the patent royalties upped. This will cause League for Programming Freedom to throw up a site called Burn All MP3s Day and everyone will go download Vorbis software from Xiph.org and re-rip their CDs.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

Here's a list of all the patents Thomson and Fraunhofer are claiming on MP3.

The Mpeg Layer 3 format is freely usable by anyone.

No it can't; there's a USD 2.50 royalty per unit on encoders with a USD 15,000 per year minimum. For example, THOMSON multimedia already got BladeEnc to remove encoder binaries. And I heard they're going after LAME next.

MPEG audio layer 3 is patented (see the subject line) and all uses (except for free(beer) distribution of decoders) require a patent license, which has $15,000 minimum annual royalties. Commercial decoders (including without limitation anything that comes on a commercial GNU/Linux distro such as Red Hat) cost USD0.50 per unit. Encoder licenses cost USD5.00 a piece for the Fraunhofer encoder (patent and object code) or USD2.50 a piece for something like LAME (patent license only).

If the standard isn't patented, how can Fraunhoffer/Thompson demand 1% of all MP3 file sales revenues? I refer you to this site (previously noted by another poster) for my source.

We do not charge royalties for mp3 streaming or mp3 broadcasting (e.g. Internet Radio) until the end of the year 2000. Beyond this date we anticipate to charge a small annual minimum and a percentage of revenue. However, this model is not yet fully developed because we cannot yet oversee where this new market is going.

Shoutcast and Icecast/Liveice users, be ready -- you're next. Not only do you have to pay the RIAA for the recordings, and BMI/ASCAP/SOCAN for the music, you'll now have to pay these jerks for the software. Kinda rediculous, considering I've never seen an online broadcaster of music using mp3 technology showing more than, say, a couple hundred in the audience...most broadcasters had only 2-10 listeners before RIAA decided to shut them down anyways...

And if $15,000 is what they've got for minimums elsewhere, I'd hate to see what "small" is in this instance...

To see just how bad the patent situation really is, try reading this page about all the patents standing in the way of a GNU patent-free codec. This page is linked right from the main LAME page, which says to me that a whole lot of posters here haven't done much looking at the LAME website.

Of course, Thomson does not require a royalty for mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users, so free (beer or speech) software is ok, but only for software distibuted free on the internet. Distributed on a cdrom (Redhat, Suse, etc) seems questionable.

Now after having read these pages, I'd be curious to know why so many people believe that the patents only apply to encoders. Please, please, please tell of a reliable source that shows the MP3 related patents are only for encoding. My email address appears above, with an obvious anti-spam word that you can easily remove.

MODERATORS: Please help dispell the misinformation about the applicability of the patents.