Java Media Framework Drops MP3

realinvalidname writes "Sun had stopped downloads of its Java Media Framework about a week ago due to an undisclosed 'licensing issue.' Now we know what it is, as they've removed MP3 encoding and decoding from the JMF that's downloadable now. Of course, this isn't surprising given recent news about new MP3 licensing terms."

Comments

not the reason??

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone should check out this article first:

"Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed software decoders. For commercially sold decoders - primarily hardware mp3 players - the per-unit royalty has always been in place since the beginning of the program," a spokesman said"

"A Thomson spokesman told NewsForge's Robin Miller that it was a ruse by Ogg Vorbis advocates to get publicity.® "

http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26153.html

Re:not the reason??

[gnoshi]

As one would expect Thomson to say. What kind of poor-grade PR machines would they have to come up with anything less.

Disclaimer: I am not a Java dev...
That aside, there is a project to develop a Vorbis Java SPI, which (from the impression I get) makes Java decoding of vorbis easy, and fits a standard interface. Or something.

gnoshi

Re:not the reason??

[Trogre]

This only applies to DECODERS. If you're using an ENCODER you're screwed.

What they're basically saying is, "Don't make any mp3's but it's okay if you play them."

Re:not the reason??

[ftobin]

You're getting your information from a PR person. I'm getting mine from the licensing page. I see no such exception for free decoders.

Re:not the reason??

[StArSkY]

I agree. They are saying they have never charged for it. This is a statement of fact.... BUT now that it is removed from their licence, as menitioned by ftobin, they technically can, whenever they choose, pursue you for not adhering to the licence.

For example, Sun could be sued in 5 years time and have to make a retrospective licence payment. Thompson are making sure they keep a few cards up their sleeve.

The PR stunt in saying nothing has change is true for today, but not necessarily tomorrow.

Re:not the reason??

[Cyberdyne]

You're getting your information from a PR person. I'm getting mine from the licensing page [mp3licensing.com]. I see no such exception for free decoders.

The page you linked to states explicitly that MP3 decoders are not necessarily subject to per-unit royalties: either pay a per-unit fee ($0.75) or a one-time royalty of $50 000. Pay the latter, and you're covered for any number of decoders shipped. For any software company (Nullsoft/Winamp, Apple, whoever) this is small change - less than the cost of one man-year of coding.

Granted, this is an issue if you're trying to run a non-commercial project on the cheap, and a big issue if you want to distribute free encoder software (no flat-rate option there - $2.50 per unit), but this shouldn't rip the MP3 players out of RedHat or Mandrake's distros any time soon. I imagine it's the encoder issue which caused this move?

Javalayer MP3 Player

[jpavel]

Fortunately, there is an open source Java MP3 decoder, JavaLayer that I've found to work quite nicely.

Re: Java Bug 4499904

[bunratty]

Adding support for Ogg Vorbis and Tarkin is bug 4499904 in the Bug Parade. This seems like a good time to vote for the bug and add your comments.

Re:OV..does anyone know?

[hotgazpacho]

Some quick Googling turned up, among other things, JOrbis, an LGPL Ogg Vorbis Decoder in Java that decodes to PCM.

Re:If not mp3...

[j3110]

It's a media framework. That means it's not SUN's job to make it work with everything :) You can add your own plugin audio codecs. Think of it as a portable version of the Windows Media Codec registry. I'm sure there will be sites that you can download MP3 plugins for the JMF. I'm pretty sure Ogg already exists, but I'm not sure about that. ( JavaZoom claims they have some kind of a version)

Expect to see lots of codec's for JMF provided by third parties, the way it should be. Should be because SUN's programmers don't have the time nor inclination (nor obligation) to learn every little detail about every little file format. It'll be better in the end to have a more dedicated support for each codec whilst keeping the portability and API static for all codecs.

Mod Parent Up!

[cscx]

The licensing fee DOES NOT apply to software decoders, only hardware decoders.

From the Register article:

A Thomson spokesman told NewsForge's Robin Miller that it was a ruse by Ogg Vorbis advocates to get publicity.®

Hmmph.

Tarkin?

[Trepidity]

They'd be hard-pressed to add support for Tarkin, since it's barely even started, and not currently under active development (the Xiph coders are currently working on Theora, which is a project to integrate the VP3 codec -- which was originally closed-source and patented but has been donated to the Ogg project by the owners -- into the Ogg file format). Tarkin is still on the roadmap, but it's a long-term "what we'll do when we're done with everything else" goal with no timetable to completion.

the licencing terms have changed again

[tanveer1979]

This link is carrying the story. Apparantly thomson has also said that they never said that this was applicable to software mp3 players! They blame it on rumours by vorbis group. At newsforge thomson has said that ogg is trying to get publicity and attention etc., they actually never had any restrictive terms for software mp3 playeres... no royalties for those.

Re:the licencing terms have changed again

[Anonymous Coward]

And you believe the hype the PR department is spewing out? They did in FACT change their licensing agreement to disclude mp3 decoders. Their PR department can state that they will never charge licensing for mp3 players till their face turns blue, but what is in the license is what matters. There is NO exclusion in the revised license that allows free mp3 decoders. The fears layed out by ogg vorbis may be extending a bit, but they are still true.

I can think of another company that claimed that they would do one thing, but changed their mind when it suited them since their license stated otherwise.

No, Don't mod parent up

[hayden]

From the article you posted:

[In reference to charging licence fees] For commercially sold decoders - primarily hardware mp3 players

Keyword, "primarily" meaning mostly but not only hardware decoders. Also:

Therefore, there is no change in our licensing policy

Keyword, "policy" meaning yes the licence has changed but our intent currently remains the same.

Basically Thompson have said they currently don't plan to sue anyone making a software decoder but they don't grant you the right to use their patent either. Nobody selling or planning on selling software can use their patent without risk of infringement (and compensation pays triple if you knowingly infringe a patent) and being sued by Thompson in the future.

What some PR flack said doesn't change that. It's only what's in the licence that counts.

Next time, when you post a story that's clearly going to cause paranoia and misunderstanding, try to be a bit more adult about it.

Next time when you are clearing posting to spread misinformation and crap, try posting as you so you can get modded down for it.

Read the Article - Follow the Link!

[_Sprocket_]

The licensing fee DOES NOT apply to software decoders, only hardware decoders.

Really now? You might want to take a look at the link provided in that very same article you lifted the "publicity" quote. The licensing specifically lists prices for "PC Software Applications" as well as "Hardware Products".

From the xmms web site.....

[Spazzz]

Statement from Thomson Multimedia, mp3 Licensing

In a posting appearing Tuesday August 27, 2002 on the Web site 'slashdot.org,' an individual cited a change in the mp3 license fee structure of Thomson and Fraunhofer. The writer of the post apparently misread the mp3 licensing conditions, as Thomson's mp3 licensing policy has not experienced any change.

To clarify, since the beginning of our mp3 licensing program in 1995, Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed software decoders. For commercially sold decoders - primarily hardware mp3 players - the per-unit royalty has always been in place since the beginning of the program.

Therefore, there is no change in our licensing policy and we continue to believe that the royalty fees of .75 cents per mp3 player (on average selling over $200 dollars) has no measurable impact on the consumer experience.

Stefan Geyersberger
Business Manager - Audio & Multimedia

So why the hell is everybody freaking out? I agree, just like GIFs, the MP3 format is encumbered by patents, and it's probably a good idea to start transitioning to a format that doesn't have this problem. However, the sky hasn't fallen yet.

-J

Get the old one here

[Danta]

Here are different sites that offer the old files. For those of us who are willing to pay the license fees only, of course.

1
2