Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Java Media Framework Drops MP3

Posted by chrisd on from the more-ammo-for-ogg dept.

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."

54 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. OV..does anyone know? by clambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do they already have Ogg? Was it added? Or will they be adding it? --clambert

    --
    mailto:<?=implode("@", array("chris", implode(".", array("php", "net"))))?>
    1. Re:OV..does anyone know? by hotgazpacho · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  2. Unfortunate by shlong · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a big Java supported, but this is unfortunate. It will only serve to make Java less relevant. You'd think that Sun could have worked out something with donating the licensing fees and made it a 'goodwill' guesture towards the Java community. Oh well.

    --
    Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
    1. Re:Unfortunate by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see your point as to why you feel this is unfortunate, but would you mind explaining to the rest of us exactly why a company should invest licensing fees in something that's almost as free as air?

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    2. Re:Unfortunate by coltrane99 · · Score: 2

      While this is definitely unfortunate, Sun has been pouring resources into this marvelous free platform with little (cash-money profit) to show for it for years now. I would think paying even a $1 per download would be pretty much out of the question for them.. How low can the licensing fees be?

    3. Re:Unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with Sun "donating" the licenses is that commercial products using JMF would normally be required to pay for the encoder. Say, a portable MP3 player running on an embedded Java platform. Sun is not in a position to say who will be using the codec in an acceptable way and who won't. So the only solution they have is to drop the distributed support. They had a similar situation a while back with the Java Cryptography Extension.

      All's not lost, however. JMF is a pluggable API, after all. Commercial products can make their own arrangements, while a freely-distributable codec could be made (by someone else) which can just be dropped in.

      As for Ogg... give them a bit of time. It's easier to remove something (especially for legal reasons) than it is to put a replacement in. If you can't wait, write an Ogg codec for JMF and everyone using JMF will be able to drop it in and take advantage of it. :)

    4. Re:Unfortunate by plierhead · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sun couldn't donate the license fees unless they struck a bulk deal with Thomson - they'd leave themselves wide open to someone downloading billions of copies of the JMF with the meter ticking for each one.

      This does suck though, the JMF is a really nice framework, we built a servlet that played MP3s through the office stereo system using it.

      The weird thing though is the disconnect here between Thomson, who claim the licensing rules have always been clear, and Sun, the sort of company who you would think would not embed someone else's IP unless they were very clear on the licensing issues. Sounds like Sun was very stupid and Thomson was very cunning.

      --

      [x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful

    5. Re:Unfortunate by AJWM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sounds like Sun was very stupid and Thomson was very cunning.

      Or that Thomson is plain lying about the licensing rules having always been clear.

      Given the recent change and the furor it generated, I'm inclined to the latter view myself.

      --
      -- Alastair
  3. not the reason?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:not the reason?? by gnoshi · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    2. Re:not the reason?? by Trogre · · Score: 3, Informative

      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."

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:not the reason?? by ftobin · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:not the reason?? by StArSkY · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      lounge around on the blue couch
    5. Re:not the reason?? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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,"

      We have always been at war with Eurasia.

    6. Re:not the reason?? by Cyberdyne · · Score: 3, Informative
      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?

    7. Re:not the reason?? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful


      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.

      That's all nice and fine. However, it misses the point.

      The attention came from a change to the license; specifically the removal of an exemption for software players/decoders distributed free of charge. And I believe THAT exclusion came about in responce to some concern over the license several years ago - although I might be remembering that wrong.

      If Thompson's agent was saying something along the lines of "we changed our license - its our technology and we can do that. Pay up or stop using our stuff" then fine. Or even if the rep had claimed it was all a mistake... a simple oversight... and the license was modified to include the origional exclusion, then even better. But that's not what is going on here.

      The license has changed. It is a very distinct and important change to the development community. And it is the very kind of change that a project like Ogg Vorbis has been created to handle.

      Meanwhile, there is a PR representative demanding that everybody ignore that license behind the curtain. And, of course, he also insists that any attention on this matter is not a responce to their own actions (changing their license) but a devious mud-slinging campaign by the Ogg Vorbis group.

      And an anonymous poster/shrill attempting to further Thomson's story while ignoring the contrary evidence included in the very article he/she mentions.
    8. Re:not the reason?? by alienw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The attention came from a change to the license; specifically the removal [archive.org] of an exemption for software players/decoders distributed free of charge.

      The real reason they removed that exemption is so that players such as Winamp, which are commercial but distributed free of charge, have to pay a license fee. If you formally list an exception for free decoders, they wouldn't have to do that, because they technically are free (even though they are made by a large corporation and are supposed to make money). Also, pretty much anyone would be able to have an MP3 decoder in their application (even if it costs money) by shipping it separately free of charge. It's a gaping loophole. So, Thomson now is saying that the fees still apply to everyone, although Thomson is not enforcing them for what they consider free decoders. If you show me one free project that has gotten a cease-and-desist letter from Thomson, then I'll believe you. As it is, it does look like a Vorbis publicity stunt.

      I highly doubt that Thomson will ever start cracking down on free, open-source decoders, because it just doesn't make any business sense. Besides promoting Ogg Vorbis, it would also generate bad publicity for them and the MP3 format, while not earning them a single cent in extra revenues.

    9. Re:not the reason?? by pod · · Score: 2
      OK, Thomson is being reasonable here. The conspiracy theorists will no doubt make a big deal out of this by saying that this is a selective enforcement license; should someone become a thorn in Thomson's side they will get sued off the face of the planet. I believe it is in Thomson's best interest to have free decoders widely available, and I think even their lawyers know that.

      The real reason they removed that exemption is so that players such as Winamp, which are commercial but distributed free of charge, have to pay a license fee. If you formally list an exception for free decoders, they wouldn't have to do that, because they technically are free (even though they are made by a large corporation and are supposed to make money). Also, pretty much anyone would be able to have an MP3 decoder in their application (even if it costs money) by shipping it separately free of charge. It's a gaping loophole. So, Thomson now is saying that the fees still apply to everyone, although Thomson is not enforcing them for what they consider free decoders.

      But now we come to the $64k question. Suppose a company A makes a commercial for profit product including a plug-in architecture such that some freely available and popular decoder (made by an OS group B, not by company A) can be downloaded and just plugs in. Clearly, company A is going for the loophole, but they can't be sued, they just provide generic plug-in interface that can be used for any legitimate purpose, and they don't make the mp3 decoder, or make it available for download. Suppose this becomes a popular product, and this method starts getting copied by other for profit software makers. Who gets sued? Company A? OS group B?

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    10. Re:not the reason?? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


      The real reason they removed that exemption is so that players such as Winamp, which are commercial but distributed free of charge, have to pay a license fee.

      Is that so? Then where is the exeption in their license for non-commercial use? There is no such thing. The license applies to everyone.


      So, Thomson now is saying that the fees still apply to everyone, although Thomson is not enforcing them for what they consider free decoders. If you show me one free project that has gotten a cease-and-desist letter from Thomson, then I'll believe you. As it is, it does look like a Vorbis publicity stunt.

      The place for Thomson to make these assurances is in their license. Anywhere else is just words. If Thomson were to take you to court over this issue, their case would certainly revolve around their license. You better have a better defense than a printout of an article from The Register.

      Is it a Vorbis publicity stunt? Hardly. Thomson changed their license on their own accord - and despite their spin, the change was considerable. It is only natural for the Ogg Vorbis group to point this out as the reason they exist is to protect developers from just this kind of license issue.

      Everything else is noise. It doesn't matter what Thomson's history is, nor their current policy (policy can change on a whim, with a new CEO, after a particularly convincing PowerPoint presentation from a new marketing hot-shot, etc). It doesn't matter what supposed business case against legal action you can come up with (who says you know all the facts? Can somebody come up with a counter-case?). What matters is the words within the license.

      To put bluntly:

      Its the license, stupid.
  4. Javalayer MP3 Player by jpavel · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    1. Re:Javalayer MP3 Player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      which still has the patent issue, which may well invalidate the project being GPL.

    2. Re:Javalayer MP3 Player by g4dget · · Score: 2
      The existence of a patent somewhere in the world should not affect the GPL. After all, there are many places where MP3 isn't patented--should a patent in one part of the world invalidate the GPL license of a piece of software somewhere else?

      Basically, all the GPL can do is keep someone who holds a patent from redistributing the software unless the patent holder allows the patent to be used freely with the GPL'ed software and its derivatives.

    3. Re:Javalayer MP3 Player by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The existence of a patent somewhere in the world should not affect the GPL.

      That is an excellent point. If this project is somehow patent-encumbered in the USA but not in Canada or Europe, then it should be perfectly legal to use it in Canada and Europe under the terms of the GPL as was intended by the author. However, it seems to me that this project and others like it would be illegal in the USA.

      Yet another reason why I'm thinking that advanced software development (hell, software development in general) may soon be moving out of the USA due to the prevailing legal climate in a manner similar to the way that some doctors are leaving due to the high cost of malpractice insurance created as a result of outrageous jury awards in malpractice suits.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  5. Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Troll

    Oh, you mean the recent news that you irresponsibly covered, without amending the original post, resulting in much ado about nothing, as basically nothing changed?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26893.htm l

    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. Mod this down as far as you like - I like Ogg, too, but if this is what it takes for it to gain widespread acceptance, something's wrong.

  6. boo fscking hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I already pirate music.
    Why should I care if I have to pirate the codec as well?

    In case you're wondering, yes, I really do board boats, rape the women, kill the crew and take all the CDs on board. So there.

  7. Re: Java Bug 4499904 by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  8. Confusion.... by MortisUmbra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought it was already decided that the "changes" weren't new at all to the MP3 license terms.... I could be wrong though but thats what I thought the follow-up said....

    --

    "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
  9. Re:If not mp3... by j3110 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Karma Clown
  10. Re:That's ok. by cscx · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't think that exempts you from the obligatory licensing fee.

  11. Mod Parent Up! by cscx · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Tarkin? by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  13. the licencing terms have changed again by tanveer1979 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  14. Java Virtual Machine by thelinuxking · · Score: 3, Funny

    You know, if they left in the MP3 code, every time you wanted to use the Java Virtual Machine, you would have to insert your three quarters...

  15. JOrbis by harmonica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    JOrbis is a GPL'ed Ogg decoder. Maybe the developers and Sun can work something out to reuse that code (GPL probably won't be OK with Sun for JMF).

  16. No, Don't mod parent up by hayden · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    --
    Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
  17. Re:Ogg by Carlos+Laviola · · Score: 2

    No. PNG is to GIF what OGG is to MP3.

  18. Read the Article - Follow the Link! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Informative


    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".
    1. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by cscx · · Score: 2

      Also of note, this is why I am leaning towards Windows Media for streaming... streaming OGG is still too immature and not enough people know about it, and Real is out of the question due to their spyware and overpriced streaming server. (Own Win2k server? Windows media server is free!)

    2. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


      Only for commercial software, however. Since everything in and around Slashdot is all about "Free Software" -- there isn't a problem. Read the Register article.

      Yes. I've read the Register article. And I've read the license. And I missed the part in the license page that says these rates apply to only commercial software. In fact... if you follow the OTHER link provided by the Register article, you'll see that the exclusion to non-commercial/free software has been removed. And THAT is what created all the attention. Not some PR plot from the Ogg Vorbis group.
    3. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


      Also of note, this is why I am leaning towards Windows Media for streaming...

      Yea. And Microsoft has a sterling reputation when it comes to licensing. Good choice. ;)

      I'm curious as to how difficult it would be to stream OGG. The BBC ran some pretty successful tests, it seemed. And there are others that are doing it. Getting users "there" would be (more or less) as easy as pointing a link to the OGG plugin for Winamp as well as other popular Windows music players that support OGG natively (such as Sonique).
    4. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by cscx · · Score: 2

      I really would like to see some hard-core testing done on OGG. And I'd like to see it go more mainstream. But for now I'm tending to lean the other direction. But free is good :)

    5. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by rseuhs · · Score: 2

      Winamp supports OGG out of the box for quite some time now.

    6. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2
      Fair enough. But a couple points...


      Just cause something "disappeared" doesn't mean it doesn't still work that way. But making licensors look bad is one of the goals around here, so I'm not surprised that it was posed under false pretenses.

      First, the Thomson rep had a great chance to point out that it was all a misunderstanding. That the removal of the exlusion was an oversight. He didn't. The rep talked about their "policy" and not their "license" - two very, very different things.

      Secondly, when it comes to licenses... the devil is very much in the details. What is or is not specifically spelled out is very important. One would expect a company such as Thomson Multimedia, who's very business is licensing technology, would understand this. If they took something out that had previously been promptly displayed... its a safe bet that it was not a mistake.

      Finally, Slashdot has an axe to grind with licensing. That's pretty clear. But then, anybody who has payed attention to technology over the past couple decades has seen the industry develop a standard mode of operation which uses licensing to remove as many consumer rights as possible. It is little wonder Slashdot reflects a seige mentality that a large number of its readership feels. Myself included.

      If Slashdot has managed to make a licensor look bad, it is very likely their own doing. And in Thomson's case... red herrings such as Ogg Vorbis aside... it is very much their own actions that has brought this attention. All Slashdot had to do was point to the links.
    7. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

      I think one of your best bets for good testing information would be the BBC's experiment. Slashdot had posted about it, and then posted again to note that the experiment had been extended. I would expect it generated a pretty decent amount of traffic for BBC's servers.

      There were a few positive comments from ex-pats who were enjoying the streams. And I believe a comment from the sysadmin running the test with an overall positive remark and invitation to hit the streams hard.

      It'd be nice to see their data on how well it ended up doing.

    8. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

      Yea. I thought this too... but when I poked around, it looked like one needed to download the plugin. My mistake. I should have tested it myself. :)

    9. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by stevey · · Score: 2

      Streaming OGG is no harder than streaming MP3's if you use something like the GNUMP3d - and unfortunately named MP3/OGG vorbis streamer.

    10. Re:Read the Article - Follow the Link! by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2

      I'm really hoping for that as well. The 1.0 release has been absolutly amazing for radio level encoding for me. A show I've been off and on listening to has their archives up in real audio format, but unfourtunatly they split them and often their "whole episode" links are flawed. So I wind up having to use Stream Ripper to get the individual files. Then convert them to wav, and finally convert them to ogg before I can hear the episode without having to get up too often. I would have thought converting from real to ogg would have had an absolutly horrid end quality, but at quality level 0 it's actually sounded the same as the source. -1 on those files didnt get as good results, but from non re-encoded files it worked wonderfully for me and with equal or smaller file sizes. If some good studies started getting out there, a totally free alternitive I think would catch on quite quickly.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
  19. Re:That's ok. by joto · · Score: 2
    I don't think that exempts you from the obligatory licensing fee.

    I think it does. It cannot be used for the reproduction of that sound (unless he is also a "really good singer" --- able to reproduce exact sound). But then again, I think Thompson would have a hard time convincing the courts that he should have to pay them for being a natural genius.

  20. Ogg it! by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2

    Hrmph. The MP3 format has lived long enough. Like PNG is slowly replacing GIF, Ogg Vorbis should replace MP3. Do any of the big-name players support Ogg Vorbis out of the box yet?

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  21. Re: Java Bug 4499904 by mabinogi · · Score: 2

    Java is a language, but it's also a platform.

    And Java the Platform is what we're talking about here...

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  22. Those ads... by Jugalator · · Score: 2

    I read an article about JMF not going to support mp3 anymore. An inch below: "Visual Studio .NET! Try it out now!". If you didn't know better, and had watched too much X-Files, you'd think it all was a clever marketing scheme from a Slashdot/Microsoft conspiracy to get developers switching to .NET. :-)

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  23. From the xmms web site..... by Spazzz · · Score: 4, Informative
    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
  24. Get the old one here by Danta · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  25. try this script: mp3 to ogg by psamuels · · Score: 2
    what do people recommend for converting a huge mp3 library to ogg? I don't want to have to re-encode all of my CDs....

    If you care at all about sound quality, just re-encode, and consider it a lesson for not having listened to all of us license nazis for the past few years. (:

    Seriously, taking an mp3 stream (with its artifacts), decoding it to PCM, then re-encoding to Ogg Vorbis format (with its artifacts) will give you inferior sound quality. I don't know how inferior, not having tried this, but be warned. (And, of course, don't judge the quality of the ogg codec by such results!)

    If you still think it's worth trying - well, cook up a shell script using mpg123, oggenc and your favorite id3 tag reader. In fact, I'll do it for you...

    [one hour later] OK, try mp32ogg. Requires perl, id3, mpg123 or equivalent, and oggenc from vorbis-tools. Tested on Debian Linux 3.1pre ("sarge") - may require tweaking on other OSes. No copyright, no warranty, etc. (:

    --
    "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README