Slashdot Mirror
Thomson: MP3 Licensing Same As It Ever Was
Thomson Multimedia is downplaying the
recently reported change
in the
licensing
of patented MP3 technology as nothing more than a trivial, semantic change.
In a NewsForge report today,
Robin ("roblimo") Miller quotes a spokesman who denies that any change in the licensing terms has taken place, "that Thomson laid down its licensing terms long ago, and that if Thomson's terms are not compatible with the GPL today, then they never were." The patent encumbrance of MP3 codecs has worried Free software enthusiasts for a long time; if the recent wording change represents no change in policy, it seems that they really have been right all along.
(NewsForge,
like Slashdot, is part of the
sinister OSDN keiretsu.)
Interesting. I wonder if they'll now ask for backpayment of all decoders issued?
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
I'm intrigued that people are all about OSS not being opposed to business or profit, as long as it's done in a reasonable, open way.
At the same time, though, we see the "Red Hat = Microsoft?" articles and the subtle opposition to anything that is 'tainted' by capitalism (sinister OSDN [not that it isn't a keiretsu], etc.) I've since decided that open source people are simply disinclined toward business and there will always be a bulk of people who can't fathom that things can be both commercial and open and will make a fuss about it as a result, despite whatever benefits the continue to enjoy.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
I know a bunch of people are pissed about MP3 and its licensing and so forth. I think it's a valid complaint. After all, I'm a long-time ex-Windows user, so I know what it's like to get frustrated with the people who make your software.
But when it comes right down to it, you have to choose the right tool for the right job. A lot of times, at client sites where I'd rather use Linux or BSD/OS, I have to go with Win2k, just because the required featureset (ASP, database connectivity, CGI) demands IIS. I think we need to recognize that MP3 is an established and important technology for digital music. Would it be nice if it were all public domain, or GPLed? Of course. But you can't always get what you want, and in this case we have to settle for MP3 with the knowledge that it is truly the appropriate tool for the job at hand.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
...I have to ask: does anyone know of standalone (meaning not a PDA) MP3 players that handle the OGG format as an alternative to MP3? That's the only thing holding me back from using exclusively OGG from now on. My Creative Nomad IIMG only has firmware to play WAV, MP3 and WMA. I suppose I could always use OGG and convert my files to WMA when I want to use them on the player, but that's really a pain. If anyone knows of a different firmware that can play OGG on the Nomad, that'd be even more appreciated.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
GIF, JPEG, MP3...I guess society must decide whether the Internet is truly a public information superhighway or merely a serious of privately-owned stretches of info-road littered with tollbooths. I say it's the former, let's go with OGG in this case.
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.
.75 drags with it a certain amount of paperwork and red tape - if you charge people 75 cents to download it off of your website, then you will need to pay for the e-commerce, and the secretary to shuffle the paper work, and then it turns out to be more like 5 or 10 bucks - which is still reasonable, but it might dampen the spirits of the typical person who, under other circumstances, may download this and use it. Especially if a free decoder is immediately available that has the same quality and size as a MP3.
But it is a patent none the less - it restricts your rights under the GPL, and it provides a very gray area as to your specific rights such as distribution, royalties, etc.. - much like the MPEG patents and other media / image patents.
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?
Its really not unfair, but it will put a damper on the number of people who use MP3 decoders - because that
I think that the biggest problem is that Thompson let the genie out of the bottle, and now they want to charge people to talk to him. THat to me seems to be a questionable business model, but since they managed to get the patent, more power to 'em, I guess.
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.
Its an eventual thing - instead of paying the royalties or one time fees, companies will start to move to free standards instead. MP3 didn't appear over night, and neither will Ogg. In fact, MP3 players didn't encourage the MP3 revolution, they simply took advnatage of the fact that millions of people were already listening to MP3s on their computer. It was the free decoders (XMMS and WinAMP) that introduced MP3, and now its the same decoders that are introducing Ogg. It just takes a little time to move.
So when faced with dealing with royalties and other issues, the users will start using alternatives, and eventually so will the commerical players. MP3 won't go away tommorrow, but don't be surprised if it disappears 5 years from now.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
...But, he says several times -- using slightly different words each time -- the second you sell software or hardware that contains Thomson's patented technology, the company wants money, and this is not negotiable, GPL or no GPL...
...).
While this won't spell the end for xmms, etc. directly, what happens when (your distro here) bundles a GPLed MP3 player, then sells you the distro? It sounds to me like each distro-maker would need to have a license to sell a product that includes a MP3 player, even if the player is GPLed (or BSDed, or Artistic Licensed,
the no
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.
Couple of points here: 1a. Patents expire in 20 years with an option to renew; in practical terms they don't expire especially when it comes to software. 1b. Patent on MP3 is the same as a patent on one-click in that they are both patents on software. They both claim patents on logic, algorithm, functions, whatever you want to call it.
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?
This is purely subjective. I'm sure if the patent license is enforced winamp will come up with a free version that's ad-bloated (plays an ad mp3 after each of your selected mp3s, popups, unders, etc), or paid subscription model like Real did awhile ago. Now, this may be completely reasonable to you, but others who have been playing their mp3s without having to pay for patent royalties or get annoyed by advertizers will not appreciate the change. So they will switch to Windows Media Player which will include the patent payment in the OS price (antitrust?), which will also force them to listen to and encode in WMA.
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.
I don't think it's going to be MP3 vs OGG, it's going to be MP3 vs WMA and good luck beating MS in this game. Just like I said above. Also, consider MS requiring you to use their DRM with WMAs when or as they get a hold of some market share. This will bring up so many issues it's a topic of several separate discussions.
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.
At least help advertize Ogg. Can't hurt. BTW what is wrong with the xiph.org's ogg encoder?
This is especially bad if my program contains code written by other programmers and released under the GPL. These programmers could then sue me for incorporating their code into software that is not freely redistributable as required by the GPL.
The GNU GPL anticipates this issue, and explicitly states in section 7:
By the way, this is not a hypothetical issue for me. I'm a developer of Audacity, a GPL program that includes the MAD mp3 decoder. We are currently discussing the situation on the development mailing list. See this message for a discussion of some options we are considering.
Your analysis is missing a few steps. It's the granting of patents that's at fault here. Thompson was getting annoyed at Red Hat, I'm sure (Red Hat could use the "we're not selling mp3 decoders, we're selling service and packaging" thing, but I dunno if that would work) among others (Linux and BSD vendors mostly) for selling software that was not licensed. I'm not blaming them. I'm blaming the process that put this power in their hands.
My solution for the USPTO and those who follow the US lead in patent laws: restrict patents to individuals, not corporations; make patents non-transferable; require software patents to be MUCH more specific and approve software patents in under 1 year or reject it. None of this re-submit 3 times and get the patent 6 years later crap. That's what's killing us.
If the above changes are made, individuals, not companies will have the burdon of concience (could you keep working for Thompson if they were doing this with your patent?) It also means that patents would no longer be viable as a corporate tool of war. Yes, you can bully me now, but if your key patent-holder leaves the company, you're going to have to eat some of that crow.
Patents are an incentive, not a right. Companies should not be allowed to harm the common good by applying for patents. That breaks the entire purpose of them.
This would be a good place for MS to now enable their DRM system to stop unlicensed MP3 DEcoders from running..
Will they take this "opportunity" to try out their new EUL? It would be a very 'Microsoft' thing to do. IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
It's like "Zaibatsu" (though surely someone who knows Japanese will correct me on how different the words really are; I have heard them used interchangeably, but only by Americans speaking English, and do not know Japanese). See also this game:s u/ )
;-)
(//www.angelfire.com/games3/errantknight/zaibat
Well, I don't know *that* much Japanese, but I'll try...
The zaibatsu were powerful financial and business cartels that formed during the Meiji period (1880s-ish to 1945) The defining characteristic was that zaibatsu were family-owned, usually by rich and powerful members of the samurai class. During the American occupation after WWII, the huge holding companies that glued the pieces of the zaibatsu together were liquidated and sold off piecemeal. During the 1960s and 1970s, similar huge mega-conglomerates emerged again. These are the kieretsu. The main difference is that they are (mostly) publicly traded companies, not dominated by any one family like the zaibatsu were. Mitsubishi(*) was one of the biggest zaibatsu, and is now one of the biggest kieretsu. Judging the success of trying to break up the zaibatsu is left as an exercise to the reader
(*) "Mitsubishi" means "three diamonds" in Japanese. Look at their logo... Now I'm blatantly karma whoring, huh
0 1 - just my two bits
Thomson's doesn't own Philips, Philips is an independant public company with many shareholders. Thomson might own a small part of Philips, but not the whole company. Also, Thomson's isn't that big (market cap is 5 billion), and most large companies could buy them if they so desired. Even Apple could pay cash for the whole company. Its more likely, by valuation, that Philips would buy Thomson's.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Yeah, go tell that to Justin Frankel of Nullsoft/WinAMP fame, years before Vorbis was even publically announced.
It was only within the last several months that Ogg/Vorbis came out of beta and the bitstream format was fixed (even though the current libs apparantly don't use all the defined features, so it's debatable if you could call it "mature"). ISO 11172 by contrast, the MPEG1 standard, was published by the International Standard Organization in 1988 and revised in 1993. That's 9 to 14 years ago, depending on how you count.
Clearly today's royalty mess is largely the fault of people who implemented and used MP3 encoding many years before Ogg/Vorbis even existed. If they all just would have had enough forsight to forsee this coming, and instead of MP3, use nothing at all and wait for Ogg/Vorbis, then we all woulda been better off.
It is unfortunate, and Thompson/FgH are truely slimey bastards for tweaking a critically important clause and then lying through their teeth that nothing has been changed. So maybe it is their fault, but don't go laying the blame on anyone using MP3 back in the 90's, when the only alternative to using a patented codec was silence.
BTW, it still remains to be seen if ogg/vorbis truely does not violate any patents.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools