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."
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... =)
So (again, AFAIK) there shouldn't be a problem.
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.
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
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.
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.
Probably to prevent MS from looking a tit, thinking "ooh, thats nice", taking it and adding hidden undocumented proprietry stuff to it.
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.
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...
.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?
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).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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