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.)
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)
In true /. style, you have not read the article:
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
That would be an erroneous conclusion.
A more accurate (though not necessarilly 100% correct, since it is difficult to know what 100% correct is in the context of so many diverse people) conclusion would be that
OSS (and Free Software) enthusiasts are a diverse bunch of people, and among them are included some few who dislike any 'taint' of commericalism.
I am very inclined toward business (and quite good at it, if the last few years' tax returns are to be believed), and that doesn't stop me from being accused of zealotry or anti-commercial sentiments when, in fact, my sentiments are anti-monopoly, not anti-business, as are the sentiments of anyone who understands how a free market and competition are supposed to work.
Since copyright grants a 95 year (or life+75 year) government enforced monopoly, this means I come down firmly on the side of Free Software, both philosophically and, based on a great deal of bad experience with proprietary software, practically. But this has more to do with the problems inherent in having a vendor with authority over aspects of your business, and the power to coerce one's business into taking actions not in your best interests (but theirs instead), and having that power over you backed by a government gun, that it does with any "anti-commerical" sentiment.
There are others, quite likely the majority of Open Source and Free Software enthusiasts, who are much deeper in the pro-business camp than I, so I suspect your characterization really describes only a tiny, if outspoken, minority of people who use and advocate free software and open source.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
- Thomson is not going after anyone who writes/releases a free (as in beer) MP3 decoder (well, not yet anyway);
- However the patent license granted to free (as in beer) MP3 decoders does not allow redistribution for $$;
- Hence, the patent license for free (as in beer) MP3 decoders is not compatible with the GPL;
- Hence, any GPL'd MP3 decoder is in violation of the patent license.
It's hard to see Thomson as the bad guys here. Rather, the fault lies with those who slapped a GPL on top of their MP3 player-programs, without considering the legal restrictions (vis, that they were violating MP3 patents thereby).-Renard
"The controversy was created by the removal of this line in the old MP3 royalty licensing page from the current version: "No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users." Hmmm..let me remove a few more lines (removed ones in brackets[ ]).... Please [Remember to give Mr. Jones his heart pills] before feeding Mr. Jones any food. Make sure his bib is on. When opening the transmitter door [Make sure the high voltage is off]. Remember to discharge the capacitor with a clip lead. [Oncoming traffic during rush hour in] Express lane. Point made Thomson?
This was a copy/paste from another person's post from the article from three days ago. Not that the moderators have any way of knowing this, but it's not insightful if it's not *your* insight.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
The licensing scheme is not the same as it always was, and there is documentation of this fact at The Internet Archive.
The recorded page from August of 2000 stated that:
"No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."
The page from the same date for third-party encoders is pretty much the same as they said, though- so LAME, blade, etc., seem to have been afoul of this for a while. Which is pretty awful, since they're great software.
The record at the Archive was brought up in a previous article, so I'll give credit to that individual whose name I don't have on hand. And Flarelock, for the "1984" post above, that's a nice touch.
Here's the link
A computer is a valuable tool, so use it and stop whining.
In all honesty, was it not perfectly apparent from the outset that MP3 was very much a proprietary, owned format? Did anyone with brains enough to write MP3 code ever think that MP3 = Free Software/OSS?
MP3 is a proprietary format. MP3 has always been a proprietary format. Did you think that a bunch of geeks wishing really, really hard and writing lots of really cool Free apps would somehow change this fact? Are you really just coming to this startling realization?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
The GPL has a specific clause that deals with patents, which basically says the GPL makes no warranty with respect to patents and it is up to the user to know and adhere to any patents valid within the jurisdiction where they are using or distributing the code. If the code is in violation of a patent and cannot be distributed within the terms of the GPL, then you cannot distribute the code within the jurisdicition where the patent is granted.
In the case of a software, or mathetmatical, patent like mp3, the GPL is likely to hold, and be valid, for all of the code including the mp3 algorithm itself throughout most of the world.
Only in the United States, and perhaps some portions of Europe, will commercial use of the code that would otherwise be within the limits set by the GPL be incompatible, so most of the world is free to use the code within the constraints of the GPL.
OTOH the GPL doesn't require one to charge for the software, so I'm not certain it is incompatible even in those less fortunate parts of the world where software and business-method patents have insinuated themselves into the law, though I agree it certainly might be.
It's hard to see Thomson as the bad guys here. Rather, the fault lies with those who slapped a GPL on top of their MP3 player-programs, without considering the legal restrictions
The fault lies with Frauenhofer for changing the licensing terms, in effect, changing the rules of the game midstream. It is a sleazy thing for them to do, no matter how anyone spins it.
However, I agree with you that a large portion of the blame falls squarely on those who promote and use MP3 instead of unencumbered alternatives like OggVorbis. We knew from the history of GIF and others that this is the sort of behavior one can expect from the kind of people who would seek to patent and restrict knowledge to begin with, so it should really come as no surprise that they have remained true to their nature and done this, and anyone who was surprised, or caught flat-footed by it, has demonstrated an incredible lack of vision and foresight (not to mention understanding of recent historical events a la' the GIF LZW patent).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
This is an open standard. It's just patented. Patents expire.
Not if Thomson Multimedia and the major pharmaceutical companies get together and lobby Congress for a Cherilyn Lapierre Patent Term Extension Act like Hollywood did back in 1998.
they just want to get paid for (I hope) work that they did in developing the technology
Then why does Thomson Multimedia require an annual minimum royalty of $15,000? That keeps the XMMS people from being able to distribute their product because they cannot charge for every copy that is passed around under the terms of the GPL.
The royalty is quite reasonable. If you had to pay $0.75 for your copy of WinAMP, would that really seem unfair to you?
AOL Time Warner, the parent company of Nullsoft, can afford to pay the minimum royalties that Thomson Multimedia asks for. If I wrote and published an MP3 player, on the other hand, and only 1,000 copies were downloaded in a given year, I would have to pay $15.00 per copy.
I have a large library of audio files that need to get published on the net. They're free, noncommercial, non-revenue-generating.
If your site's space and bandwidth are paid for with advertisements, then it is not non-revenue-generating. If they are demos for potential employers to look at when evaluating your fitness for employment, then they are not non-revenue-generating. You may want to argue differently, but Thomson Multimedia most likely has more money to spend on legal representation than you have.
I'll publish them at least in MP3 format, and maybe Ogg if I can get a good encoder
I have a feeling that the parent comment is a repost from the previous article about MP3 patent licensing. In response, I recommended OggDropXPd and noted that users of Winamp 2.80 and later could play Ogg files.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Thompson's license is stronger on freedom than the GPL. The software that uses it has to stay free; it can't be imprisoned in a box with a pricetag.
Yes, this impacts Red Hat's "revenue model" of taking the work of others and reselling it. Tough.
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