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! "
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.
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/
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*
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
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.
...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