Slashdot Mirror
LAME *Is* An MP3 Encoder
Frac writes: "LAME, which stands recursively for "LAME ain't an MP3 Encoder", might have to change its name. They have finally replaced the last bits of functionality of the ISO dist10 encoder code. Previously, Fraunhofer closed down all encoders based on the ISO mp3 encoder code (free or not), and LAME used GNU patching as a loophole to continue development. What this news means is that we now have a fully open-sourced (LGPL) mp3 encoder that Fraunhofer can't take away. Congratulations to the developers of LAME! "
With a new file format, we dodge the mainstream for a time. Hopefully education will have time to catch up.
It will only be billed by the RIAA et all as "The NEW MP3". Unless we stop their ignorance now, we'll see a domino effect. MP3, OV, WAV, AU, AIFF, and anything else that we use will be seen the same way.
A line must be drawn in the sand. Invoking the righteous indignation of Captain Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek First Contact This far, no further. We've tolerated your lies long enough. No more! Not now! Never again!
If you run from an angry dog, he'll chase you. If you turn your back on a mugger, he'll stab you. You can't avoid this fight, and delaying it will only make it harder to win.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The MP3 patent is here:
0 __
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0557943
The licensing related information is here:
http://mp3licensing.com
One note: not only MP3 _encoders_ are 'protected'... MP3 data (streams, music...) is 'protected' too! Just have a look at the conditions for licensing.
Not only is it now an encoder, its one of (if not the) best ones out there. Look at http://www.r3mix.net/ for a pretty through analysis of encoders. DISCLAMER: I am not affiliated with http://www.r3mix.net/ in any way, shape or form. Kent
A lot of the arguments in this discussion seem to center around the legality of MP3 encoders like LAME. Some people contend that all MP3 encoders are illegal. To avoid all this big mess, I propose that the open-* people among us adopt a different and superior, IMHO, format, which would be Vorbis. We discussed this format earlier on Slashdot, but I think it deserves being brought up again.
For a little background, Ogg Vorbis is a completely open format with no patent issues or other messiness. It was developed by Xiphophorus. Theoretically, Vorbis has a higher quality than MP3 at almost all bitrates. For more information, see the FAQ on the page I linked to above.
I have modified the example encoder in the CVS tree to make it much more user-friendly, added detection for the WAV header, put in a status display, etc. My modified encoder is called Vorbize. XMMS and WinAMP plugins are available.
I encourage everyone who believes in open formats to use Vorbis. It's Just Better (TM).
Remember, just because Everybody Else uses [Windows|Mac] doesn't mean we shouldn't use [Linux|BSD|whatever]. Apologies to Mac users.
BTW, the changed codebooks do not affect the bitstream format; the codebooks are packed and included in the bitstream itself. The changes we made to the format recently were more mundane than that.
Monty
http://www.xiph.org/
Fraunhoffer shut down previous mp3 encoders based to patents which ostensibly apply to ANY mp3 encoder, regardless of implementation. Just the fact that the ISO sources are expunged doesn't mean LAME is in the clear.
They could patent anything they want, but only patenting their specific code or methodology would stand up in Court. MP3 is a publicly-usable standard, just like MPEG-1, PNG, JPEG, etc. It's not like GIF, which is patented under increasingly stupid terms. But the interesting thing about MPEG-3 (MP3) is that, unlike with MPEG-1, the standard refers only to the way the finished file is constructed and how it can be decompressed, rather than covering the encoding process. Thus, there are many ways to encode a file to the MP3 standard, not just one standard implementation, but unlike AVI you don't need the codec installed for the specific encoder--a standards-compliant MP3 decoder will decode an MP3 encoded with any of the codecs. The problem is that the Fraunhoffer reference implementations were being widely used by people, without licensing fees, in many products, and Fraunhofer wanted money for its implementation. That codec arguably produces better-sounding results than others, like BLADE, preserving more of the important wave characteristics which make a song sound true to the original .wav, while cutting more of the unnecessary junk which can't be perceived by the human ear and thus just takes up space.
But, I repeat, MP3 format can be used by anyone, and it's only a certain way of encoding to that file format which was covered by Fraunhoffer. Any MP3 encoder which doesn't use Fraunhoffer's implementation will therefore be perfectly legal. In any event, I suspect that there'll be some way to plug any codec you want into LAME, and the Fraunhoffer codec is easily obtained from the Net.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
There's nothing wrong with MP3.
Yes there is - the encoding/decoding algorithms are patented in such a general way that producing a codec that doesn't violate the patent is nigh on impossible. (If you can do it, please let us know!) Your only hope would be that the patent won't stand up in court, and if you want to test that, be my guest. Let us know how it turns out.
What makes you think that Ogg Vorbis wouldn't suffer from the same public relations goof ups that MP3 has?
The fact that I've been to the site, read the FAQ, gotten the code out of cvs, compiled it, read it, run it, read the license and joined the mailing list. Good enough for you? I also looked into my crystal ball and saw many streaming ogg plugins there.
The fact that the ogg encoder is both competitive with MP3 and explicity/entirely (L)GPL makes it a no-brainer for adoption by streaming broadcast servers.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Exactly. Apparently the compression algorithm is patented, not just a sample implementation of it. Use the implementation, whether it is your code or theirs, and you might be violating the patent.
I'd like to have more info on this. The LAME site doesn't seem to contain any speculation about whether or not the software is encumbered.
Steve
Incidentally, ArsTechnica did some intersting comparison tests between various MP3-Encoders recently.
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
Read above. MP3 is a standard. The only thing that's patented is the way that it's encoded. LAME uses a different method of encoding MP3 files.
Sir.. the actual method of encoding is patented (ie: breaking the sounds down however they do it, and encoding it just so..).
The ISO sources were simply an example.
If it's an encoder that produces data that is decoded by mp3 decoders, as per the fraunhoffer patent, then it falls under their patent, unless, of course, there is a 100% completely different mathematical way to arrive at the same results..
MP3 is a very good audio encoding format. I am
happy with the sounds and the compression.
On the other hand, it has become associated with
every sort of horrible legal problem an algorithm
and file format could encounter.
Now that Vorbize exists, I think we ought to
disassociate ourselves from this cursed gem called
MP3. It is clear no one involved with its original design wishes us to have it, and soon
silly laws will likely make it a crime to even
say "mp3" aloud in mixed company.
I have a good deal of my music available online,
(www.devo.com/fabco), and am changing to Ogg Vorbis as soon as the spec appears to be stable.
I know it will make it more difficult for listeners at first, but I hope that goodwill toward free software will prevail.
I've personally used Blade Encoder, as well as older version of the Franhofer encoder. Blade had significantly lower quality at the same bit rate, though going to a higher bit rate can even things out.
I'd be willing to bet that if you ripped the same song at a low bit rate (64-128 or so), and compared the quality between Blade Encoder and LAME, LAME would have noticably better quality. At 256 and higher, any properly working encoder should give you CD quality.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Remember, Scum^H^H^H^HFraunhoefer didn't patent the ISO code. They patented the algorithms they use in their encoder. That means any code that uses that algorithm violates their patents.
Now, despite what FhG says, it probably is possible to create an MP3 encoder without using those algorithms. But only if the LAME team managed that is LAME totally legal. And by the way, no one has managed to do it yet.
Yeah, it's a stupid patent; you're not supposed to be able to patent mathematical equations. But it's the way it is, and we've got to work within the system while we fight to change it.
In the past few years firearms have been used to kill schoolchildren in several high profile incidents.
.zip files for wares because that's what's easy.
Ammonium Nitrate was used to kill over 160 people in one horrible act.
During the period of time when the US was involved in the Vietnam conflict, more people were killed in domestic car accidents than were killed in combat in SouthEast Asia.
Do you see the NRA, Sturm Ruger & Co., K-Mart, Wal Mart, Ryder, Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, or any of their satisfied customers/clients/members backing away from those products?
Why should we? There's nothing wrong with MP3. What makes you think that Ogg Vorbis wouldn't suffer from the same public relations goof ups that MP3 has?
People use MP3s to rip off music because that's what's easy.
People use
People will use whatever vehicle is necessary to do the things that they want to do. Without MP3, there will be something else.
If the record companies weren't price gouging, MP3 wouldn't even be an issue. BTW, the FTC came to an agreement with record companies today which *might* bring down the prices of CDs.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
He didn't *assume* it, he flat out told you that it uses x86 assembler and figured you'd be smart enough to figure out if it's useful to you.
Are you saying he shouldn't have posted something that might be of interest to the >= 90% of Linux users out there who have an x86 machine because it might have hurt the Alpha and Sparc users' feelings?
This is a trend that has been growing and growing on slashdot, and it's really starting to get on my nerves. Anytime somebody does something cool that runs under Linux86 (tm) someone has to rain on their parade, and complain about lack of [Suse|Slackware|Alpha|Sparc|Arm|ucLinux|PalmPilot| TRS-80] support, rather than say - "hey cool! they started supporting the most common flavor of linux - it should be much easier for them to add support for my platform now!"
My favorite (and I do NOT mean to imply that the poster I am currently replying to is this clueless) was a post I saw in a discussion about IBM's new JVM, bitching that IBM was just supporting x86. After all, the poster argued, how hard is it to just recompile the JVM on a sparc? [In case you don't get the irony of this naive poster's question: IBM's JVM does just-in-time compilation of Java Bytecode to native x86 instructions, so getting it to run under SPARC is NOT just a simple recompile, it would have required a serious extra development effort to integrate their JVM with a different compiler backend that emitted optimized SPARC instructions. - and IBM doesn't even sell SPARC-based products; in fact, they compete against them!]
...the ISO code had NOTHING to do with the patents!
It's a common misconception that different MP3 encoders are affected by the patents since they are based on the ISO code. That is NOT correct.
Patents deals with technology and procedures, copyright deals with the source code!
The reference code is provided by ISO to help people understand MP3 encoding/decoding and they have nothing to do with the patents (except that they accepted patented or patent pending technology into the MPEG Layer 3 standard, which they should have a big kick in their butt for).
Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson Consumer Electronics owns a lot of patents on technology used in MP3 encoding/decoding and they will demand a license from any encoder that uses their patented technology no matter if it's based on the ISO reference source or NOT.
Personally I don't know why the LAME team always have taken the approach of not distributing the entire source but only a patch, but I guess they decided to play it safe. Distributing the ISO reference source doesn't breach any patents, but it might possibly be a copyright infringement against ISO.
Take a look at their page, does that say anything about the patents not being enforceable against compiled versions of LAME anymore? No it doesn't, it just says "All ISO code removed!" among the new features, which of course is a nice milestone to reach (no possible copyright infringement, having complete masterhood of the code, having replaced all old bug-filled code with new clean code etc.), but doesn't affect the patent situation.
Technically it should be possible to create a completely patent free MP3 encoder by carefully reviewing all the patents (17 patents in total, unless their lawyers have "forgotten" to send me some) and then making sure that whatever implementation you go for doesn't use any of those specified processes, which is bloody hard since these patents were designed to intercept any attempt like that. Then if you succeed you would probably still have to go to court since they would sue you anyway, hoping that your implementation is close enough to get you stopped.
Also, very few people knows this, but there is a ticking bomb hidden in all this. Fraunhofer and Thomson don't have all the mp3 related patents, they are just the ones who have decided to demand a license for the use of their technology and pulled their patents into a common pool that you can license. More companies are claimed to have patents on mp3 technology (they are listed in the ISO documentations), but they are currently not enforcing them. What if they suddenly start to demand licenses for the use of their technology? Then it doesn't help that you have Fraunhofer/Thomson's permission, you also need another license to go on...
Also, I think that Slashdot should have checked this a bit more throughly before posting it (like checking with one of the LAME developers), the fact that they say "No more patching! Full souce code distribution since all ISO has been replaced!" and nothing about patents should have raised warning signs alone...
Also, the last time I checked, LAME was GPL and not LGPL...
Tord Jansson
BladeEnc Creator
Litigation At Metallica Excessive
---
I think it's pretty pathetic that when Microsoft uses a loophole in an agreement to start exploiting someone else's technology to their own ends people use it as an example of MS' evil, but when some GNU project does the same thing they're applauded for their efforts...
Close, but no cigar. Microsoft also offers the product for free under a restrictive license. This puts the competing company at a severe economic disadvantage. When the competitor folds, Microsoft is then free to jack up the prices. By then, the consumer base is hooked on that product. You can bet upgrades will force said consumer to use a new version in order for existing documents to work. Its all about monopoly practices.
When the source is free under a non restrictive license, you will not be forced into submission.