Slashdot Mirror


ffmpeg: Free Software's WMA decoder

mmu_man writes "This morning, after the usual spams, I got this from the ffmpeg-devel mailing list: Here it is, something we waited for long. Now we have a FreeSoftware (LGPL) WMA (Windows Media Audio) decoder. WMA is the highly proprietary audio codec M$ is pushing along with its user-locking tools like DRM. this will free us from the ugly DLL hacks required to play DivX until now. Note there isn't any encoder yet, but who would like to encode into WMA while we have better and more open solutions? With this new codec, ffmpeg really proves itself as the most complete audio/video grabbing, convertion and streaming solution, for Linux, but also FreeBSD, Windows and even BeOS. Note ffmpeg codecs are used in a lot of other FreeSoftware projects, like mplayer."

245 comments

  1. Slashdot Beatitudes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
    And seeing the multitudes, He went up unto the mountain: and when He was set, his disciples came unto him: And He opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

    "Blessed are the poor in threshold: for theirs is the Kingdom of the Page-Lengthening and Page-Widening Posts.

    "Blessed are they that mourn the death of *BSD: for they shall be comforted with an ultradense Linux server from VA Linux, now sold by California Digital Corporation.

    "Blessed are the posters of smug one-liners: for they shall inherit an Account Capped at 50.

    "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after The First Post: for they shall have the Third or Fourth Post.

    "Blessed are the karma whores: for they shall obtain "Score: 5, Insightful".

    "Blessed are those who dismiss out-of-hand: for they shall fail to see the Point of the Original Post.

    "Blessed are those who seek to associate themselves with the latest techno-fad: for they shall be called 3L33T for at least Another Half Hour.

    "Blessed are they which are persecuted for their own self-righteousness' sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of "Ask Slashdot".

    "Blessed are the over-eager, who believe that Open Source is a social movement heralding the rise of a new generation: for they shall not realize that There Are No Sacred Cows.

    "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for the sake of your Favorite Operating System.

    "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in Heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

    THIS IS THE WORD OF THE LORD

    1. Re:Slashdot Beatitudes by invenustus · · Score: 1

      Brilliant.

      --
      grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l
  2. Interesting. by FreeLinux · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also interesting is the ad I just saw for Helix(RealPlayer) and their version of Open Source code. Here's the link.

  3. Helix obsolete.. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1, Troll

    Helix just came out a few days ago, and already, it's not the best. Woohoo!

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  4. NorthWoodsman by NorthWoodsman · · Score: 2, Troll

    Woohoo! One less reason to use Windows

    --
    1p}{ 1 sp34k |33+ +|-|e|\| p30p13 \/\/il| 8e i/\/\pr3553|)
    1. Re:NorthWoodsman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know windoze will soon put a patch to blck this hack. The opensource should just stay with their own warez and perfect them. Why waist your time using unsecure warez anyways.

    2. Re:NorthWoodsman by Idou · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or is /. getting more MS friendly everyday. I wonder if this is due to Linux no longer being the "underdog," or the fact that slashdot is becoming more mainstream.

      Note to moderators: parent is probably dual-booting and is looking forward to the day when he can just use Linux and is not saying you are stupid for using Windows. Lighten up.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    3. Re:NorthWoodsman by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      "1p}{ 1 sp34k |33+ +|-|e|\| p30p13 \/\/il| 8e i/\/\pr3553|)"

      You're not speaking leet. You're typing in k-rad.

      Noob.

    4. Re:NorthWoodsman by mehfu · · Score: 1

      Don't know about that, but while I'm writing this a big ad from MS is flashing just an inch below the story.

      Scary!

    5. Re:NorthWoodsman by Theom · · Score: 1

      Right click | Block Images from ...

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    6. Re:NorthWoodsman by NorthWoodsman · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I got my leet reference from http://www.planetquake.com/turkey/l33t_a.htm I will review my leetness now that you have brought this issue up.

      --
      1p}{ 1 sp34k |33+ +|-|e|\| p30p13 \/\/il| 8e i/\/\pr3553|)
    7. Re:NorthWoodsman by NorthWoodsman · · Score: 1

      So that's why I got modded "Troll". Yes, I do dual-boot Mandrake 8.2/WinXP, but I encoded all my MP3s as WMAs so I could fit more on my 128MB CF card (500K/min vs 1M/min = good) before I installed Mandrake, and if I convert them back to MP3 they'll sound like ass. So, upon reading this, I think to myself..
      (As C. Montgomery Burns) Excellent...

      PS: Sorry about the subject name, I wasn't paying attention as I was tabbing through the form.

      --
      1p}{ 1 sp34k |33+ +|-|e|\| p30p13 \/\/il| 8e i/\/\pr3553|)
  5. Re:I've been able to decode them for *AGES* by vee-dub.net · · Score: 1

    "A piece of GPL software called Media Player"

    Oh, I forgot. Media Player runs under Linux, right?

  6. How long before... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...MS decide this is illegal and start suing? I mean, clearly there's the whole DMCA thing. Does this decoder ignore MS's DRM system? I would have read the article, but I don't speak C...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:How long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's been previously established that ignoring is not the same as circumventing.

    2. Re:How long before... by mericet · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would require breaking the DRM, not simply ignoring it, this would clearly be a violation of the DMCA (in the US).

    3. Re:How long before... by rodbegbie · · Score: 5, Informative

      As far as I can tell, this code doesn't deal well with protected WMA content. Attempts to convert some of the 30-day-licensed WMA files available to download from winamp.com proved fruitless.

      I do not claim, however, to know what the hell I'm doing. This was just my first attempt.

      Anyone know any differently?

      rOD.

      --
      Rod Begbie done this, and he's not
    4. Re:How long before... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How long before... ...MS decide this is illegal and start suing?

      How about sometime after Microsoft actually uses a lawsuit as a weapon? Microsoft has zero history of suing people who write lookalikes of their software (Samba, WINE, That NT-workalike project, etc).

      Apparently, you're thinking of Apple who really is truly evil when it comes to suing people.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:How long before... by sckeener · · Score: 2

      How long before MS decide this is illegal and start suing?

      Don't worry. We're typing up the cease and desist order right now...but please /. commenters, give us more information on your defense strategies for this product so we will have an ample chance of shooting down your hopes....

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    6. Re:How long before... by KUHurdler · · Score: 2

      You forgot 'Lindows'.

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    7. Re:How long before... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      Lindows was not sued because they were trying to make a Windows work-alike, they were (legitimately, IMO) sued because the name sounded too much like Windows.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    8. Re:How long before... by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "MS decide this is illegal and start suing? I mean, clearly there's the whole DMCA thing. Does this decoder ignore MS's DRM system? I would have read the article, but I don't speak C...
      "


      Anybody remember when VirtualDub could work on .ASF files...?

      Here is a short blurb talking about it.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:How long before... by nojomofo · · Score: 1

      Which would be fine if Microsoft had trademark on "Windows", which is a generic, commonly-used term that was in use before Microsoft tried to take control of it. If it were "Microsoft Lindows" rather than Windows, that would be infringing on the "Microsoft Windows" trademark.

    10. Re:How long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about sometime after Microsoft actually uses a lawsuit as a weapon? Microsoft has zero history of suing people who write lookalikes of their software (Samba, WINE, That NT-workalike project, etc).



      Well, I don;t know if they had to sue for this or not -- but they got support for M$ asf format taken out of VirtualDub.



      dan.
    11. Re:How long before... by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How long before... ...MS decide this is illegal and start suing?

      How about sometime after Microsoft actually uses a lawsuit as a weapon? Microsoft has zero history of suing people who write lookalikes of their software (Samba, WINE, That NT-workalike project, etc).


      Well, that is true only to a point. In fairness to Microsoft, they haven't filed any such lawsuits, but they have used the threat of lawsuits on more than one occasion, and while they haven't dealt with look-and-feel per se, they have dealt with other equally inane things, like file format compatability. Certainly Microsoft has reserved the option to (mis)use lawsuits strategicly against Free Software in the internal Halloween documents leaked a few years ago.

      Apparently, you're thinking of Apple who really is truly evil when it comes to suing people.

      Both are evil, in different ways. However, I believe you are correct in pointing out that Apple is the one which went beyond mere intimidation, to actually filing (and losing) lawsuits based upon mimicknig look-and-feel.

      Which is why, much as I like some of Apple's products (and will almost certainly make Apple my next laptop), I am also at pains to point out that anyone switching from Windows to Apple is simply trading one Master for another, and who is to say that the kinder Master today will be the kinder Master next year?

      Of course, with Palladium on the horizon, we may well find ourselves in the extraordinarilly ironic situation where we need to buy a non-Intel, non-AMD (e.g. Apple PowerPC) system just to be able to dual-boot into Linux. I suspect instead most of the Asian hardware companies will ship with two BIOSes, so that a simple jumper or firmware setting can completely eliminate Palladium, but who can ever be certain in these unusual times?

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    12. Re:How long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm responding to your .sig, which is actually still on topic for this discussion.

      (The .sig I'm responding to currently reads: "Paranoids: explain how Palladium will prevent all unsigned code/mp3s, yet maintain backward compatibility.")

      The answer is: it won't prevent unsigned code/mp3s[/wma]. You can run all the unsigned code you want (if you have an app that supports it). You can run an unsigned OS if you want. However, what the underlying TCPA hardware will allow that unsigned code to do is very limited.

      Under TCPA/Palladium, you WILL be able to:
      - load and run an unsigned kernel
      - play unsigned content
      - etc.

      You will NOT be able to:
      - access certain parts of the system from that unsigned kernel
      - access signed content from that unsigned kernel/code in a way that lets you get around the DRM
      - write unsigned code that has any ability to view signed/protected content that doesn't allow that

      This is all assuming, of course, that the code works just like it's supposed to and doesn't have any bugs that amount to back doors. Peter Biddle (group manager of the software techs writing Palladium at MS) has said publically (Usenix Security Conference '02) that he and his associates fully expect that -- even after Palladium is rolled out -- any content released in any protected digital format *will* be cracked open and re-released in an open format to the P2P services within hours. This was one of his answers to the "how do you write this code and still sleep at night" line of questioning. He knows their managers want this written to satisfy the (MP|RI)AA, but doesn't believe it'll work for that, so thinks his group is excused from the moral problem.

    13. Re:How long before... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 2

      1) Release code on the net.
      2) Close up shop.
      3) Snicker gleefully when you realize the genie's out of the bottle anyway.

    14. Re:How long before... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

      Suing is pointless now. It's out of the box and nothing they can do will put it back in there.

      --
      -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
    15. Re:How long before... by rhombic · · Score: 2, Informative
      Unfortunately, they do have a trademark on Windows . And a dozen other registrations of just "windows".

      The system sucks, but they do have the term "Windows" tied up trademark wise, and have actively defended that in court.

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    16. Re:How long before... by jjo · · Score: 2

      Microsoft does not have "Windows" tied up trademark wise. They have it registered, but that only gives them a presumption of validity. Lindows can and has rebutted that presumption in court. Even a regstration cannot transform a generic term into a valid trademark.

    17. Re:How long before... by rhombic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hopefully they can pull it off, but all that Lindow's won so far is a denial of a preliminary injuntion against them; they've still got a ways to go (including appeals and whatnot). And if they lose or run out of $$$, MS gets the term Windows tied up with a ribbon.

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    18. Re:How long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It still can, you just need to use a special version of it.

    19. Re:How long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It doesn't have a DRM implementation (either v1, v2 or v2.1), so it cannot read protected content.

      However, FreeMe can be used against v2 (and v2.1) in certain circumstances. The unfuck workaround for v1, which is more common (i.e., the version produced by XP's media player when ripping with default settings) transcodes the file to 64kbps, and is thus really icky and not recommended.

      The fact that a free decoder (although it'll likely be under imminent legal assault - get your mirrors ready, people!) now exists, however, has prompted me to restart work on my no-license-required v2/2.1 system break (you don't get something for nothing, MS) and v1 known plaintext attacks again, in an attempt to make them both practical and rapid, without using drmclien, indivbox, or drmstor (which would just be changed with countermeasures).

      Watch sci.crypt, cryptome and here for releases if I succeed.

    20. Re:How long before... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      You will NOT be able to:
      - access certain parts of the system from that unsigned kernel
      - access signed content from that unsigned kernel/code in a way that lets you get around the DRM
      - write unsigned code that has any ability to view signed/protected content that doesn't allow that


      A computer that won't let the owner program it? Hardware that the owner can't turn off? That is just plain silly! Who in their right mind would buy such dasterdly beast?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    21. Re:How long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you an astroturfer?

      seriously...

    22. Re:How long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You will, if you want to buy a computer (or computer parts) in the future.

      If the CBDTPA passes, any hardware that doesn't enforce these restrictions will be illegal.

    23. Re:How long before... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      From parts...been watching this garbage for a while now. Good site btw.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  7. Is this REALLY a good thing? by GnomeKing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sure, I'm all in favour of being able to play more movies on my linux system - even though I'm unlikely to own (m)any wmv movies...

    But my question is how legal is this?

    What is to stop MS attacking open source in the same way as RIAA attacked - and closed - napster?

    yes, yes, one is a concept, the other is a program - but RIAA wants to make ANY file sharing program which is similar to napster illegal, and their certainly making progress toward that goal...

    If a percentage of open source developers ignore the law - such as a percentage of napster users did - whats going to happen in the future?

    1. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If a percentage of open source developers ignore the law - such as a percentage of napster users did - whats going to happen in the future?

      I'd suspect that "the man" will go after those people writing the illegal software. Just like napster. They didn't go after the users, they'll go after who's writing it, if they're even in the united states, which I'd think isn't very likely if you're writing iffy software like that.

      It's probably perfectly legal to write a WMA decoder in Russia. Of course, we all know that doesn't matter anymore. Of course we all know if you write illegal software, you're no longer welcome in the United States anymore, and if you step foot on our ground, you'll be arrested for breaking US laws while you weren't even in the US. *sigh*

      -- gid0ze

    2. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by tjansen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RIAA closed napster because their users offered copyrighted files without authorization. But the WMA decoder is something completely different. I don't know how the developer(s) obtained the information about format, but if they did it in an illegal way (e.g. decompiled the windows decoder) they may have a problem. And, of course, they may have a problem when MS has patents related to decoding their files. But I guess the ffmpeg don't care much about that, as all the MPEG algorithms are patented as well.

    3. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by benwaggoner · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do note this is only the audio codec. While there are already decoders for the older MS MPEG-4vX codecs, most .wmv files will use the Windows Media Video codec, which AFAIK don't have any kind of open source solution.

      This is mainly useful for playing .wma files.

    4. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by GauteL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sorry if this post comes out as a flame, but repeat after me:
      "Creating a compatible interpreter is not the same as pirating software"

      This means that creating WINE is not the same as trading mp3s, and it's not the same as creating a trading ground for mp3s. They are not even closely related.

      I do not know how often people post things like this. RIAA attacked and closed Napster because they created a trading ground for mp3s. WINE and ffmpeg is creating an implementation of the Win32-api and WMA-decoder respectively.

      There are however TWO ways that this WMA-decoder might be illegal:
      1. It might be breaking the DMCA, by reverse-engineering or by circumventing DRM. I do not know if this might apply though.
      2. It might be a breach of some software patent in WMA.

      It has _nothing_ to do with the napster situation however.

    5. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by Zathruss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is really off topic. But I was wondering; what happens if you are based in the USA, but write the software remotely; ie: the software source code is written, stored, compiled and run on a maching based in some little country no one has ever heard of. Lets assume that there is no cache of any sort on your local machine, like you're using it as a dumb terminal. What happens then?

    6. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by gowen · · Score: 2, Informative
      if they did it in an illegal way (e.g. decompiled the windows decoder)
      Unless, of course, like the SAMBA team, they did this reverse engineering outside the "Land Of The Free"(tm), where its not illegal (and often specifically permitted by legislation).
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    7. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      ffmpeg already includes support for Windows Media Video (not sure about versions supported though).

    8. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
      • most .wmv files will use the Windows Media Video codec, which AFAIK don't have any kind of open source solution.


      Thankfully the only videos ever encoded in WMV format are videos showing off, err, the supposed advantages of encoding videos into the WMV format. . . .
    9. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh - you'd probably have a hard time hearing if it works ;-).

    10. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by Animats · · Score: 2

      It's also worth noting that infringing a patent is not illegal. It's a civil issue. You can be sued for damages, but not arrested.

    11. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by krogoth · · Score: 2

      You're right, it has nothing to do with that napster situation, but you're the only one who suggested that!

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    12. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by colinleroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IANAL, but there are laws in France (where ffmeg's main developer lives) that allow reverse-engineering programs to achieve interoperability, when no other ways (like documentation) can be used. RIAA and DMCA and such are non-valid in France, too. Given that and the fact that WMA is 100% undocumented, i guess Microsoft can't do much about this.

      --
      blah
    13. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by benwb · · Score: 4, Funny

      You get audited every year for the rest of your life for being "too smart for your own good."

    14. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Funny
      1. It might be breaking the DMCA, by reverse-engineering or by circumventing DRM. I do not know if this might apply though.
      Simple fix:

      In config.h:
      #DEFINE DMCA_COMPLIANT

      In drm.c:
      #include "config.h" ...
      #ifdef DMCA_COMPLIANT
      if (DRM_enabled && DRM_no_rights) dontplay;
      #endif

      In FAQ.txt
      75. Can I comment out the #define DMCA_COMPLIANT flag?

      Nope - you can't do that. It would make you a VERY BAD person...

      Gotta love open source... As distributed it is completely DMCA compliant and DRM enabled.
    15. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by GauteL · · Score: 1

      No I am not. Try reading the post I was replying to:

      "What is to stop MS attacking open source in the same way as RIAA attacked - and closed - napster?"

      This situation has nothing to do with Napster, and I'm not the one suggestion it .

    16. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by zapfie · · Score: 2

      "Creating a compatible interpreter is not the same as pirating software"

      Indeed, creating compatible interpreters is at the very foundation of the PC industry as we know it. For example, when the IBM PC came out with its proprietary BIOS, Compaq created a clean room implementation (one in which one team of engineers reverse engineers and writes a specification for the technology, and a second team is then given the specification to implement) and manufactured the first ever IBM-compatible PC. Where would we be today if IBM was still the only maker of the PC?

      Other examples include Kaffe, the clean room implementation of the Java virtual machine and related classes, AMD's x86 compatible line, a clean room implementation of Intel's, GNU, among other things a clean-room implementation of UNIX, Samba, Freetype, etc. etc. etc...

      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    17. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by krogoth · · Score: 2

      He was talking about MS protecting their formats from non-windows platforms. You're talking about using this to illegally copy music.

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    18. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by GoRK · · Score: 2

      ffmpeg supports encoding and decoding wmv1 and (i think) decoding wmv2)

    19. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      no it'sa not a good thing....

      Supporting a crappy and private Codec like this is very wrong and should not be done at all...

      we need to make only one thing... a WMA to ogg converter or WMA video to mpeg converter and THAT 'S IT!..

      no player, no encoder....

      WMA must die, and making a open/free player/encoder only supports this horrible codec.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    20. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by benwaggoner · · Score: 2

      Presumably really the Windows Media MPEG-4v1 and v2 codecs. The current "Windows Media Video" (without the MPEG-4) line started with V7.

      You can't even encode files to those old v1 and v2 with the WM SDK for the past few versions.

    21. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by SEE · · Score: 2

      Well, the NexGen-AMD core line (Nx586, K6, Athlon, Hammer) is independently designed, but the AMD chips through the "586" used Intel microcode under license. (I'm not sure what the K5, AMD's last processor before acquiring NexGen, used.)

    22. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by aristoidaneel · · Score: 1

      I don't see the humor, but what would you be audited for? I'm sorry but I sure don't use M$ products

    23. Re:Is this REALLY a good thing? by GauteL · · Score: 2

      He is talking about Microsoft stopping this the same way as RIAA shut down Napster.

      I'm stating that the two cases are not related at all, and that Microsoft have to have totally different grounds to shut down this.

      I was replying _because_ of his comparison with Napster.

  8. Quality "Enhancements" by __Maad__ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember someone mentioning in an earier discussion that the WMA encoder fooled many people into thinking their encoded audio sounded "better" by applying a compressor/dynamics (6:1 ratio was it?), leaving the dynamic range 'squished' and making music sound louder (which isn't really "better"). Can anybody confirm this?

    If an open version of a WMA encoder is released, it would be interesting to see how it would perform versus the MS encoder in this respect.

    --
    Maciek

    --
    -- Maciek
    1. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If people *think* it sounds better, then it sounds better: that's what perceptual encoding is all about. Quit with the "MS is cheating" stuff before you even start... =)

    2. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by __Maad__ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually no.. I suggest you read up on dynamics before you just knee-jerk like that.

      Adding compression is along the lines of adding an effect, it has nothing to do with perceptual coding. Compression doesn't always make music sound better. It can result in a muddy mix, or, sometimes, outright destroy a mix. Sure it makes pop rock sound better, and really loud and overpowering like FM radio.. But it's a little annoying when the volume on your Mozart or selected ambient works 2 is pumping up and down with every single sound. The subtlety in the original mix is lost. Other perceptually coded formats leave this component of the audio alone, and let the original producer decide what sounds right.

      --
      Maciek

      --
      -- Maciek
    3. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      louder != better
      The real test is when you turn the volume of a WMA so that equivalent encoding (say of a vorbis file) is around the same level. THAT'S when you can determine which sounds better. As far as I've heard that's when you can tell that WMA isn't quite as good.

    4. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shutup Bill, we know it's you.

    5. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've never understood what the != thing was all about. It obvisouly means the first part really isn't equal to the second part, but where did it originate?

    6. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've never understood what the != thing was all about. It obvisouly means the first part really isn't equal to the second part, but where did it originate?

      The C programming language uses != as an operator in test expressions. It != means not equal to and == means equal to, that's also why you see == used a lot on /. as well.

    7. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by yelligsc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Its offical, everyone:

      Slashdot is now full of wannabe lamers.

      I guess I need to get back to my job, then.

      Scott.

    8. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by Fnord · · Score: 2

      Not to mention C++, ObjectiveC, Perl, Java, C# and any other language that's borrowed syntax from C (ie. most languages made since the 80s).

    9. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

      actually, i believe the answer being sought, is that the ! operator in C (and elsewhere, i think) is used as a boolean NOT. therefore, when it is combined with the C operator == (equal to) you get != (not equal to)

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
    10. Re:Quality "Enhancements" by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Informative
      " I remember someone mentioning in an earier discussion that the WMA encoder fooled many people into thinking their encoded audio sounded "better" by applying a compressor/dynamics (6:1 ratio was it?), leaving the dynamic range 'squished' and making music sound louder (which isn't really "better"). Can anybody confirm this?"

      It is false. I posted in a previous article that WMA fooled people by increasing the volume by 3 dBA and it was modded to +5 Informative. Unfortunately I was wrong and did not do my research.

      It turns out that the 3 dBA thing was just made up by someone as a joke.

  9. How does this relate to Divx? by magnum3065 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could someone explain what WMA has to do with Divx?

    1. Re:How does this relate to Divx? by Clue4All · · Score: 5, Informative

      Very simple. DivX uses an audio codec to encode audio. A large number of DivX files use mp3 for audio (ogg is also possible, though not many players support it), and the rest use wma. Now, you won't need the /usr/lib/win32 directory full of Microsoft DLL's in order to play those Invader Zim episodes encoded using wma audio, assuming players take up this code. You could always re-encode them into mp3 audio at a greater loss of quality, but I like this solution better.

      --

      Is your browser retarded?
    2. Re:How does this relate to Divx? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 5, Informative

      DivX has nothing to do with WMA. DivX is a video codec, WMA is an audio codec.
      DivX ;-) (with the smiley, also known als DivX 3.11) was a hacked version of MSMPEG4v3 (there were also hacked versions of MSMPEG4v2 around, but they aren't called DivX and are incompatible with v3). Although MS calls it "MPEG4vX", they are really incompatible with MPEG 4.

      AVI has also nothing to do with DivX and WMA, it's just a container format. It just happens that some AVI files contain DivX video and WMA audio, but it may just as well be Indeo video with MP3 audio or whatever. You can put video and audio made in almost any codec in an AVI container.
      Because DivX and WMA have nothing to do with AVI, you can, for example, also create Ogg files that contain DivX video with MP3 audio, Theora video with WMA audio, etc.

      AVI is old, very old, and it should be replaced. No error detection, not streamable, difficult to support VBR codecs, etc. I hope one day, people will just stop encoding AVI files and switch to Ogg for MCF instead.

    3. Re:How does this relate to Divx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty clear from your post that DivX does have *something* to do with WMA (they are often used together), and that AVI does in fact have something to do with DivX and WMA (audio and video encoded with those codecs are usually bundled into an AVI container). Saying they have nothing to do with each other is more likely to confuse that simply stating the relationship between them.

  10. Audio streams by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 3, Informative

    A big advanage this offers is the ability to now hear content from scores of websites that selected WMA as their audio format of choice - all without needing Media Player.

    Did I mention I dislike that program?

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    1. Re:Audio streams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been listening to Windows Media streams for some time now using mplayer - does this offer any advantages?

      Hate the format, love some of the stations using it, like Jazz FM and Radio Habana.

    2. Re:Audio streams by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2

      The Big thing is now you won't have to agreee to some silly dracnonian EULA that pretty much says "We Microsoft have the right to rape and pillage your pc like a bavarian village if we even start to think your not doing what we want..."

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    3. Re:Audio streams by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
      • The Big thing is now you won't have to agreee to some silly dracnonian EULA that pretty much says "We Microsoft have the right to rape and pillage your pc like a bavarian village if we even start to think your not doing what we want..."


      I actualy wonder what would happen if MS put that into their EULA. Slashdot would likely take notice, and all of the 100% pro-ms folks would jump up to defend their beloved company saying "Oh no, just because that is in there does not mean they will ever use it!"
  11. Truly great! by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unfortunately, how long will it be before MS "improves" WMA encoding now? I think it is an unsafe target decoding MS files as they can change everything and you are back to development.
    However, with MS new licensing and the fact that most tools are fairly robust. You might grab share if you can record and playback. Though with examples like Star Office I wonder how much grabbing you would do.

    1. Re:Truly great! by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Well, it could be a while actually. Otherwise portable media player manufacturers and owners of older OSes with MediaPlayer 6.4 will gallop to MP3(pro), licensing fees or not. There are few things more damaging than selling a tech gadget that doesn't work.

    2. Re:Truly great! by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful
      For future stuff yes, but for stuff alreay encoded this is magic code
      Plus, WMA has been pushed hard for embedded devices, and changing the codec to make old decoders non-operational -- especially not-easily-updatable firmware -- would make them extremely unpopular with music hardware vendors.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    3. Re:Truly great! by Mr_Silver · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Unfortunately, how long will it be before MS "improves" WMA encoding now? I think it is an unsafe target decoding MS files as they can change everything and you are back to development.

      If Microsoft "improved" the codec (and thus made it incompatible) then I think they'd have a lot bigger problems than a bunch of Linux users pissy that they can't play wma's for a bit.

      For starters, those people who have hardware MP3/WMA players out there would suddenly find that their products need updating. Not all with flashable firmware.

      If you want to push a format, the last thing you do is alienate those people (hardware manufacturers) that can help you to do just that.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    4. Re:Truly great! by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 2

      If you want to push a format, the last thing you do is alienate those people (hardware manufacturers) that can help you to do just that.

      Great counterpoint, I had not thought all the way through on that.

  12. How long... by GeckoFood · · Score: 1, Redundant

    WMA is the highly proprietary audio codec M$ is pushing...

    How long before M$ decides to file a suit against the developers of such to get their code locked down and buried? Bets, anyone?

    --
    Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
    1. Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it didnt work with the dvd code

      the legal side of that hasnt ended yet. but the tech side has. they can do nothing about it, i can and will continue to play the dvds under linux.

      i can now play wma's if i choose. i hope the authors do not get into legal trouble, but the legal side will do nothing to stop this

    2. Re:How long... by ahfoo · · Score: 1

      Well if Real Audio is cozying up to open source then perhaps MS is going to open WMA. I doubt it, but I doubt Real's intentions as well.

    3. Re:How long... by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      Real Audio is *not* open.
      Only the player is, the codecs are still enclosed in DLLs which you do'nt have the source (but at least a binary for *some* versions of Linux (what about m68k-linux, arm-linux, ... ?)).

    4. Re:How long... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      I suspect that they will tolerate it, in the same way as they tolerate OpenOffice opening DOC files and MP3 consortium doesn't make a RIAA-style effort to banish LAME. It's easier to collect money from someone who makes money (on a hardware player, game, music sales etc) and a free decoder can only encourage these businesses to use WMA.

  13. Microsoft / Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time there's a Microsoft-related story on /., I think of this comic. It would do many of you well to read it, and reflect upon it...

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002- 07 -22

    1. Re:Microsoft / Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry about that list link, it was wrong... try this one instead (my "M$" clipboard added a space into my last post.)

      http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07 -22

    2. Re:Microsoft / Slashdot crowd... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      That was pretty funny. But I have to say, it shows dogma on both sides...

      The Linux/OSS/GNU/FSF people all feel that the things Microsoft is doing to make it harder to use a PC with non-MS software is horrible and appaling.

      The Windows/MS apologists think. So what? If I can still use the PC to do what I want, the hell with you Linux loving freaks.

      The dichotomy comes from the fact that both groups tend to use their machines in different ways:

      The typical Linux user is more likely to use his PC to control the lights in his house, server out web pages and e-mail. And do a LOT of customization. In addition, they are also likely to be building a system from the ground up to do some very interesting and innovative things. But they work at an atomic level, by making these things happen in very small steps (writing in C, PERL or eve bash scripts)

      The typical Windows uber-user is likely to just buy or pirate the software they need to do many of the same things that the Linux user does. But they probably won't write the stuff from the ground up. So if there is something they might want to do, but none of their software can, they just wait until something comes out that does it. The rare Windows user that can code, may "roll his own", but that's not too typical.

      That's why the Linux crowd gets so agitated when yet another road block is thrown up. It will affect the way THEY use a computer, but not the way a typical Windows guy uses one.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  14. Not obsolete by LinuxGeek · · Score: 2

    It just has a new brother. Similar projects can exist without rendering others obsolete, that is one of the beauties of open source.

    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Not obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      I wish people would quit using snippets from their irrational christian mythologies in their sigs.

    2. Re:Not obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish people would quit using snippets from their irrational christian mythologies in their sigs

      Translated...
      I wish that everyone that didn't completely agree with everything I say and how I think would just shut the F up.

    3. Re:Not obsolete by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2
      Hey, that would be fine, but...

      • It's not irrational
      • I'ts not a mythology


      Hey, it's not that you don't want me to say it, you just don't like what it's saying. Ask yourself a question... If your belief was wrong (and you do have a belief, even if your an atheist) would you want me to tell you?

      Most people don't but then again, most people don't mind my sig either.
      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
  15. Latest WMA? And will MS try to shut it down? by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this decode the latest version of WMA files? What does it do about/with the DRM component of such files? And in consideration of this, will MS use the DCMA (or some "you must have agreed to the EULA not to reverse engineer if you've ever downloaded a WMA file in your life" argument) to shut this effort down?

    1. Re:Latest WMA? And will MS try to shut it down? by Mwongozi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      AFAIK, the playback algorithm for WMA has been fixed for the last couple of versions, and only the encoding algorithm has changed.

      So (again, AFAIK) there shouldn't be a problem.

    2. Re:Latest WMA? And will MS try to shut it down? by Sharth · · Score: 1

      I never agreed to any eulas when i usually download a file. Only if you create the file are you subject to an eula.

  16. For How long? by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Is this licensed from Microsoft? If not they can pull this as being a violation of several things. Though id imagine they will wait until more people use it, so its harder to switch to another format, thus moving a few more towards Windows solutions.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  17. Who ? by tmark · · Score: 3, Troll

    Note there isn't any encoder yet, but who would like to encode into WMA while we have better and more open solutions?

    I don't get it, on one hand the poster is trumpeting the availability of the WMA codec and on the other hand he's wondering why anyone would want WMA in the first place ? If WMA is so redundant/inferior as he suggests, then why does ANYONE need WMA or hacked/reverse engineered WMA codecs ? Why would this thread be interesting at all ?
    If WMA availability is interesting, then as far as I'm concerned this means that the ability to encode WMA must be desirable to at least some people, as well.

    1. Re:Who ? by paranoos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I believe his point is that there are troves of WMA content available online. However, I personally find the WMA _format_ inferior to many other formats, but the ability to listen to your favourite radio station might be important enough to you to ignore the fact that the format they're using is terrible.

      Therefore, you have a tool to play the content, but you might prefer to encode your own audio or video in a different format, as the poster suggests.

    2. Re:Who ? by tjansen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because, for example, many internet radio stations use WMA as codec. With the help of this decoder you could listen to them (and maybe don't even break a law while doinng this).

    3. Re:Who ? by snol · · Score: 3, Informative

      WMA isn't the codec of choice for encoding your CD and movie rips, but there is content that's only available in WMA for whatever reason. What's so tough about that?

    4. Re:Who ? by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      Because there are material available *only* in WMA, and I don't like to be locked into a proprietary format. That is to say I would never use WMA for my own encoding, but it's always nice to be able to convert other people's files to a format you know you'll be able to read.
      What if someone sends you some recording of you singing (which then is *your* data), but he sends you in WMA and doesn't intend to use something else. It's still *your* data, and I believe you have the right to convert *your* data to whatever data format you want.

    5. Re:Who ? by magwm · · Score: 1

      duh, many streaming audio sources on internet use this format. and you wanna be able to access al information, don't you?
      plus, many windoze media player users, might they come to cd-ripping^H^H^H^H^H^H saving music to their HD, use the default low-quality wma format..

    6. Re:Who ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ? dbpoweramp.com has been doing format to format conversion (including WMA) for a while now...

    7. Re:Who ? by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      Winamp too, with appropriate plugins, but ... do they run in Linux ? or BeOS ? or AmigaOS(*g*) ?

  18. can anyone else hear by waspleg · · Score: 3, Funny

    the silenced black helicopters of M$'s strike team starting to lift off with balmer leaning out the side of the lead one doing the monkey dance to inspire his Crack Team of Black Ops Lawyers to victory in the inevitable DCMA suit they will bring against this project

    the key word is propreitary

    1. Re:can anyone else hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft doesn't need a crack team of black ops lawyers. The Monkey Dance is a potent weapon in its own right, and Steve Ballmer is a skilled practitioner of that black art.

    2. Re:can anyone else hear by EverDense · · Score: 1

      Yeah but... "Proprietary! Proprietary! Proprietary! Proprietary!"
      doesn't have the same ring to it as "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!"

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    3. Re:can anyone else hear by alexpage · · Score: 1

      No, I can't hear the silenced black helicopters. They're silenced.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Liability? by m0i · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can this source code be subjected to DMCA?
    Can its author be sued for reverse engineering?
    Is it planned that DRM features will be added at some point, or the above applies..

    --
    have you been defaced today?
    1. Re:Liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reverse engineering is not illegal and this program does not circumvent any copy protection (at least according to earlier posts). I would have to say that this isn't illegal, at least not anymore illegal than openoffice.org or wine (and I don't believe either of those is illegal).

    2. Re:Liability? by tholti · · Score: 1

      It's same as with the Xbox-Linux project: Everything done on this project is for the sole purpose of writing interoperable software under Sect. 1201 (f) Reverse Engineering exception of the DMCA.

  21. The Many Flavors of WMA by benwaggoner · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is presumably a decoder compatible with the classic "WMA" codec. This bitstream was locked down with WMA2, although they have made progressive enhancements to the encoder all the way through WMA9. It's really a very good codec for stereo 44.1 16-bit kinds of applications.

    Not that there are two NEW WMA codecs introduced in Windows Media 9 that aren't backwards compatible.

    WMA 9 Professional aims for higher bitrates (48-768 Kbps) and multichannel (stereo with matrixed support or six discreet channels). And it can do deeper than 16-bit. If the old WMA was a competitor to MP3, WMA9Pro is a competitor to AC-3/Dolby Digital. And like WMA v. MP3, it has about a 50% advantage on compression efficiency.

    There is also WMA9 Voice, which is a really good narrowband codec. Despite its name, it does a surprisingly good job with music as well. It operates from 4-20 Kbps.

    WMA9 Voice is replacing the ACELP.net voice codec, which Microsoft licensed binary code for, but doesn't have the source code. Thus they couldn't get it for MacOS X or PocketPC.

    Anyway, this decoder should handle 95% of the .wma files out there today, although that percentage might start dropping as WMA9 Pro gets traction. It is certainly a welcome effort!

    1. Re:The Many Flavors of WMA by kaphka · · Score: 1

      Don't forget WMA9 Lossless. (Some sources call this "WMA9 Professional," but I think they're mistaken.) I just finished ripping my entire CD collection in that format, but I'd sure like to have an alternative way to get it back out again, just in case Microsoft gets Arthur Andersen-ed or something.

      --

      MSK

    2. Re:The Many Flavors of WMA by benwaggoner · · Score: 2

      Actually, WMA9 Pro is something else. It's a compressed 2 or 6 channel codec, competing with Dolby Digital.

      A lossless codec should be relatively easy to reverse engineer, since you know EXACTLY what the correct output is!

    3. Re:The Many Flavors of WMA by ralfp · · Score: 1

      A lossless codec is not always easy to reverse engineer.

      Imagine a codec with built-in 3DES encryption and a very well hidden key. So long as the key was well hidden, merely knowing the input and output is not enough to make the statement that the codec is easy to reverse engineer.

      OTOH, once the key is known, your statement may be correct.

    4. Re:The Many Flavors of WMA by colinleroy · · Score: 1

      FFmpeg decoder decodes wma v1 and v2.

      --
      blah
    5. Re:The Many Flavors of WMA by benwaggoner · · Score: 2

      Sure. However, MS has historically not tried to obfuscate the bitstream itself, instead applying encryption at the DRM stage. I don't know if that's the case here, though, but I imagine it is.

    6. Re:The Many Flavors of WMA by ralphus · · Score: 1
      I have to say, I was incredibly impressed with Windows Media 9 encoding at low bit rates. I was attempting to get Jello's Hack the Planet speech (about an hour) down to the smallest file size I still could and have it be audible. Tried multiple LAME/MP3 and Ogg vorbis encoding options and could not get good results. With WMA, i got a about a 2.5 MB file at 4 kbs 8 khz mono that sounded AM radio quality. It was awesome, nothing else even came close.

      I hate MS as much as the next guy, they did a good job with WMA9 at least on voice.

      --
      Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
    7. Re:The Many Flavors of WMA by t · · Score: 1

      Wasn't CSS crackable in this manner? Many videos had long sequences of black frames which made it easier to crack the encryption. I imagine being able to create your own inputs (all 0's, all 1's, etc...) would make it much easier to reverse engineer.

    8. Re:The Many Flavors of WMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For low bitrate/voice, there is of course speex (speex.sf.net).

  22. That's a Dec by nickovs · · Score: 4, Funny

    "With this new codec, ffmpeg really proves itself"

    Surely this is a "dec", not a "codec". A codec is a Coder/Decoder, and what they've got here is just a Decoder :-)

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
    1. Re:That's a Dec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mod parent up (+1: Pedantic).

    2. Re:That's a Dec by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      I meant "with this codec supported"...
      that's also why the sentence just before begins with "Note there isn't any encoder yet" :p

    3. Re:That's a Dec by Virtex · · Score: 3, Funny

      Surely this is a "dec", not a "codec"

      Nah. These days it's called a "Compaq".

      --
      For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
    4. Re:That's a Dec by Anonymous+Covard · · Score: 1
      Surely this is a "dec", not a "codec"

      Nah. These days it's called a "Compaq".

      No, these days it's called an "HP".
      --
      Information wants to be free -- but informants want to be paid.
  23. Misleading writeup by Covener · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this will free us from the ugly DLL hacks required to play DivX until now.

    For the teensy-tiny almost insignificant minority of DivX files w/ WMA audio. Typically DivX (films especially) are encoded w/ mp3 audio.

    We're long since divorced from using the win32 DLL's to play DivX files, which are most often mp3 audio -- hell we've even had at least 3 NATIVE alternatives for mpeg4 video (ffmpeg/libavcodec, divx4linux, xvid). In the rare case that WMA audio is in a file (think REALLY out of touch media site creating this thing the MS way), this does save us from using the win32 codecs.

    1. Re:Misleading writeup by Junta · · Score: 3, Informative

      I dunno, I've seen a good chunk of WMA audio tracks in DivX avi files to this day. The thing is, 'divx audio' sounds so enticing to people they select it, even if mp3 is an option, they mistakenly think that 'divx audio' works better with divx video simply because of the name.... At last, my PowerPC linux system will play them...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Misleading writeup by megabeck42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, an interesting thing I noticed the other day, is that a bunch of divx's are being released with downsampled or original AC3 tracks, so if you have alsa and a spdif capable soundcard (cmi, fm801), you can get dolby goodness. A websearch indicates they were probably encoded with a patched version of nandub. mplayer handles this great to: mplayer -ao alsa9 -ac hwac3 .avi

      Of course, if you don't have all that, mplayer will happily do the AC3 decoding and output regular audio.

      --
      fnord.
  24. Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Brett+Glass · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    By licensing the CODEC under the LGPL, the authors are preventing Microsoft's competitors from publishing improved versions that might give BillG a run for his money. If Microsoft is to face some real competition, it's best to empower its competitors. Why not use an MIT-ish license, as does Ogg Vorbis?

    1. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably to prevent MS from looking a tit, thinking "ooh, thats nice", taking it and adding hidden undocumented proprietry stuff to it.

    2. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Eric+Seppanen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The key difference is that it would be a good thing for the Ogg Vorbis format to spread and become as widely used as possible. Nobody really wants to sees WMA become any more popular; it's best to just offer basic functionality for *nix systems that wouldn't otherwise have it. It's a tight balance: trying to make the free system better without giving any more power to the secret format gods.

      --
      314-15-9265
    3. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      and use it instead of their own version because it's better and nicer :P
      (just like they did with the BSD netstack... oops, did I say this ?)

    4. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Brett+Glass · · Score: 2, Flamebait
      The trouble is that the LGPL cripples Microsoft's competitors too much. Under the terms of the LGPL, those competitors cannot offer unique value -- the key to survival in a crowded marketplace. What's more, they are subjected to a plethora of other awkward or downright onerous requirements. Most people haven't read the most recent version of the LGPL and so do not realize how many requirements have been added since Stallman rechristened the "Library GPL" the "Lesser GPL." (One example: A company that ships its product as binaries must provide linkable object code, as well as makefiles, etc. This is not only awkward; it makes reverse engineering of their code by competitors trivially easy.)

      Complying with the "old" LGPL was sometimes difficult, because a commercial software vendor often had to partition code in awkward ways to avoid being forced to give away his or her hard work. But with the new one, LGPLed code is really anything but "free." It comes at great cost -- often an intolerable cost -- to the developer. Our small company (we're trying hard to compete with Microsoft) has stopped using LGPLed code for this reason.

      It's time for a move toward truly free licensing -- the Python, X, Artistic, Apache, BSD, and similar licenses. Publishing source code alone won't end Microsoft's dominance. The only thing that will end it is facilitating competition from other companies who, right now, can't afford to compete with Microsoft.

    5. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      By licensing the CODEC under the LGPL, the authors are preventing Microsoft's competitors from publishing improved versions that might give BillG a run for his money.

      The LGPL doesn't preclude anybody from releasing a closed-source media player with this new codec, as long as they don't tinker with the codec itself. If they start tweaking the codec, they'll need to release their tweaks if they want to publish the entire program, but they can do whatever they want with the rest of it (UI, network code, etc.).

      (At least that's my understanding of how the LGPL works...but if the codec is GPL and not LGPL (and the SourceForge pages would indicate that it's GPL), then your point stands.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    6. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by spitzak · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Maybe because the writer wants to sell the code to proprietary software developers?

      No, that would not fit into your "the GPL is a Communist conspiracy" theory. In fact the GPL is put on code for extremely selfish reasons that would make Ayn Rand proud.

    7. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by swillden · · Score: 2

      The trouble is that the LGPL cripples Microsoft's competitors too much. Under the terms of the LGPL, those competitors cannot offer unique value

      Sure they can. The codec itself is only a tiny piece of a player, and not the most important piece from the point of view of a user. They expect that *all* players will be able to play, differentiation comes in UI, streaming ability, etc.

      The only thing the LGPL prevents competitors from doing is modifying the codec source and keeping the modifications to themselves while publishing binaries of the result.

      If they want to one-up Microsoft by making a better audio format, they're completely free to look at the LGPL'd codec source and snitch any nifty ideas they find (unless MS has patented them, but that's a completely separate issue). Then they can write their own codec (which isn't hard, the hard part about this WMA codec was reverse engineering the format, the rest is Just Programming) and publish it under whatever license they like!

      If they want their new format to be used very widely, then I'd recommend an MIT-style license.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Per+Wigren · · Score: 2

      Those licenses are for companies that just take and take and never gives back.. I think the LGPL is perfect for this kind of stuff! If you want to use it, go ahead, but give back your improvements! If you don't want to do that, go ahead and reimplement it yourself, just like you would have to do if the ffmpeg people hadn't implemented it at all... Or maybe you can PAY the ffmpeg people for a license to include it without giving back code, just like you would have to do if it was reimplemented by some closed source company... The weird thing is that I don't think you would complain about it then.,..

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    9. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Brett+Glass · · Score: 2
      You write:

      The LGPL doesn't preclude anybody from releasing a closed-source media player with this new codec, as long as they don't tinker with the codec itself.

      That was generally true of the "old," or "library," GPL. But it is not true of the license used by the CODEC -- the "new" LGPL (which the FSF calls the "lesser" GPL).

      Read it yourself, at this link. Section 6 says, in part:

      For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

      It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and the Library together in an executable that you distribute.

      The requirement to include all "utility programs" required to produce the product -- including the compiler, linker, etc. -- is not difficult to satisfy if the target happens to be an operating system that includes these tools. But if it's an operating system such as PalmOS, BeOS, MacOS, Windows, etc., which does not come by default with a complete set of developer tools, the requirement is not possible to satisfy. (I can't give away, for example, Metrowerks' compiler or linker with my product.) So, in fact, the new "Lesser GPL" has a hidden booby trap that makes it virtually impossible to produce products for many operating systems. (There are other problems with it as well, but this one alone is a show-stopper.)

      What's more, as the text above points out, you're out of luck if you also use commercial code libraries in your product -- because, again, you can't give away someone else's product.

      In short, the "new" LGPL is incredibly restrictive. I know for a fact that due to the restrictions mentioned above we could not include the CODEC mentioned in this item in our products.

      --Brett Glass

    10. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Per+Wigren · · Score: 2

      We don't want WMA to be spread more than necessary.. Simple as that! This is good because it lets us listen to legacy files until everyone has switched to encoding only non-patented Vorbis files..

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    11. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Brett+Glass · · Score: 2
      You write:

      The only thing the LGPL prevents competitors from doing is modifying the codec source and keeping the modifications to themselves while publishing binaries of the result.

      Not true. The LGPL is much more restrictive than that. In fact, it often precludes even the use of the unmodified library in a commercial product. See my comment here for a more detailed explanation.

    12. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reread the ORGIGINAL. Talk to the legal beagle in the FSF (or RMS if you're feeling brave :-)).
      The earlier post was correct, and you are not.

      If they used the *GPL* licence on the libraries, you could well be right.
      With the *LGPL*, you're wrong.

    13. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, Brett, shouldn't you have said "use the BSD license"? Or have you gone off that one now?

    14. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by puetzk · · Score: 1

      read it before you panic

      It says anything normall distributed with the major components of the OS (specifically listing compilers) need not be provided. So, all the libraries that came with your copy of the OS, and all the utilities that came with your SDK from metrowerks or whoever, are specifically exempted. It does not assume that the compiler comes with the OS, it specifically exempts both anything that came with the OS _and_ anything that came with your compiler, as examples of major components which you are not responsible for supplying.

      --
      The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
    15. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Brett+Glass · · Score: 2
      Sorry, but you're incorrect.

      It's very important to understand just how restrictive the LGPL really is, and also the history and the motivations behind this.

      You see, in the late 1990's, RMS -- flush with the success of Linux and other GPLed software -- wanted to eliminate the LGPL altogether. (He had always seen the LGPL as a temporary compromise to placate developers.) Now that some GPLed programs had gained momentum, he felt that it was time for the LGPL to go away. But there was so much outcry at the notion of doing this that RMS instead did two other things. First, he redubbed it the "Lesser GPL," and wrote several essays saying that the FSF did not recommend its use. Then, he published a new version of the license that was much, much more restrictive. Since the LGPL was generally known as allowing commercial use of the unmodified library, and many people did not read the new verbiage that was inserted into the new version, the majority of people did not notice the switch.

      The "new" LGPL says that you are only exempt from providing the compiler, linker, etc. if they are included with the OS you are targeting. If they're not already included with the OS, you must supply them. Oh, and if they happen to be commercial software and you're not allowed to give them away, tough cookies. The same is true if you use a commercial library that you're not allowed to give away to everyone. You can't use the LGPLed code. Again, see Section 6 of the LGPL.

    16. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Theom · · Score: 1

      One Microsoft is enough.

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    17. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by byran+lei · · Score: 0

      >By licensing the CODEC under the LGPL, the authors are preventing
      >Microsoft's competitors from publishing improved versions that might
      >give BillG a run for his money. If Microsoft is to face some real
      >competition, it's best to empower its competitors. Why not use an
      >MIT-ish license, as does Ogg Vorbis?
      >
      >
      1)Because it makes it difficult for slimey shareware authors like you who contributed *NOTHING* to creating the decoder code from making any money off it?

      2) This code isn't intended to help money-grubbing slimeballs like you. It's meant for people who want to create software that will play WMA files on Non-Microsoft created OS's. If you want to create software that play these files under Windows and sell it, then buy a license for Microsoft's CODEC, and quit trying to leech off us.

    18. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by byran+lei · · Score: 0

      >In short, the "new" LGPL is incredibly restrictive. I know for a fact
      >that due to the restrictions mentioned above we could not include the
      >CODEC mentioned in this item in our products.
      >
      >
      Who cares? It's not like you've done anything for the GPL community to begin with. In other words,buzz off creep.

    19. Re:Why not MIT X license instead of GPL? by Brett+Glass · · Score: 2
      It's not like you've done anything for the GPL community to begin with.

      Straw man argument; there's no one "GPL community."

      However, people who have written or used GPLed software have benefited from the use of the code that I have released under the BSD License. (I will never license my code under the GPL, in part due to spiteful attitudes like the one you express above.)

  25. I predict .... by Compulawyer · · Score: 2

    ... that this is just the opening shot of a file format (a la M$ Word) or application-checking scheme (a la AIM) war between M$ and this app's developers. Even if you can force everyone to use your file format, you can't TRULY own the space until everyone has to use your app to read the file as well.

    --

    Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  26. Re:I've been able to decode them for *AGES* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What "GPL" is that? The Goatse Public License? It certainly isn't the GNU Public License. Crap like Windows Media Player would never be released under a sane license like the real GPL.

  27. windows? by StormShaman · · Score: 1

    i want an open source video app for win98

    1. Re:windows? by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      Try VirtualDub, it's GPLed.

    2. Re:windows? by distributed.karma · · Score: 1
      If you want open source, why stick with Windows in the first place? On the other hand, if you have good reasons to use Windows, why the longing for OSS?

      I'm not trolling, just curious. There are too many people around bitching about OSS and Linux, who keep using Windoze because their one favourite application wouldn't work with a free OS. Which is just hypocrisy.

      --

      --
      If you moderate this, then your children will be next.

    3. Re:windows? by thumperward · · Score: 1

      Just because the OS is proprietary doesn't mean I don't want to have access to the tools running on it. I have no interest whatsoever with fucking about with my kernel. On the other hand, I like to tinker with code.

      That's the condensed version of the little speech I was about to type. Unfortunately time constraints have forced me to leave out choice phrases like "looks like ass" or "five clocks", but that's probably for the best as far as my karma goes.

      - Chris

    4. Re:windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you're right! Windows really does look like ass! Thanks for reminding me, I was half-considering using it.

    5. Re:windows? by StormShaman · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I'll go check it out

    6. Re:windows? by StormShaman · · Score: 1

      you want to know why? because 1) the games. no, dont refer me to bochs or vmware etc, my puter is 200MHz which even native will barely run the games I play, 2) I recently installed Mandrake 9 (the ``newbie'' OS) and i had too many compat issues, and I refuse to use lindows, lycoris, or xandros, as I am originally a mac user and i do NOT want a windows look-alike, and 3) just because windows is proprietary doesnt mean no OSS for it, they have OSS for Mac and that is proprietary

    7. Re:windows? by StormShaman · · Score: 1

      err, i meant like playing, i don't do too much editing, but now that i see this virtual dub, mebbe i will! know any good opensource non-bloated media (mpeg, divx, xvid, avi, etc) apps?

  28. Let's Spell it Together! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    C_O_N_V_E_R_S_I_O_N

    conversion!! Yay!

    adafdgfl fnklsfkw kdnelwk kjn bkdebkldla bdkwbnkwe

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
    1. Re:Let's Spell it Together! by LinuxGeek · · Score: 2

      Dude(ette?),
      Just because a new open source codec was released dosen't mean you have to get a sex-change operation just to celebrate. Calm down. :)

      --

      Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Let's Spell it Together! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just quote yourself in your sig? How horribly tacky.

    3. Re:Let's Spell it Together! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, I didn't

  29. Code size by Richard+Weber · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or is that decoder an order of magnitude smaller in terms of LoC than mp3/Vorbis decoders?

  30. It's not a codec by MarkTina · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry to be picky but it's a decoder not an encoder/decoder (codec). Mark

  31. Uggg... by Junta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I presume this is a sign that .avi files with wma or ABR mp3 tracks, or maybe ac3 tracks are pretty much entrenched now in terms of market? First mp3 becomes entrenched and now this? .avi is a poor container format (vbr prohibited, for example). DivX is decent, but not really a 'standard'. It may be MPEG-4 compatible/complete (I have no idea), but the FourCC code on those files is 'DIVX', and that represents a non-standard approach. Of course, the FourCC is only relevant in .avi and something easily faked in alternative encoders, but it just irks me...

    And CBR mp3 audio... ick... maybe it replicates the bug and plays VBR mp3 audio, but still, doesn't mp3 only support two channels?

    I would love to see the proliferation of something much more elegant. Say 'MPG4' FourCC (if you must). .Ogg container over .avi, or quicktime, or, best yet, the official standard container format of MPEG-4 (which, if not identical, is highly similar to quicktime 6 and/or the .divx format (does anyone use that at all?). Was there an audio MPEG-4 codec to go with the video and container, or would Vorbis audio be the best option?

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Uggg... by Junta · · Score: 1

      Posted to wrong article, mod me into oblivion...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Uggg... by snol · · Score: 1
      Nothing's preventing this decoder from working with WMA that's put in an OGG container (though why anyone would put WMA in an .ogg is beyond me.) Also since this doesn't encode WMAs I don't see how it's encouraging more people to use .avi over .ogg or the mpeg4 container.

      .avi is certainly entrenched (look at the sheer amount of tools for working with it: most DVD rippers would be lost without virtualdub, for instance.) But I don't see how this is any more confirmation of that.

    3. Re:Uggg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny thing is that your post is now a +4.

      just goes to show that you can drop a thousand acronyms and file extensions in a post, and sooner or later, the moderators will think you are smarter then them, and they'll start to mod up up.

      "oh, yeah, the uh, Linux Rotary Girder Inspection Modules..."
      i don't even know what that is! please no one laugh at me...
      +1, Interesting

    4. Re:Uggg... by benwaggoner · · Score: 2

      Well, how about ".mp4!"

      There are lots of Profiles (defining the tools that can be used) and Levels (defining the contraints for the parmeters of those tools) in MPEG-4. A good initial standard is ISMA Profile 1, which uses Advanced Simple video and AAC-LC audio. So, same video codec as DivX (which can export .mp4, but without audio), and a MUCH better audio codec than MP3/Vorbis.

      Alas, QuickTIme doesn't support Advanced Simple, only Simple.

      Going forward, I hope to see H.264 take over as the baseline codec in MPEG-4. It should be competitive with today's best propritary codecs (Windows Media Video 9 and RealVideo 9), and have no licensing costs with the baseline profile.

    5. Re:Uggg... by Ari+Rahikkala · · Score: 1

      ABR? Aberrant Bit Rate?

    6. Re:Uggg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The audio MPEG-4 codec specified in the standard is AAC. Forget it.

      MPEG-4 is covered by a lot of patents.

      I recommend going with an entirely patent free solution. Ogg Theora is available now, using the ogm Ogg Media format as a packager, usually Vorbis as the audio (though possibly Speex) - the video codec is VP3, which isn't stellar but is better than mpeg2 imho.

      Ogg Tarkin, which is still in the planning stage, will be a wavelet based video format that might even kill MPEG-4 stone dead overnight. And yes, it will be a standard - part of the Ogg codec group, which is rapidly becoming a de-facto standard (as in, Winamp plays it) - and as such no license fees are required and reference source will be provided, free for even commercial use - added to it's overall very high quality, it's a very attractive alternative to other codec formats and media containers.

      WMA beats the pants off MP3 at low bitrates, but always sounds tinny even at high bitrates (hence the new WMA9 alternative codecs, including that nifty, yet so it's-already-been-done-better-with-Vorbis multichannel "Pro" codec, and a lossless codec, I hear, that Monkey's Audio (APE/MAC) often beats by some degree - especially speed - and even FLAC puts up a decent fight against). Vorbis beats WMA hands down as far as it goes - the only thing stopping it going further is that the encoder should be able to scale the bitrate down even lower than 45kbps - which it will probably do by using the fact that it's peelable, and an available easy-to-use tool for peeling (transforming Ogg Vorbis files to a lower bitrate without transcoding - yes, it can do that, the only major audio codec which can - no, PCM/PWM doesn't count as a codec) would be the final part of the format, really.

    7. Re:Uggg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      AAC-LC better than Vorbis? No way. Full complexity AAC is a long way behind Vorbis according to recent listening tests - AAC-LC is far worse.

      Sure Vorbis has it's weaknesses - it performs exceptionally well for electronic sounds in particular, but loses out on classical stuff (which, according to some tests and against what I would have expected, MP3Pro does quite well on, especially in the high stress 64kbps range) - arguably, one should use lossless codecs for classical stuff though. Certainly at 64kbps, Psytel aac is bloody awful compared to Vorbis - even WMA8 usually ranks better in ABC/HR tests. Vorbis rules supreme at 128kbps (at the moment). It could scale better to high bitrates, and work is ongoing to improve the encoder's performance further. AAC just doesn't cut the mustard, especially with the licensing terms.

    8. Re:Uggg... by EllF · · Score: 2

      What is even more amusing is that even though I moderated your comment offtopic, and then noticed that you had realized it, my metamoderation results for that moderation came back as "Unfair". w00, really.

      --
      We who were living are now dying
      With a little patience
  32. C'mon.. by DocStoner · · Score: 1

    How long do you think it will take for MS to change the codec and force everyone to update their media player to support it. Kinda works to their (MS's) advantage.

    Don't get me wrong. I still think its a great accomplishment.

  33. Why All this talk about DRM/DMCA? by MoThugz · · Score: 5, Informative

    The project from what I see is mostly (if not all) done by non-Americans. So the DMCA does not apply to these people, nor to more than 99% of the countries in the world.

    Sure, it's hosted on sourceforge servers, which I assume is located in the US, but hosting can be obtained elsewhere just as easily.

    So quit naysaying and just accept the fact that not every open source project is an attempt to defile MS's (or the American legal system's) supremacy.

    1. Re:Why All this talk about DRM/DMCA? by infolib · · Score: 1
      The project from what I see [sourceforge.net] is mostly (if not all) done by non-Americans. So the DMCA does not apply to these people, nor to more than 99% of the countries in the world.

      Yup, but some of the developers are in Europe, and the european version of DMCA is on its way.
      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
    2. Re:Why All this talk about DRM/DMCA? by arkain · · Score: 1

      Even if the programmers were Americans, they would have no worry about the DCMA. The reason is simple. The DCMA protects encrypted content. WMA is simply a codec. As long as the group makes no attempts at breaking some kind of security encryption in WMA, then there's no concern. So I guess the next thing we can expect to see from M$ is a heavily encrypted version of the WMA format. However, I'd wager that people will not be likely to use such a version since encryption will undoubtedly put a hit on both performance and file size.

    3. Re:Why All this talk about DRM/DMCA? by plaa · · Score: 2

      So I guess the next thing we can expect to see from M$ is a heavily encrypted version of the WMA format. However, I'd wager that people will not be likely to use such a version since encryption will undoubtedly put a hit on both performance and file size.

      Unfortunately not. AFAIK, many encryption systems don't make the data larger, and nowadays computers are so fast that a little decryption will have no effect whatsoever. Perhaps todays low-end machines won't be able to play the videos anymore, but when has that been an issue to Microsoft?

      --

      I doubt, therefore I may be.
  34. Isn't the WMA format patented? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure I remember a /. article from someone who was closed down by Microsoft (read: sent threatening letters) for attempting to produce a WMA decoder. The argument then was that the WMA format was covered by various patents.

    What's to stop the same thing happening to this one?

    1. Re:Isn't the WMA format patented? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      ... and actually, I was thinking about VirtualDub (quoted by another thread here). It's the ASF format, not the WMA format.

      http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html

    2. Re:Isn't the WMA format patented? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're thinking of VirtualDub, for which Avery Lee tried open sourcing ASF, and you're generally correct. They are patents upon ASF. Now the question would seem to be what patents apply to the WMA codec.

  35. software patents by sfraggle · · Score: 2

    It should be pointed out that if this library uses software patents which charge royalties it is technically NOT Free Software.

    --
    were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
    1. Re:software patents by mmu_man · · Score: 1

      once again, sorry not to live in the Land Of Freedom, but at least in France, software patents are illegal (not that it won't change...). :^)

      Say it with me:
      "I do not recognize software patents."

  36. DivX Not Hacked MS Codec by puppetman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Only DivX 3.11 was a hacked Microsoft coded.

    4.0 and onwards were developed from scratch.

  37. Re:I've been able to decode them for *AGES* by mmu_man · · Score: 1

    Where GPL means Geekless, Proprietary, Licensed

  38. How easy is this code to use elsewhere? by jejones · · Score: 2

    There are LOTS of radio stations out there whose streaming version is WMA only...how easy will this be to make usable by xmms so that I don't need a Windows box to listen to said stations?

    1. Re:How easy is this code to use elsewhere? by colinleroy · · Score: 1

      You could always use mplayer :) Anyway an xmms plugin should come quite quickly.

      --
      blah
  39. Patent problems with this? by FattMattP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are they sure that this isn't covered by a patent? I remember almost two years ago that VirtualDub had to remove support for ASF files because Microsoft had a patent on some part of it. The VirtualDub guys just removed support rather than fight MS. I hope this doesn't turn out to be the same situation.

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
  40. EULA for WMAs by Spaceman40 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A while ago I was going to switch all my WMAs over to MP3 format (Acid doesn't like WMAs as input), but when I went into Nero (which can decode/encode multiple files with one command) it said that it's not allowed to decode WMA files - something about Microsoft saying it's bad.

    Have any of you seen this?

    --
    I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    1. Re:EULA for WMAs by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      " A while ago I was going to switch all my WMAs over to MP3 format (Acid doesn't like WMAs as input), but when I went into Nero (which can decode/encode multiple files with one command) it said that it's not allowed to decode WMA files - something about Microsoft saying it's bad. Have any of you seen this?"

      Perhaps you forgot to get the Nero WMA 2.0 Decoding plugin which allows WMA decoding.

  41. stable interfaces by den_erpel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only pitty is that there are no real stable interfaces to the library, which makes a lot of projects to statically link the libraries :(

    We changed the upstream sources a bit to provide libavcodec and libavformat as shlibs and started using dynamic linking.

    As long as ppl use the sources provided with the debs and compile, no problem, but it's hacking time again when someone gets a CVS release :X Oh well, that's what makes life (and coding) interesting of course ;) -and trying to capture possible problems with m4 macros >:)-

    --
    Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
  42. DeCSS by Hugonz · · Score: 1
    "Creating a compatible interpreter is not the same as pirating software"

    This means that creating WINE is not the same as trading mp3s, and it's not the same as creating a trading ground for mp3s. They are not even closely related.

    Repeat after me: DeCSS, kid in jail.

    Hell, I agree with you, but the fact is that we have to stop thinking logically and start previewing how they will try to abuse us.

  43. A free WMA decoder promotes Microsoft standards by fluor2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm afraid that a free WMA decoder promotes Microsoft standards, instead of promoting the use of open standards.

    I think it would actually be better to never make anything else than OGG decoders to conquer the push from software giants.

    Also, would be nice if you linked up to www.xvid.org, that also is free.

    1. Re:A free WMA decoder promotes Microsoft standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're wrong, a free encoder would promote Microsoft standards.

    2. Re:A free WMA decoder promotes Microsoft standards by Brett+Glass · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But you're wrong, a free encoder would promote Microsoft standards.

      Mod this up (+1, Insightful). I agree 100%. Free players are available for every format, and have to be; listeners aren't going to pay for them. (RealNetworks gets almost no revenue from its "premium" players, despite the constant nagging to buy them.) Therefore, the main way to promote the use of a format is to provide a free server.

      This is why Microsoft's Windows Media has become popular; the server comes free with Windows NT/2000. Providing a decoder actually reduces the manufacturer's grip on the market, in the same way that providing a wordprocessor that can read Microsoft formats allows people to use alternatives.

  44. Are we good? by rocjoe71 · · Score: 2
    But is this going to lead to some sort of legality problem like DeCSS? Or does this land in that grey area where Samba and WINE live?

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  45. Re:GODDAMNED DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME! by Ponty · · Score: 1

    I think that's even worse. Is it difficult being slightly out of sync with the country? I can see it being convenient and pleasant inside the confines of Indiana, but whenever you have to call someone or whatever, it might be irritating.

  46. no petrol but many ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't want to start a flame war there but did you know that:

    * FFmpeg was started by a french group (maybe just a french guy)
    * DivX was invented by a french guy
    * another beautiful player, VideoLAN, is made by a French group

    As the french say, "we might not have petrol in France, but we have ideas".

    Artaxerxes

    1. Re:no petrol but many ideas by Genus+Marmota · · Score: 1
      Also Thomson, a French company, owns the rights to MP3 and MP3Pro.

      Coincidence? I think not...

    2. Re:no petrol but many ideas by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 1

      And hey, let's not forget the croissant and the Exocet anti-shipping missle.

      --
      Carpe Deez
  47. Question: Why WMA? by Rai · · Score: 1

    I'm just curious as to why people use WMA. I bought a MP3 player a few months ago that supports WMA. Care to guess how many times I've played WMA files on it? (Enjoy your donut :) )

    Since I have little experience with it, are there really any advantages WMA has over MP3 or Ogg? Or is it just another necessary evil that Microsoft is trying to force on users? Do websites use it because they think it can't be "stolen?" Seems like most of the sites I frequent who need a "secure" stream use Real media.

    Anyway, what I want to know is, will WMA become a dominant standard (thru M$'s normal guerilla tatics) or will it keep floating around out there with the other second-string formats? I would noramlly guess the latter, but this new decoder makes me ponder. Would WMA without DRM be better than current formats?

    1. Re:Question: Why WMA? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      No, people like you who buy products that support WMA will cause WMA to become a dominant standard.

    2. Re:Question: Why WMA? by Brett+Glass · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The answer to this question is simple. Many streaming media sites use Windows Media because the server is given away for free and does not limit the number of streams you can serve (unlike RealNetworks' products, where you pay by the number of streams). Webcasters, already squeezed by huge fees from the RIAA, unions, etc., don't want to pay high prices for the streaming software. So, they go with Microsoft's free server. And you, if you want to listen to their programming, must have a CODEC that lets you listen to a Windows Media stream.

      As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, the fact that the CODEC mentioned here is licensed under the LGPL is likely to prevent its use in players for some operating systems, which is a shame. Whether or not we like Microsoft or Windows Media, I think you'll agree that all authors of players, and all end users, should be able to play streams that are encoded in that format.

    3. Re:Question: Why WMA? by Rai · · Score: 1

      That's a fast finger point in my direction...

      I wanted a simple MP3 player, nothing fancy. I choose the most inexpensive one that suited my needs (the blue RioVolt CD player, if you must know) and because it just happened to support WMA (which in case you didn't catch the donut analogy, I've never used), your rationale is to make me partially responsible for the forth coming WMA dominance. Wouldn't I be more responsible if I frequented sites that use WMA or ran a WMA site myself?

      Okay judge, what inexpensive player should people like me buy?

  48. WMA bitstream fixed since WMA2 by benwaggoner · · Score: 2

    Correct. The bitstream was locked down with WMA2, so WMA9 encoded content will play back just fine to that decoder, and presumably the new open source version of it.

  49. How did they do it? by skeedlelee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With all the discussion of is this or isn't this a patent/lawsuit problem, it seems an important question is being missed. How did they make the (co)dec? The article itself doesn't mention it and short of digging into their dev site, I don't know how to figure that out. Anyone involved with the project care to share?

    I can think of two very different ways to get at it. Try and dig the decoder out of MS code or give it a bunch of training files and tweak the decoder until it sounded right. (ouch that sounds like a painful project) If the latter, then I don't really see how there could be any sort of lawsuit issues, unless there's a EULA problem (can't use WMP in developing competing software or something). It's a bit reminiscent of the Samba approach. Also, without a encoder, (IANAL) you shouldn't run into problems even if the wma format itself is patented.

  50. Ok by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 2

    I wonder if someone will make a XMMS plugin to play wma files now. That would be cool. I gave in to the darkside awhile back when I purchased a 64 Meg portable music player -- and converted a bunch of my CD's to WMA for size VS. performance reasons (a 64K WMA sounded better to me than a 64K mp3). THe only problem being now I have 4 CD's worth of WMA's that are only playable on Windows -- and I don't have a windows partition anyomore. So at least for me -- this sounds like a good thing.

    --
    (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
  51. another good free software media player by halfelven · · Score: 1
  52. Re: Stats: US vs the world by Lord+Satri · · Score: 1

    Well, actually, that makes 99,47916 % of the world... ;-)

    Which also means 95,387877 % of the world's population.


    check this and this

  53. How about VirtualDub? by Outlyer · · Score: 2

    Microsoft was successful in preventing an implementation of the ASF file format from being used by virtualdub. This seems to be a parallel issue, since both ASF and WMA are patented.

    --
    ----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
  54. .avi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .wmv and .wma "continaers" allow for and (finally) support VBR encoding. Were not trying to compare current Linux tech to 10 yro MS tech again are we?

  55. Semi-on-topic question... by Junta · · Score: 2

    Since encoding using Vorbis for audio was mentioned in the article, anyone use Vorbis for their audio tracks? I've been ripping using .avi with mp3 audio for my DVD collection, and have wanted to use Vorbis one way or the other. When I tried to substitute vorbis audio into the avi instead of the 'throw away' mp3 track I generate (using mencoder), the result won't play under anything I've got. When I used ogmtools to try to merge the .ogg audio and .avi video into an ogg container, it plays, but doesn't keep a/v sync. I don't care about how few people can play it, so long as *I* can play it and have it look and sound good....

    The ideal for me would be to have a single container with MPEG-4 video, Vorbis Audio, and, if at all possible, embedded subtitles in some form or fashion as a separate overlay track/text.... That can be produced in Linux...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  56. XBox Mods? Lindows.com? PC Werld? Micr0soft.com? by ink · · Score: 2
    Microsoft has zero history of suing people who write lookalikes of their software

    That depends on what you mean by "lookalikes".

    --
    The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
  57. Just boycott people who encode with WMA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best way to deal with Microsoft and the people who go along with them is to not do business with them. If someone only wants to offer content encoded with WMA, then I don't want to do business with them.

    Just show some self-control and free will.

    Capitalism works !

  58. LGPL+Closed Source HOWTO by Gainax · · Score: 1

    You are, in fact, able to use LGPL ('lesser'/new version) code in a commercial, closed source, application.

    Here is the evidence:

    • Sec. 6 Paragraphs 1,2; LPGL v2.1:

      This verbiage describes that you can link a LGPL library with a "work that uses the library" (i.e. your proprietary code), given that you clearly refer to the copyright of said library and its license in your program. Also described, are five actions, one of which must be undertaken with distribution of the combined work. These actions are designed to guarantee the 'unbundling' of the LGPL work from your proprietary work, such that all the rights of the LGPL granted to a user of the LGPLd code are preserved when used with your work.

    • Sec 6, Paragraph 3; LGPL v2.1:

      Here, the requirements for distributions of an executable containing LGPL code is clarifed to indicate that you are required to include all files and data needed to recombine the LGPL library with the rest of a proprietary executable. This means, simply, that a distributor of such executable (LGPL+Proprietary code) is required to make it easy to recombine the LGPL library with their executable. With modern linkers & object management utilities (hell, even old linkers & object management can do this), all you need is a partially stripped .o or .a file.

      Important note:
      With proper invocation of strip, all internal references from your code can be removed, leaving only external references required for linking to system libraries and the LGPL code you are required to distribute. This will make said .a/.o that you are required to distribute contain no more information than could be gained with ltrace, or strace on an executable. Note also that modern debugger & code analyzer can remove the protection that would be granted from a statically linked executable. It is more work than most vendors go through to completely reimplement their C library, so this clause of LGPL v2.1 doesn't really remove any protection you would have had anyway from static linking.
    • Sec 6, Paragraph 3; LGPL v2.1 (revisited):

      This paragraph ALSO states that you do not need to distribute components that are distributed with major (2nd important note:this is not the same as 'core') components of the operating system, unless such a component is or is attached to the executable. This excuses you from having to distribute a complete compiler toolchain with your LGPL+Proprietary executable. Make sure to note that this also does not specify licenses/combinations under which those major components are distributed. It is enough that such components are readily available. The LGPL would be a document several times longer if it had to specify each exemption here. (compiler, binutils etc.)

    • Sec. 6 Paragraph 4; LGPL v2.1:

      This paragraph states that the requirements of this Section may contradict with the requirements of other licensed code in your software. Most (closed-source) software licenses say that you can restribute the object code for their libraries if they are compiled into your application. For dynamically linked libraries, this is simple. For statically linked libraries, you can do your due diligence in upholding your requirements to the owner of licensed code with, once again, judicious use of strip.

    I believe this covers each of your primary objections to use of the LGPL, including your claims that to meet the obligations of the LGPL would be a death setence (read: trivial reverse engineering) of your software.

    It is true that the LGPL requires one to perform some contortions to distribute closed-source software that uses LGPL code, but it does not require you to open your software. The only requirement is that you preserve the rights that the LGPL grants to LGPLd code.

    Does this answer your worries about the use of the LGPL?

    1. Re:LGPL+Closed Source HOWTO by Brett+Glass · · Score: 2
      Does this answer your worries about the use of the LGPL?

      No, because it's incorrect on several points. In particular, it does not address the question of how one could distribute an application for an OS that does not come with a compiler or linker. It also assumes the presence of a "strip" utility, and that the use of such a utility would be sufficient to avoid copyright infringement when one uses a commercial library (it's not). In short, I'm afraid that the above arguments are full of holes; in particular, they do not apply at all to those of us who develop for platforms other than Linux (e.g. PalmOS).

    2. Re:LGPL+Closed Source HOWTO by Gainax · · Score: 1

      The compiler or linker does not have to be distributed as part of the same distribution that comes with the basic OS setup to qualify as a 'major' component of the operating system in the words of the LGPL v2.1, I believe.

      This seems to be the linchpin of your argument, and also your most clearly stated point that I disagree with. As in many semantic debates, what should be a minor provision in this document seems to be a big headache. I believe that 'major component', as specified in the LGPL does not need to be taken to mean 'bundled with the OS and freely available', where from your arguments you seem to prefer the inverse interpretation. Are any any authorities you could refer on this matter? We could always ask Eben Moglen, and perhaps we should.

      On the existence of a 'strip' utility in development platforms: this functionality is available, in some fashion or another, in most every development platform I have seen in the last 10+ years that also features a linker. You strip an executable when it is ready for distribution and you no longer need debugging or internal symbol information available. This I think would allow you to avoid copyright infringement of commercial libraries, since you can use this to present your portion of the executable + commercial libraries as an integrated, inseprable unit. (This is doable since you can remove information needed to link outside code into the commercial library.) Is there a clear example you can provide where this would not work? Also, the GNU binutils have been ported to work with the binary formats of an awful lot of platforms. There's no reason you can't use GNU's strip with some other development platform if a strip utility or its equivalent isn't available on your platform.

      If you are philosophically opposed to any use of LGPL code in your application, that's fine. Do please admit that it is that however, instead of pretending that it is technically infeasible to meet the obligations of the LGPL.

  59. Parent is offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderators, what are you smoking?
    Parent is barely interesting, AND offtopic.

    This is a flamebait, not a troll. And offtopic as well. Moderate accordingly. :)

  60. Used it for months by SassyDave · · Score: 1

    My local Unix Users Group has been using this encoder to stream our meetings over the web (in asf format) for months. It works really well, but the only stream we've gotten to work is asf. Mpeg and others don't work on the client side.

  61. Two words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Winamp Plugin.

    Using this library to build a standalone WMA decoder plugin that doesn't use the system libraries (and hence, isn't obnoxious about where it will output too) would be really really nice, especially after MS told Nullsoft to cripple their system library one.

  62. Most complete grabber? We're in big trouble then. by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ffmpeg is great for video streams, and even sound streams. Just don't try doing both at once.

    I have had *zero* luck trying to get the audio track to sync with the video, even at insanely low resolutions (eg half PAL) with no frame drop. Different combinations of different codecs make little difference it seems.

    The FAQ even says so:
    4) I get audio/video synchro problems when grabbing.

    Currently, the grabbing stuff does not handle synchronisation
    correctly. You are free to correct it. It is planned to fix it ASAP


    So IMHO, ffmpeg as it stands is completely useless as an audiovisual grabber.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  63. THANK YOU! by abdulla · · Score: 1

    I'd give you a hug and a kiss, but you know. ;)

    Just one question, what kind of commercial or other redistribution licenses surround WMA? Do Microsoft have any patents or such, or any Thompson like asking as to pay for selling a decoder or using a decoder in commercial software, or were they 100% free on this? (Yes, I know, nothing from Microsoft is truely free.)

  64. Ya Gotta Love It, Folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot - Where else can you get the highest score, be labelled informative and yet, still be totally wrong? (;-]

  65. ffmpeg sync problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ffmpeg still can't get audio sync right when re-encoding the output of a long lavrec encoding session. On the things I've tried it for the video frame rate is about 4% out. I know I could probably fix it with the right tool (avifix?) but I just can't be bothered (to do so again...)

    Linux still sucks as a video editing platform (said by someone who's used nothing else for the last 5 years).

  66. WMA Plugin for XMMS? by jthorpe · · Score: 1

    What an excellent advance! I've been using Mplayer to play WMA audio as well as streaming WMA/ASF Audio for quite some time now. Even though it has the "ugly DLL hacks", it works nicely, but I would much rather see a plugin (perhaps using the new piece of code) so that everyone can enjoy it with XMMS. Is there already an XMMS input plugin already available that allows the playback of WMA audio (preferrably using the new code that is free from WINE/DLL hacks) and possibly WMA streaming audio (mms:// and http://?).

  67. Codec? No. by Dock · · Score: 1

    If there is no encoder, it's not a codec, it's just a dec. Some literacy, please.

    --
    http://about.me/paultenny
  68. One Hopes the Developer is Non-American by FreeUser · · Score: 2

    Are they sure that this isn't covered by a patent? I remember almost two years ago that VirtualDub had to remove support for ASF files because Microsoft had a patent on some part of it. The VirtualDub guys just removed support rather than fight MS. I hope this doesn't turn out to be the same situation.

    Let's hope the developer who did the WMA portion of the code lives outside of the United States and is not an American citizen. Then MS could basically take their patent and shove it, and the ffmpeg stuff can simply have a compile time option to leave out patented code, a la PGP.

    Of course, no one in the United States *cough* would ever compile the patented code. That would be illegal.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  69. Heard about the EU INFOSOC directive? by NKJensen · · Score: 2

    The EU is in the process of giving in to the mega--multi-euro film&music industry as well.

    INFOSOC in English

    That'll be the end of legal reverse engineering in the EU as well.

    --
    -- From Denmark
  70. Re:Most complete grabber? We're in big trouble the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want FFMPEGREC from the nvrec package for that. Perfect A/V sync, with ffmpeg power/speed (all ffmpeg codecs seem to be supported)

  71. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Wenn also die KDE-Arbeit nochmal gemacht wird bei GNOME, hat das die
    Entwicklungszeit für ein freies Desktop-System verkürzt. Hast Du auch
    irgendwo die passende Algebra zu der Rechnung?
    -- Sascha Ziemann in de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...