Slashdot Mirror
Bladeenc Under Patent Attack
Zane Johnson noted that bladeenc is having legal problems. He's taken the binaries down until legal problems surrounding some patents ... the source code however is still available... The bladeenc homepage also has a cool summary of the
DeCSS story thats worth reading if you haven't.
Once again, people who have some tie into something as big as MP3 want to cash out on it. So many business oriented people realize that if you keep a tie into something that is this big, you can just skim a little off the top and make big bucks.
What doesn't make sense to me is the overall lack of forward progress this causes. Patenting a product makes sense in many cases, however in the software industry, it puts a damper on everyone else. The reason things get big in this industry in the first place is because they are easily obtainable and open. At this point, mp3s are so popular, trying to stop someone from writing a free encoder that doesn't make money seems petty.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
It says in the facts about the DeCSS, that you can exactly copy a DVD and that this has always been possible before the DeCSS came about.
Is this true? I had heard before that store bought DVDs have a hard-coded number on each disk in an area that you can't write to on a blank DVD. This number was needed in the decryption, hence no copied DVDs could be played.
--
So when are we going to get the PNG of the MP3 world? I can't believe how ridiculous companies are thinking that they can milk money out of near-standard formats like this. You think they would've learned from Unisys that people just won't go for stuff like this.
-- atomly
This leads me to wonder about the status of the MP3 protocol. It seems that the companies writing letters to BladeEnc are claiming something about their proprietary MP3 technology (sorry, the letter is kind of vague, plus IANAL). Who actually owns the MP3 protocol? Is it a standard?
If somehow MP3 encoding techniques are deemed to not be standards, but proprietary technology, is this acceptable by law? What I mean is, if one cannot build MP3's openly like this, can those cartels who hold the MP3 status be considered a monopoly (or, more aptly, an oligarcholopy)?
In a general case like this, with something that is supposed to be a standard, it seems almost as bad for several companies to keep competitors (especially open-source ones that won't or can't pay the big dues to become a member) out of the fray than it is for a single company to prevent upstart competition.
make world, not war
Blade encoder slain
By owners of ideas
Music plays no more
Fraunhoffer and Thompson recently changed their licensing policy - you can read the new version here: http://www.mp3licensing.com/index.html
Basically, it's like $2.50 per player, minimum of $15,000 per product. Quite a lot for any project.
I assumed that I had just missed this from a while ago!
You (and SlashDot) did. The news page has this in the 2000-02-23 update:
You might wonder why I haven't put up any binaries for 0.92.0. The reason is that I'm still having trouble with Fraunhofer/Thomson and things are starting to heat up. Since their complaint is that I'm distributing products using their patented technology and they now are threatening to take me to court if I don't stop, I've decided to remove the binaries from my homepage.
I will remove the binaries tomorrow, but you can rest assure that this is not the end of BladeEnc. I will place all the necessary details on these pages in a few days, so please don't mail me asking for details yet, I'll be busy writing together a lengthy piece explaining the situation, what I plan to do and what you can do to help.
What these "big companies" fail to understand is that the code is out there. Shutting down the blade homepage will just pour fuel on the fire, the source will be mirrored and passed around the Internet. It can't be stopped any more than the MPAA can stop DeCSS source from being distributed. I think what this is all leading to is a vast network of anonymous developers sharing open source code through an untraceable Gnutella / Freenet like system. As large corporate entities try to stifle the Internet and it's power, the more it will fight back.
Sorry for the bitterness - this kind of stuff brings me down.
- tokengeekgrrl
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions
I wonder how long it will take before someone sues over the source being made available. Once that happens, it's watch your back time as every company with any product, will open a court case. They do not need to win, they just have to spend a few dollars that most developers do not have.
Many people were begining to wonder how the "old" companies would keep up with the speed of the internet. It looks like they have decide to cripple the runners.
The one silver lining here is that Sweden, where Tord lives, doesn't recognize patents on algorithms, so he may should be able to defend himself legally.
Meanwhile, this is kind of old news - the binaries were pulled on February 24th.
For all of you with questionable materials on your website:
Ignore any and all e-mails claiming to be a cease and desist notice. Delete the @#$% things. Don't respond. Somebody who really wants to sue you will take the effort to send you a registered letter. You can refuse to sign for that too. If they're really determined they'll serve you in person. Once they do that, you have to either retain a lawyer or take the shit down, but you don't need to do anything in response to e-mail.
IANAL - Even if I was a lawyer I'd put that there since I love typing ANAL in all-caps.
--Shoeboy.
(former microserf)
The solution to all of life's little problems. Just run a freenet server and download and periodically insert data into freenet to make it remain free and anonymous to all. Works great.
Look at http://freenet.sourceforge.net
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
It is inherently impossible to prevent the copying of something that is there for people to see. If a DVD were uncopyable, you would be unable to see it at all. By the very method it is seen by your eyes, you can copy it, and by the very method it is sent to the monitor, the video card, the hard drive, the RAM, whatever, you can copy it. If it were impossible to copy, it would also be impossible to view.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
But, isn't MP3 based off of JPEG compression which is in fact an OPEN standard, therefore not copywritten???
"Standard" does not mean "free". Unix is a standard, and it costs $$$ for an OS to be able to call itself Unix. Motif is a standard, and until recently, it took $$$ to (legally) get Motif. Fortunately, neither of these standards had patents, so it was possible to reimplement them. Unfortunately, sometimes vendors sandbag standards bodies by filing patent applications which are granted after the standard is released. Other standards bodies don't need to be sandbagged.
First of all, I'm one of those people that thinks that IP laws are a divisive, anti-individualist, and generally dumb idea in the first place. However, I do live in a capitalist society which disagrees. Even so, weren't patents meant to cover implementations of ideas, not the ideas themselves?
A patent is intended to protect, for a limited time, the "right" to be the sole producer of a physical product that significant resources were expended to engineer. Patenting an algorithm just doesn't make sense. It's just as if Einstein would have patented E=MC^2 and set up relativity corp. "For all your power plant, college textbook, and unthinkable weapon needs."
It's things like this, and genetic patents, that make me think the USPTO needs to be disbanded. Doesn't patenting a spliced organism infringe on the prior art of, say, God/Yahweh/Allah/Vishnu/The Universe/L. Ron Hubbard/Nobody/whatever else you happen to believe in? And am I violating their patent by existing, since I evolved from microbes?
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
It's a well known maneuver and one that standard bodies need to address more aggressively. The trick works like this; You create something cool like a new document format or network protocol. You then apply for a patent on this. Meanwhile you submit it to the IETF, ASCII, IEEE and the rest.
If the concept becomes approved and widely used, even entrenched you then let the other shoe drop and start demanding license fees from everybody. MP3 and GIF are the most notorious examples of this gambit.
The solution is for all standards bodies to require a signed declaration stating "This isn't patented and any patent we have to cover it is invalid". At least one body dose this already ( May be the IETF but I am not sure ). The rest should fall strictly into line.
Force industry to try and push new stuff without calling them "standard" or choose to give up royalties.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Vorbis !
Without any further ado, I refer you to my earlier comments, this, which references this.
Bug me for Vorbis Tools 0.5 binaries via email. I've been having trouble with the web-based server I've been trying to use.
Kenneth, Vorbize, Ogg123, and mp3tovorbis author
it's on the compression method. The MP3 standard itself is an ISO standard (MPEG1/2) and it is not patented. Whether bladeenc actually uses the patented compression method or not, is another problem. It would also be nice to know in which countries this patent is supposed to hold (I know Fraunhofer's original patent is for Germany); incidentally, it would be nice to know in which countries, if any, software techniques can not be patented (I think France is like that, but I'm not sure).
Anyway, sadly, as we well know, what matters is not who's right but who has the best lawyers.
OggVorbis (.ogg) is to MPEG Audio Layer 3 (.mp3) as Deflation (.png) is to LZW (.gif).
There was a protest when Unisys laid the smack-down on free use of LZW compression in GIF. If the League for Programming Freedom wants to get involved, burnallmp3s. org is available.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Ogg Vorbis is an unencumbered audio compression format with a reference library under Lesser GPL. The format is frozen; when 1.0 comes out, we can Burn All MP3s (the domain is available) like we burned all GIFs.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Open standard means the specs are available to all comers. It does not mean that everybody has the fully paid-up right to implement the algorithms listed in the specs.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sure, the source has been left online, but without the binary for comparison how do you know if the compiler didn't skew it? MP3 encoding is a tricky business, and I have seen more than one 'properly' compiled copy of BladeEnc give me garbage for output, due to little compiler ideosyncracies. You need either a binary reference or a audio reference to compile BladeEnc from source, and the audio reference can even be tricky.
.sig: Now legally binding!
AOLsucks.org recently got in legal trouble with America Online Inc. The webmaster's lawyer told him that "under legal precedent, when a large corporation uses lawsuits (or the threat of them) to try to silence critics, that there are grounds for a harassment suit against that corporation."
Will I retire or break 10K?
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...
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Ignore IP law for a few minutes, and try something like the first few seconds New Order's "Blue Monday" or some other "simple drum track". Encode it with Blade/128, Blade/160, and Blade/192. Then try Fraun, Gogo, or even friggin' Xing at the same bitrates.
I'm no fan of Xing, but I'll betcha you'll be able to hear the difference between Blade and Fraun at least at 160, and maybe even 192.
I consider Blade/128 unlistenable - but even I was surprised when I could tell the difference between Blade/160 and Fraun/160. And after a few tries, I was able to distinguish between Blade/192 and Fraun/192.
For reference purposes, as far as my ears went, (um, and my headphones went) Fran/128 sounded as good as Blade/192, and Fraun/160 and Fraun/192 were indistinguishable from each other and the CD.
Yes, some encoders perform better than others on different types of music. But for many types of music, Blade isn't the right answer from a quality point of view.
actually, there can (and is) great differences in the sound quality that different encoder produce.
Here's an article that explains why.
http://arstechnica.com/wanker desk/1q00/mp3/mp3-1.html
It's a lossy compression, so what gets 'lost' greatly affects the sound quality.
Deciding what to 'lose' is what makes one encoder different from another
That's like saying, "If two chefs output the same kind of omelette, how would one taste better than the other? This is like the great egg debate, farm fresh eggs with Government Grade AAA certificates versus Kwik-E-Mart corner-store eggs past their expiration dates. Which is better. Strangely enough with OMX testing no one can tell."
Anyways, if you don't believe me, you should try some different chefs^H^H^H^H^Hencoders for yourself. I'll bet ya $5 you can tell them apart.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
It really burns my butt that a company pulling this sort of thing can have their IP declared a standard. In this day of open source software, perhaps we should call for truly open standards that anyone can implement without fear of reprisal. It is no longer enough that anyone can get a license for it assuming they want to pay a suitably exhorbitant amount. That does not make for a level playing field.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Perhaps you're thinking of the Burst Cut Area number? This can be unique for every disk, and is in fact for some titles. For those titles, the number isn't used for decryption, but it has some other possibilities... such as tracking (if lots of disks with same BCA# start cropping up, then it would indicate piracy, and thus the BCA# can facilitate tracking down pirates).
I found a couple of other interesting things in the licensing terms on www.mp3licensing.com.
Electronic Music Distribution systems, where mp3 encoded data is sold to end-users, are licensed as follows:
* 1.0 % of the price charged to the listener (minimum US$ 0.01 per download).
* US$ 15,000 annual minimum, payable upon signature and each following year in January, fully creditable against annual sales.
Does this mean that if I use a properly licensed encoder to create MP3's and I sell those MP3's on my website, that I'm supposed to give them more money? What gives? Their patent covers the encoding process, and if I use an encoder that properly licensed, they should stop taking money from my wallet right there.
If I give away MP3's on my website (and maybe have paid banner ads or somesuch), are they still going to demand licensing fees?
Also, in the Broadcasting/streaming section:
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.
Again, once I've encoded an MP3 with a licensed encoder, what's their basis for charging me solely based on how I distribute it? What if I do my streaming by embedding Windoze Media Player as an ActiveX control in my page and point it at the HTTP URL for the MP3 I want to stream? How is this legally any different from having people download it to their hard drive and playing it from there?
Jeez. If they're gonna be fartknockers about trying to squeeze money from people, they could at least be a little less vague about it.
-----
http://bladeenc.mp3.no/binar ies/BladeDLL-091-intel.zip
>Does this mean that if I use a properly licensed
:-) We'll have mp3 fairly thoroughly replaced within the industry by year's end. Don't worry too much, you *do* have an Open, bulletproof alternative in Ogg.
>encoder to create MP3's and I sell those MP3's on
>my website, that I'm
>supposed to give them more money?
That's exactly it. Now you see why companies are suddenly throwing money and programmers at Ogg Vorbis
> What gives? Their patent covers the encoding
> process, and if I use an encoder
> that properly licensed, they should stop taking
> money from my wallet right there.
They obviously disagree, and they have lawyers with sticks.
Monty
http://www.xiph.org/
The compression used on MPEG video has a lot in common with JPEG. It uses the compression JPEG uses with some additional techniques that make use of the fact that a frame is probably similar to the one before it.
The audio is completely unrelated. The redundancy in audio data doesn't look anything like the redundancy in video data. The only similarities are that MPEG video and MPEG audio are both lossy, and they are both defined in the same piece of paper.
Fraunhofer holds a patent on a specific way to transform uncompressed audio data into a MPEG level 3 compressed audio stream. According to Ars Technica's review a while back, the quality is significantly better than anything else out there.
Just for the record, the issue is *patents*, not copyright. Secondly, patents are on mechanisms, not ideas. The patent is on "how to create a datastream that can be decoded in such and such a way which sounds closest to the original to human ears". It isn't on the idea of "compress audio data to save space".
Compression algorithms and cryptosystems are frequently patented. There are probably a lot of patents on how to digitally sample audio, too. Fraunhofer's patent on MP3s is the one everyone is most concerned with right now, because it isn't clear just exactly what is covered (some encoders, all encoders, or all encoders and decoders?).
"The truth about RMS http://tlug.linux.or.jp/rms.html"
I don't find anything wrong with that interview. Should I? I found his responses very prescient. A lot of people are locked into very rigid traditional mindsets and are unable to make some fundamental distinctions, that the English language doesn't provide for in some cases. In 10, 15, 20 years, we'll all be amazed at how ahead of his time Stallman was (and is currently). We lambaste him now because he apparently nitpicks words and meanings, but he knows what he means and wants to say.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The only right you lose for failing to enforce your patent is the right to sue for a PARTICULAR infringement if you wait more than 5 years after learning of the infringement before suing. That does not affect your right to sue for royalties from all OTHER infringements.
This is the law. It is online. Read it. Congress has it online, and Cornell University Law Library has a good search engine. I'm too lazy to look it up yet once more (I post this message every time some moron who has never read the law says "you lose your patent if you don't defend it").
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I am not a lawyer, but I was once a teacher. In today's world there's not much difference :-).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I believe the IEEE has done something of the same with their proposed public key encryption standards. Unfortunately, until the RSA patent expires, those standards are caught in never-never land.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Like many of you, the Ogg Vorbis project was just brought to my attention this evening. The project aims to replace MP3 as a standard audio compression system. In light of the current MP3 patent issues I decided to download the CVS code and give it a whirl.
.ogg file turned out to be about a meg larger, weighing in at 4720244 bytes. The sound quality was good. I couldn't tell the difference between the .ogg file and the MP3, using mediocre audio hardware and the Vorbis Xmms plugin.
.ogg output file should be much closer to the size of the MP3.
Building the Code
The Vorbis library and examples compiled without error. Included in the CVS code examples is an encoder and a decoder. An Xmms plugin is also included, but does not get built from the main Makefile. Simply cd xmms && make and it compiles just fine.
The Objective
My objective here was to test the encoder, so I popped my Weird Al "bad hair day" CD in and ripped track 10 to a 16 bit, stereo 44100 Hz WAV file. I then `cat`ed this file to the Vorbis encoder and sent the output to larry.ogg. For the sake of a decent comparison, I bladeenc'd the same WAV file to a 128k 44.1 MP3 file.
Findings
The
Conclusion
In conclusion I can honestly say that Ogg Vorbis impressed me. The project has yet to release a stable version, and the sound quality is already in place. Since the Vorbis team is still ironing out the code, little if any optimizations have been done. Once the code is optimized the
Implications
The Ogg Vorbis project has given us a royalty/restriction-free alternative to MP3. I believe that the one thing that this project lacks is exposure. Once people realize that a "libre" alternative is available, usage will increase. With usage comes bug reports, developers, third-party utilities and peer review.
Availability
The Vorbis website is housed at: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis
/. finds me to be 20% Troll, 80% Funny
It would be interesting to see what would happen if non-keysector-pre-burned writable DVDs were to hit the open market.
I do not see anything in DMCA that would prohibit anyone from making, selling, or buying such media. And if more than one party were to sell it, it would be dirt cheap too (look at the price of CDRs).
[threat]Hey MPAA/DVDCCA: Would you like us to begin working toward making that possibility a reality? If not, then back off on DeCSS. [/threat]
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Nobody forced you to adopt the standard. Now that Vorbis is out, there's an excellent alternative to MP3, both technically superior and free of intellectual property problems.
Ok, so there isn't a huge archive of illegal vorbis files available on Napster/Gnutella. Yet. Maybe you'll have to sacrifice a little convenience and have a little patience, just in order to stand up for what's right. It's your choice, though.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
First, LAME was not developed in a "clean room" at all; it's based on the ISO reference code, which is horribly buggy and far from optimal. Blade is based on the same code, but doesn't have anywhere nearly the same level of work put into it.
Second, while cleanroom techniques are a fine defense against copyrights, they make no difference whatsoever for patents. So the idea of starting a new cleanroom MP3 encoder project wouldn't really help matters.
What would, though, is the creation of a new format that is free of intellectual property problems. While you're at it, wouldn't it be nice if it included amplitude shaping to make transients sound crisper, and used a few other techniques to achieve better quality compression with MP3? Oh, and why not lots of work integrating it into free software tools such as XMMS? Why doesn't somebody do this?
Ah yes, they have, they have.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
...is that people knowingly build an infrastructure on what someone else owns (i.e. Fraunhofer/Thomson's IP) and then turn around and act surprised when IP issues arise.
This isn't a case of saying mp3s will use this technology and then discovering after the fact, after it has become popular, that someone owns some relevant IP.
Everyone knew going in that Fraunhofer owned this. If not having to pony up royalties or whatever it is the Fraunhofer wants is important to you then WHY IN GOD'S NAME didn't you use your brains and decide not to use mp3s?
Stop trying to make your stupid mistakes look like someone else's fault.
... are, at least THEORETICALLY illegal in Europe according to the Munich convention, 1972. The European Patent Office, however, has illegally granted quite a number of those. Anyway, since those patents are not legal, Faunhofer/Thomson has no legal foot to stand on to threaten that guy. It's your usual corporate bullying again. And no your post is not interesting, no matter what moderators have drunk today.
Once more it occurs to me, that it is far too easy for larger corporations to disrupt smaller businesses and free services by simply threatening lawsuits, even if the claims are totally bogus. In my view the problem is, that there is no risc in sending around some letter threatening lawsuits, especially if the lawyers are paid anyway and maybe have a little free time on their hand. Is there a possibility to countersue for done damages to reputation, service, etc.? That would enhance the risc, and maybe make lawyers think twice before sending out bogus claims. I think if such a claim can be proven to be bogus the claiming party should have to pay all costs, including lawyers of the accused party and compensation for any damages if the accused party chooses to take it to court.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Unfortunately, my luck was not so good.
:pserver:anoncvs@xiph.org:/usr/local/cvsroot login
Attempts to connect to the CVS server met with failure, despite following the procedures as defined by their web page verbatim (to the point of cutting and pasting to eliminate typos as a possible source of error). And before you ask, yes, I do use CVS quite frequently, so I doubt very much I was doing anything wrong.
cvs -d
(Logging in to anoncvs@xiph.org)
CVS password:
cvs [login aborted]: recv() from server xiph.org: Connection reset by peer
Either they've changed the password from anoncvs to something else, or the CVS server is slashdotted.
In any event, I then tried the nightly snapshot. While the software configured and built, make install was broken to the point of absurdity, creating the install binary but installing nothing.
One can copy the files by hand to the proper location and get it working, but exactly what is needed where isn't terribly well documented, and you'll have to put up with several error messages and figure out what is missing before you get there.
I say this not to flame vorbis at all - the project is in development and not intended for casual use just yet. I mention it as a counter-point to the previous post, which to me at least conveyed an overly optimistic impression of how smooth the installation would go.
vorbis is very promising, and I hope the project reaches a point soon where I can convert all of my mp3 collection to ogg files, but it isn't quite there yet. It would be unfurtunatel if people were to form a first impression based upon software which hasn't been released for beta testing yet, much less general consumption! That having been said, if getting a little bloody with the build and installation doesn't bother you, then definitely check it out!
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
> How can a corporation prove that you ever receved the email in the first place?
They presume that you are in violation of their property rights. They ask you nicely in a cease & desist order. Such a letter has absolutely no legal weight. It's doesn't have to be part of the evidence in the litigation, and is in fact not required at any point. While not cheap, letter writing is not as expensive as going to court.
If you fail to respond to their letter or acknowledge any communication from them, their only other recourse is to litigate.
This is why failing to answer a letter can result in litigation. Whether or not you saw (or they sent) a cease & desist letter is irrelevant to the law. The letter is a method to settle *out* of court. If you hope to make such a settlement or any other agreement with the other party, it's best to respond to the letter. If, however, you know you are in the wrong and plan to capitulate and simply want to cost them time and money, by all means, force them to litigate and then capitulate.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but even if I were, IAN*your*L.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
You were ridiculing the consistancy of arguement on Slashdot, and he pointed out the way in which both these arguements are consistant.
Now, I'm not sure I agree with the way in which some things are argued, but decending to saying Gotta love that special brand of "progressivism" that would do Karl Marx himself proud. He sure hated hearing his critics, too -- you two aren't related, are ya? is not adding to the discussion.
Could I also point out that you aren't taking critisim terribly well, either?
This is the part I don't get about Blade users. I mean, c'mon. What's MP3 designed to do? Lossy compression of an audio bitstream. Nothing less, nothing more. If you have to jack up the bit rate to get the same quality as with another encoder, you're using the wrong encoder.
MP3 is about maintaining audio quality under lossy compression. "Better quality at the same bitrate", or "the same quality at a lower bitrate" compared to another encoder mean the same thing: good. If you're writing an encoder, they're your design goals. To the extent that you meet those goals, your encoder "rocks". To the extent that it fails to meet these goals, your encoder "sucks".
Compared to just about every encoder out there, Blade produces a poorer quality encode at the same bitrate. Blade requires a higher bitrate to eliminate the artifacts it introduces into the signal. So if you're comparing encoders' ability to faithfully reproduce the music, Blade is a poor MP3 encoder.
Don't get me wrong, AC -- I also like the fact that it's open source. And I also really like the fact that it's not patent-encumbered like Fraun. That's worth something on a political level, but that doesn't mean that it's superior on a technical level.
Jacking up the bitrate to make up for the poor quality of your MP3 encoder is like rendering the dancing paperclip in M$Word in 1600x1280x32-bit color at 60 fps (and 12 gigabytes per install) to make up for the quality of the rest of the office suite. You can't polish a turd.