Slashdot Mirror
New MP3 License Terms Demand $0.75 Per Decoder
Götz writes "The licensing terms of Thomson and the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, who are the owners of the mp3 patents, have changed. Now not only mp3 encoders but also
mp3 decoders require a license. This page lists the fees -- it's $0.75 per decoder. As a consequence, Red Hat has already removed all mp3 players from the Rawhide development version."
http://www.vorbis.com/
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
i wonder how much money they're pulling in from mp3-related things? Anyone got a rough estimate?
.ogg? :)
And wouldn't this hurt the proliferation of mp3 encoders running around, thereby possibly limiting the amount of mp3s that are available to the general public? Maybe we just need to use
Lordfly
hookers and grits.
I'm not trolling (this time). I really want to know.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
I'm hoping that this decision will result in (more?) portable Ogg-based players hitting the market! I would have purchased an iPod immediately had it supported Ogg; however, it didn't, and I was not about to convert my music back to MP3 just for it.
If anyone knows of any portable players that support Ogg Vorbis, please post below! Thank You!
It seems like we have the cart leading the horse. Inventors are now embedding their ideas into standards, waiting until adoption, and then enforcing their monopoly.
This is dirty pool, and I hope it doesn't last.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I wonder if distributions made on countries that do not accept software patents can still include MP3 decoders. That would, of course, mean the end of sales of this distributions on the US, or the development of US versions and "patent infringing" versions of the distributions, the same way there was a strong and weak crypto version of RH. I live in a country where (until the US forces us to change our laws) we do not believe that software or algorithmic ideas can be patented, and we have our own distros. I wouldnt like these distros to change just because of US laws and the US market.
This won't kill MP3. This has been in effect for years now, I have NO idea why /. thinks this is news, that page hasn't even changed. Research much? Anyway, Mp3 ius entrenched, and end users still aren't being hurt, unless they have to pay for their sw mp3 player, but there will always be a huge company like AOL (WinAmp) who is willing to foot the bill. FhG has had this rule in effect, they just haven't enforced it on tiny players.
Well, I guess NullSoft has decieded to pay the bill themselves. Because Winamp 3.0 is still available as of now for free download.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
here's where slashdot can really shine. I, like many of you out there, have scanned my album collection into mp3 format. Why? Because this was the most popular, ubiquitous format when I did it. I'd love to go to ogg. To do so, i need a simple way to recurse through about 36 gigs of mp3s and reencode them into ogg, and delete the originals. I know there's no reason why one shell command shouldn't suffice. I know if I were to do a decent search through freshmeat, i'd be able to find a command-line program to do it, and the proper args, etc. But i know someone here already knows it. ***PLEASE*** post instructions, and whatever software i need to get, and yours is the karma and everything in it.
Absolutely brilliant. Wait until it gets mass market acceptance, then start charging fees. Now that I've got a portable MP3 player, an MP3-compatible DVD player, and all 300+ CD's in my collection digitized in MP3 format, now bring out the fees. You win, guys, here's my $3.00 for the car, the DVD deck, and WinAmp on my laptop and desktop. Sure beats re-recording everything in Ogg, which wasn't mainstream enough when I first started ripping my CD's a couple of years back.
What? You don't agree? Well, my time's worth the $3. If they charged $10 per decoder, I'd still probably pay it - and in fact, that's the only mistake I think they're making, not charging enough. Because while I'd gladly pay $3 today, they should realize that going forward, I won't rip a single song in MP3 format. They'll make short-term revenues by screwing guys like me, but they're digging a hole in the long run.
What's your damage, Heather?
You know, this is actually pretty cheap. I had no idea how inexpensive this was...I thought Fraunhaufer & Co were taking a percentage of your company's profits a la Unisys, or a per song cost. $.75 per player is nothing...I have a dozen players, hardware & software alike, and they all amount to under $10. Not bad, considering how great the technology behind MP3 is.
Sure, they're profiteering, but they're profiteering off of a format they helped produce and thought to patent. MP3 encoding isn't exactly no duh stuff like hyperlinks or LZW compression (which is essentially a really fast look up table). And sure, there's Ogg, but I don't like the sound as much and my consumer devices don't support it.
You can bitch and moan about how this will kill mp3, but I think it's obvious nothing will kill MP3 -- the technology is too widely supported. What it means, though, is that GPL'd and other free decoders are going to have to ammend the license to be sure Fraunhoffer gets its money. This is a perfect time to test whether or not the GPL can play nice in the IP pool.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I'm rather certain they used to only demand royalties for encoders, not decoders.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
I continually am amazed at firms that do this. Does not even the lowly geek admin at this place realize this will eventually kill mp3 as a used format, thus killing their source of revenue?
If they don't charge they have zero revenue. Charging $0.75 a decoder or $50k to $60 one time fee isn't that big of a deal for commercial companies making decoders. The only ones this hurt is the open source and free decoders, and they aren't making money from those anyway.
I agree that charging fees after the format is underhanded, and possibly grounds for anti-trust violations, but giving it away for free isn't exactly a great business decision either.
Umm... have you listened to OGG lately? OGG kills MP3 in terms of quality/size, no contest. Yes, there is a debate about it's quality relative to, so, WMA, or other second-generation (third?) lossy codecs. But compared to MP3? I didn't think that discussion was even worth having anymore. P'raps you haven't tried the latest version of OGG?
Now, one could convincingly argue that software patents shouldn't be allowed in the first place, or that they should have shorter terms, or that the patent office doesn't do a competent job of checking for obviousness or prior art. I'd probably agree. But the fact remains that any damage done by patents is at worst a temporary setback to everyone else, not an irretrievable disaster.
At some point, MP3s will no longer be encumbered by patents.
Well, not exactly a check, more like 75 pennies.
In an envelope
Postage due
(In college once I paid a $2 [total BS] parking ticket in change, in one of those "postage will be paid by addressee" envelopes.)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Perhaps they are just getting their legal team cracking, and are just waiting for the right time to strike..
Odd, sueing someone over the IP of something that has caused more IP problems than anything else in history.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Wrong. Or, rather, right, but wrong with respect to a very technical point that has escaped notice so far.
Previously decoders which were released for free for personal use were exempt from the licensing fees. This covers winamp, xmms, mpg123, and all the other free software players you love.
That exemption has been removed. Now everything costs 75 cents, no matter whether it's free software or not. And that, my friend, is a big deal.
Rather, I meant that Kazaa comes with it's own player, not each mp3 with it's own player (although what a neat idea, a format that plays itself, but is small)...
Tibbon
tibbon.com
These prices have always been around. It's just that they have never been enforced. If everyone had to pay for a player to listen to mp3's, mp3's would be nowhere near as popular as they are today. /. editors making news out something that's been around for more than a year.
This is just another case of
Actually, you are incorrect; the editors did not do anything wrong in this case. While the rates have been around, they were lower previously. Take a look at the previous royalty page courtesy of the Wayback Machine.
I also have a feeling that if they are going to increase the rates, they are going to make a point of charging for the royalty fees as well.
"Our goal is it to convince hardware manufacturers to include ogg vorbis support in their products. Ogg Vorbis is a high quality audio codec which is patent free!"
Sign here
Will you be signee 2102?
(Yeah, yeah, petitions don't work. Whatever)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
There is some tax on "music" CD-Rs in Canada, but not on "data" CD-Rs. When I heard this I said, "What!?" So you have the option of paying more for CDs that you will burn your music backups to, and the same for CDs that contain just "ordinary" data.
There has been a tax on recordable magnetic music media for more than a year now, with the proceeds supposedly going to battered musicians, or perhaps just to deter audio tape pirating, I'm not sure which...
Last year there was brief fuss when a Liberal cabinet minister in charge of Canadian Heritage, Shiela Copps, thought that a $400 surcharge on MP3 players, would be a good way to curb music piracy. I don't think the details of how to destinguish an portable MP3 player, from just another computer were able to be worked out, so this was just one reason that ill formed idea died on the table.
So much to tax, so little time. Isn't it bad enough that governments tax our purchases, now we are letting companies write taxes into their licences? Sheesh.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Beware of greeks bearing .gifts.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Ok. Most people have figured out by now that these prices have been up for a long time. Is there A) any evidence that open source decoders (like mpg123) are being bullied around, and B) any official statement from Redhat that they're intentionally pulling MP3 decoders from Rawhide?
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
...scads of people who have no problem whatsoever pirating hundreds of gigabytes of $19 CD's throwing a tizzy fit over the notion that someone else might have to pay $0.75.
Annual minimum royalties are payable upon signature and each following year in January and are fully creditable against annual royalties.
US$ 15 000.00 per calendar year.
Now that's a pain. I emailed them to see if I could get a "hobbyist license" for more per app, but without the $15k minimum (wanted to make "iTunes 3 for Classic Mac OS"). They allow you to release up to 5000 units of a game that uses mp3s royalty free, so I was hopeful. The reply? No dice. (I was impressed they sent a reply!)
Fwiw, here's a list of the licensees.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Is there a list somewhere of the packages that were removed from Rawhide? If so, I could compile new meta-rpm such that it would install the latest versions of each onto new RedHat installs.
Does this mean someone who writes a totally reverse-engineered MP3 codec still has to pay the fee?
I think you mean a clean-room reimplementation, not reverse engineering.
You can infringe patents even if you independently develop the same idea (which is even more drastic than the clean-room reimplementation situation). That's the way patents are designed. A limited-time monopoly to an idea in exchange for complete, public documentation of the idea.
What's new is that the longstanding royalty exception for free software / freeware programs has been removed. I can't find any historical info on the exception from the mp3 licensing site (probably because Fraunhofer isn't eager to publicize the fact that there once was an exception), but if you look in other places like the Debian mailing lists, you can read what the old policy was.
Neon Spiral Injector has posted 288 comments. Oh, that's too gross.
two gross and it'd be a really good pun.
I know a lot of people are hoping that .ogg will prevail as a result of this but unfortunately I fear something much worse.
.wma format. On P2P systems and from friends. It brings back chilling memories of the not so long ago pre-decent-office-suite-4-linux days where I had to continually bitch and moan in vain that I'm not able to make use of a particular format.
.ogg will be there to save the day if it disappears. I have yet to see one single .ogg file EVER availble for download on a P2P system but I have seen the occasional .wma. So windows media is gradually gaining acceptance. If mp3s die out I highly doubt .ogg has a good chance to take it's place.
I'm already seeing a ton of songs in
Mp3 is still the most dominant format but I honestly don't think
--
Garett
Winamp has already bought a license.
AOL did however get into trouble because they tried to use the fact they owned Nullsoft to get out of buying another, see the license wasn't transferable.
Get your Unix fortune now!
A couple of points:
1. This is an open standard. It's just patented. Patents expire. Nobody is trying to prevent you from writing decoders - they just want to get paid for (I hope) work that they did in developing the technology, which is pretty cool, and which I don't think I could have invented on my own. I am not fond of software patents, but a patent on MP3 is not the same as a patent on one-click or xor cursors.
Compare this to, for example, Real Media player, where the file format isn't *patented* - it's a trade secret. So if Real doesn't support your platform, you can't play real media. This is really awful - much worse than the patent situation with mp3.
2. The royalty is quite reasonable. If you had to pay $0.75 for your copy of WinAMP, would that really seem unfair to you? That's the price of a can of coke, for Pete's sake! It it really that unfair?
3. Like it or not, this is not going to kill MP3, because most MP3 players are commercial, licensed products, and there are a ton of them out there, and they don't support Vorbis. So you don't have to do anything to keep using your MP3s, but if you want to use Vorbis in protest, it's going to be very difficult.
4. I have a large library of audio files that need to get published on the net. They're free, noncommercial, non-revenue-generating. I'll publish them at least in MP3 format, and maybe Ogg if I can get a good encoder. I have a feeling that if I publish Ogg, it's not going to get downloaded very much, but it'll be interesting to see.
Copyright is all about copying the work. Patents are about copying the idea.
That's part of what's inherently wrong with patenting software. They should treat patents in the same way they treat trademarks -- if its use becomes diluted and unchecked, it belongs to the public.
MP3, GIF and lots of other data formats are just out there everywhere and should belong to the public at large. It's not like the someone who invented LZ or MP3 formats woke up from a coma after 20 years of people using their work. The people have been using it for so long, it belongs to the people now.
People should be protesting and presuring for the release of these patents. People should be protesting against software patents in general. When it comes to historical and archival data, it's all about the format.
What would happen if MS patented EVERYTHING they did. Screw copyright -- just patented everything. We know their legal team would pose a deadly threat to everyone they came in contact with whether the claims had merit or not.
Software patents have a chilling effect on industrial and recreational software development. (Open source is largly recreational... and we should all be screaming for our rights to free expression and recreation.) They need to be officially disposed of. What political force is already supporting this view? I don't know... someone tell me. Whoever and whatever it is, they need to be backed by our support to make some change happen. Things have been out of control for far too long.
Or another lossless, free-as-in-speech format. When OGG 1.0 came out a couple months ago, I took the plunge and re-ripped all my CDs. (Lucky me, I only have about 80 CDs.)
Even if such a change as this (removing the exemption for personal-use decoders) wouldn't really affect me, there's such a thing as taking a stand against those who would abuse the rights they are granted.
If you can, switch to OGG. Rip all your new CDs in OGG. Encourage gaming companies to use the OGG format for the music in their games. And so on.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
The issue isn't over freeware players, it's over the license.
Winamp already has a license, and they don't pay 75 cents per download either. Winamp draws revenue because their mindshare gets people to winamp.com, AOL also pushes Winamp (they own Nullsoft now).
You can pay the one time fee and continue to develop a freeware player, Thomson and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft want you to continue to use mp3, they don't want to kill it. They simply are letting people know that they want everyone to pay up.
Is it kind of dumb to do this? Maybe, but you must understand this won't kill mp3. Your hardware mp3 player will come with the decoder license (of course) and your freeware player will have paid for it first too.
Simply: just because the player is freeware doesn't mean the developers are poor. Nullsoft has AOL/TW behind them and Windows Media Player? I don't know anyone tighter with Fraunhofer.
But, BTW: Ogg is just as good if not better than mp3. Maybe not as popular, but the fidelity is there.
Get your Unix fortune now!
i wonder what prompted them to do this in the first place..
My guess: too many commercial companies were using the free license for free player to skirt licensing the patent. i.e. "Hey, you didn't buy any MP3 player.. you bought something else and we thru the MP3 player in for free".
call me a conspiracy theorist but i wouldn't be suprised if the RIAA is behind this somehow
Doubtful, since if you think about it MP3 (the patent and its owners) would be opposed to the RIAA. The RIAA want to stamp MP3s out and replace them with something they consider secure (and no doubt they own the intellectual property on as well). Thompson, et al stand to make more money with greater prolifieration of MP3s.
So basically, loopholes are being closed. I doubt very seriously that there will be a witch hunt for free player developers. If sell some service, appliance, or other software that includes some free implementation of an MP3 decoder (think a hardware MP3 player that uses a GPLed or BSD library for decoding) I'm sure you can expect a letter in the mail. The unfortunate side effect of this is that the likes of Red Hat have to remove all decoders since the new licensing scheme affects them as well.
It is more complicated, remember LAME aint an MP3 encoder!. Technically LAME is an encapsulation of and patch to specimen source from the Frauenhofer Lab. This code may not be sold (a problem for people selling dists) but it is certainly possible to make it available for free download.
Who in their right mind would build an expensive home (or any home, for that matter) on leased land?!
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
MP3 only came up because it was available at low-to-no-cost. Regarding some of the patents, of course. Nobody would've had used it if they had charged this decoder fee from the very beginning, and they know!
Do what I am going to do: Write a letter (paper!) to Fraunhofer and Thomson and explain your concerns.
Yes, I know about Ogg Vorbis and stuff, but there's no reason not to protest against changed mp3 licenses.
I don't want to re-compress all my mp3s to Ogg because this will reduce quality. So I will still have mp3s around in several years (don't mention all those CDs I burned). So this is an issue, since I will need a player/decoder to access them.
Contact Fraunhofer:
Fraunhofer Institut für Integrierte SchaltungenAm Wolfsmantel 33
91058 Erlangen
Germany
Phone +49 (0) 91 31/7 76-0
Fax +49 (0) 91 31/7 76-9 99
Email: info@iis.fhg.de
(Interesting: On the English homepage, their postal address doesn't show up - only eMail addresses. On the German homepage, it does.)
Contact Thomson:
Thomson multimedia16935 W. Bernardo Drive # 103
San Diego, CA 92127
USA
Fax: +1.858.451.6916
Email: info@mp3licensing.com
42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I'd be willing to pay $100 towards the cause.
When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!
So, are you going to donate the $60K to SPI so that Debian can redistribute xmms? I'd guess not. This won't kill MP3, but it will kill MP3 with free software. Oh well...
Yes, the have the patent, and the right to license the patent as they choose. Their choice (make it free until it's widely used, then start charging money) makes them assholes. This is exactly what happens when you start relying on patented technology, and proves that the folks over at Xiph were right all along.
As far as $0.75/per unit being trivial, you should investigate the economics of consumer electronics. That $0.75 might well be half the profit on a low-end device.
- A free fixed point decoder has been announced.
- With version 1.0 out now, Vorbis is pretty solid for decoding. Ongoing development is expected to not break decoding functionality.
- Legal complications remain embarrassingly unresolved.
(Posting in Mozilla 1.1 from WinXP. Hope this works.)Supposedly the Ogg-on-a-Chip Project has a workable hardware design. I've not heard of anyone planning to build these tho.
I like DAT best. It's pure digital, and doesn't do any compression
DAT is lossy. It loses all frequencies above 24 kHz (48 kHz sample rate + Nyquist-Shannon theorem). It loses all signals below -120 dB due to the effective 20-bit performance of 16-bit dithered PCM. It loses the front-and-back dimension.
The question becomes how much loss a fellow can tolerate. For audio engineers, 24-bit 96 kHz WAV works well (AIFF is limited to 65,535 Hz). (Cool Edit Pro supports 32-bit floating-point, which has incredible dynamic range.) For consumers, even audiophiles with high-quality amps and speakers, 192 kbps Ogg is more than enough for stereo audio.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Can we just delete this whole news article?
Or moderate this posts as +5 Dumb, Redundant?
Winamp (Nullsoft) already paid for the license. They want mindshare, they don't want to collect per client.
Many clients have already paid because this isn't news.
Get your Unix fortune now!
You don't have double loss of quality. It was already taken out when the file was stripped of the things that you don't hear when it is a raw PCM file. You do lose a bit- it is the nature of the algorithm, but it is not even close to "double loss of quality".
Who this kills is the free (as in speech) players - Zinf, XMMS, etc. They can't afford $50k OR $0.75/copy. They can either hope Fraunhofer doesn't notice them, or try to relocate to a place with either no software patents or no Fraunhofer patent, or they can leave MP3. In fact, Linux users in general may be left out in the cold, because I'm not aware of any commercial MP3 decoders for Linux, at all.
Unfortunately, this probably won't be enough to move the world from MP3s. WinAmp will still be downloadable for free, which is all 98% of users care about.
I remember when I was at EMusic, I met with the Thompson guys, who were trying to figure out how to make money on this (circa 1999). I explained to them that nobody was going to pay for a decoder, and that their choice was either to give the decoder away or have people switch to something else. I also suggested the encoder should be free for non-commercial use, in order to cement their current dominance against (then soon-to-be-released) Windows Media.
One of them replied (imagine a German accent), "I see! Vee give avay evrysing for free, and you make more money selling music!"
So, you could say we had a meeting of the minds.
Call me when my Apex AD600A or my Rio Volt SP90 will start playing Ogg. Without hardware support, it'll go nowhere. (I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it most definitely is not there yet.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
How is this BS insightful?
I have a collection of 7 GB of MP3s.
And for every MP3 I have a matching CD (mostly scratch free) sitting on a rack.
In other words, bite me, and keep your idiotic generalizations to yourself.
Oggasm
mp32ogg
Mp3 to Vorbis
Karma
Yes, mostly. The FgH patents were issued in Germany in 1989, one year after ISO-11172 (mpeg1 standard) was published. In the USA, the patent was issued sometime in the mid-90's, 1996 I seem to recall.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
LAME actually is an MP3 encoder now.
"Following the great history of GNU naming, LAME originally stood for LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder. LAME started life as a GPL'd patch against the dist10 ISO demonstration source, and thus was incapable of producing an mp3 stream or even being compiled by itself. But in May 2000, the last remnants of the ISO source code were replaced, and now LAME is the source code for a fully LGPL'd MP3 encoder, with speed and quality to rival all commercial competitors."
http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/ - the LAME project.
Expensive discs (per MB, compared to CD-R), expensive players (compared to MP3-capable CD players), proprietary format controlled by evil giant Sony, none of my friends have them, can't store them on my hard drive, can't download them off the 'net, can't burn to audio CD (without going to analog or using a pro CD burner which defeats SCMS), what's to like?
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
This won't kill -- or probably even hurt -- the MP3 format. It's too entrenched. What it will do is make it harder to release Free players that support MP3. And which players have the best support for OGG? That's right, the Free ones. So if this succeeds in making it harder to distribute Free players, it reduces the number of available OGG players.
Since no one will want a player that can't handle OGG, the only remaining players with significant market share will be those that have paid the fees. The organizations that can afford the fees mostly have a vested interest in restricting distribution.
Nope, no sig
This is a common misconception.
The Paris convention allows the patent holder to apply for a patent in other countries, within a year of the initial filing, and use the initial filing date in the first country as the filing date.
It does not give automatic patents in all countries.
IANAL, but that is how the Patent Lawyer explained it to me.
If you had bought an iPod for your MP3 player, you could have been secure in the knowledge that ogg can be added at any time with an extremely simple firmware upgrade.
Are you sure? How do you know that the iPod player doesn't have a dedicated MP3 chip that takes an MPEG audio bitstream on one set of pins and produces WAV audio on another? (It does.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
what is most interesting about that licensing list is the absence of a few names:
IBM
SUN
Red Hat/Mandrake/SuSE
Imation
Maybe IBM could do the Linux community a favor and put 50K of their "X Billion dollars for Linux" into a perpetual MP3 license.
Although probably it's best for MP3 to die its death now. Long live OGG. If Imation's "RipGo!" Mini-CDR player had OGG, it would be in my possession right now.
MORTAR COMBAT!
It isn't open source unless it can be freely distributed and modified. Something is only open source when it complies to the Open Source Definition
Except that XMMS is not an MP3 player. It happens to have an MP3 decoder bundled with it as an input module -- and it happens that MP3s are what most people use it for -- but it can decode a *ton* of other formats, OGG included, and as a player it won't die. Just take the MP3 module out of the distribution.
V
First off, like somebody said, this has always been the case, but there was no enforcement. So it's really not new.. As far as hardware players, a LOT of them use chips made by other companies (like TI or whatever). Now, I would think that TI would have to pay, not the company selling the MP3 players made with the device.. so then they charge the company making the player with their device an extra $0.75 and so on until you pay when you get the player. And being such a big company like TI or the others that make MP3 decoding chips, I would think they would have worked out patent stuff before, and since they were charging (just not enforcing) I bet that this is already happening.
The real bind is when it comes to software, and they've been doing this with encoding, and stuff like BLADE and LAME are still around and kicking, so I don't see why things like XMMS and mpeg123 would be effected.. I think RedHat's move is silly, but that's just me.
Free Mac Mini
I can hear the websites going down as we speak.
/. that say "this is not a lot to pay" - then you are a freaking moron.
/. bumming me out that i practically don't give a shit any more.
To all of you who have said "no big deal" "$.75 is not a lot of money" - you are mad.
I ran the numbers - and they are staggering.
The list of licensees guarantees them $2,295,000 PER YEAR for the MINIMUM licenseing fees. I notice that i DIDN'T notice a lot of the super-simple little Mac OS 9 mp3 players that were out there on the licensee list - so i guess that their days are now over.
And that is just the tip of the "ability to buy small governments and a few senators" pile of money.
As a Mac bigot, i see that Apple has had 100,000,000 downloads of Quicktime. If they had supported the MP3 format from the beginning (they haven't) that would be $75,000,000 from Apple, and $75,000,000 to Thompson Multimedia. But you get my point.
Fine - what about RealPlayer?
Their site claims that they have 285 million players out there! So much for Apple.. if these rules were in place, that would be a cool $213,750,000 from Real to Thompson. Their software has been shit up until recently, so i can't tell you how long they've supported mp3's. but if it was the beginning, then that's what it woulda cost them.
That's just crap. And that's just two of the licensees. I can't imagine how many bazillions they plan on making here in the near future.
This will and SHOULD kill mp3. I grow weary of saying it, but if I come up with a good idea, i shouldn't be able to live a thousand lifetimes off of it. There's just no justification. Hell, i don't plan on making money off the work i did today tomorrow - so why the hell do so many other people believe that just because they worked yesterday that they should be paid into perpituity?
IP is a bullshit idea.
For all of you dumbasses on
This is NOT cheap - and this WILL stifle creativity and future MP3 deployment. If you come up with a great piece of software that decodes mp3s, pray to God it doesn't become popular (if you're a little-guy developer).
What kills me is that instead of providing SOMETHING of value TODAY - they are going to kill off all the little guys who make mp3 players or force them to 123.
Whatever.. i'm so sick of
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
The guys over at Xiph.org have posted a reply, in the form of a highly sarcastic open letter to Thompson. :)
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
Sun pulled downloads of the Java Media Framework last week because of an undisclosed "licensing issue". Wonder if this it.
Guess there's no point promoting my open-source shoutcast/icecast support for JMF anymore. Damn. Almost topped 20 downloads.
--realinvalidname
An extra 700 megs of storage for my Rio is less than $1.00. Thanks for playing, though...
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Yeh,but the parent post claims to be willing to buy and ipod if it were able to play ogg files so $350 for a sharp zaurus pda would be a good deal as he'd get an ogg player and also the pda capabilities which he wouldn't have with an ipod
Creating a personal music library does not require a license, but the software you use to do it does need a license.
Yeesh, this thread is full of such bullshit, it's ridiculous.
Now, kiddies, can we please understand the *real* significance of this?
Point #1: it's not actually clear how new all this is. I've been looking at the relevant page with the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org) and it seems from that that the current terms came in in August 2001, which hardly makes this news.
But, for the moment, let's assume this is NEW and EXCITING! What's changed?
Well, for a long time, Fraunhofer have charged patent royalty for all MP3 encoders and all non-freely distributed MP3 decoders. This means there is exactly zero difference for your hardware MP3 player and any software MP3 player which costs money; the makers of these will have already been paying these (minuscule) patent royalties since they started manufacturing the device.
The change (if it *is* a new development) is that there used to be an exemption for freely-distributed MP3 decoders. Now there isn't. This means that to distribute such players you need to purchase a license for the distribution from the patent holder.
The charges they are asking, in commercial terms, are *peanuts*. AOL, owners of Nullsoft who publish Winamp, can pay a flat fee of $50k to be able to distribute Winamp with MP3 decoding capability forever. They no doubt already have. $50k is absolutely NOTHING to AOL, it probably came out of petty cash. Same goes for Microsoft (WMP) and Apple (iTunes or whatever).
To you as an end-user the impact of this is precisely zero. If you use a freely downloaded MP3 encoder in the US you're almost certainly already breaking patent legislation; no-one seems to care about doing this, and certainly no-one's going to try and arrest you for it. Most people use iTunes, WMP or WinAmp to play their audio anyway; as mentioned already, the owners of these will have paid their patent fees already and it's perfectly legal to do so. (By the by, you can't send Fraunhofer 75 cents to pay for your usage of some decoder; that's what the $15k minimum payment is about. These terms are exclusively aimed at publishers, that's how patent law works; the publisher pays the patent royalty and passes the cost on to the consumer, somehow. You don't pay it yourself directly.)
So all this doesn't matter two fucks as far as you personally are concerned, as far as people who use WMP, iTunes or Winamp are concerned, and as far as encoding MP3s is concerned.
THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OF THIS "NEWS" IS ON POOR COMPANIES WHO DISTRIBUTE FREE MP3 DECODERS. i.e. - Linux distribution vendors.
As mentioned, to Microsoft, Apple or AOL, $50k is peanuts. To SuSE, Mandrake, or Debian, it's not necessarily. Plus, for Linux distributors, there's an ancillary problem. Linux vendors generally license their product as being freely redistributable; when you download Mandrake you can perfectly legally then pass it on to someone else. The terms of the patent license you can buy for MP3s wouldn't allow this; even if Mandrake or Debian or Red Hat purchased a license to distribute an MP3 decoder they couldn't legally distribute it under a license which allowed it to be freely redistributed.
So the big problem is for Linux vendors. They're faced with a dilemma. They have several possible options. 1, carry on as before and hope they don't get prosecuted for patent infringement, out of the goodness of Fraunhofer's heart. 2, immediately take all MP3 decoding functionality out of their distribution. 3, buy a patent license and somehow modify the license of their distribution so the MP3 decoding functionality cannot be legally redistributed. 4, somehow fork the distribution so the MP3 decoding functionality is not legally available in countries where Fraunhofer have a patent on MP3 decoding but is available in countries where they don't - remember, there's countries where this whole issue is void because Fraunhofer have no patent. Patent law is national, not international.
There's dirtier options, too. One i've suggested exploits the fact that you can legally distribute the source code to something that infringes patent under US law. (This is why you can legally download the LAME encoder source code in the US). Thus it would probably be legal for distros to remove the binary RPMs for MP3 decoding functionality but include source RPMs and instructions on compiling them, along with a disclaimer stating that it would be illegal to do so in the US.
But I digress. My basic point is a lot of stuff in this thread is silly, frivolous, misinformed, and irrelevant. The big issue of this patent is purely and simply a problem for Linux vendors.