Slashdot Mirror
VLC & European Patents
CaptScarlet22 writes " VideoLAN is seriously threatened by software patents due to the
numerous patented techniques it implements and uses. Also threatened
are the many libraries and projects which
VLC is built upon, like
FFmpeg, and the other fellow Free And Open Source software
multimedia players, which include
MPlayer,
xine,
Freevo,
MythTV,
gstreamer."
In the interest of stimulating more discussion, some more information about this subject can be found here
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
You should only use MS media player. Then you wont run into these problems.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I remember reading somewhere that MS hold many many patents of code/methodologies used in Open Source. If this is true then I guess Open Source exists only because MS defends the patents passively.
fuvoo: watch something
Don't get me wrong; I'd rather we just do away with patents entirely, but it's a fact that Europe will buy into this system sooner or later. Maybe now's the time to clean up any potentially infringing code or move it to an even more legally-backwards locale?
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
Actually, isn't Europe implementing *some* sort of grandfathering system? If they aren't, then do they realize that they may be causing massive liabilities for their constituants? Forget VideoLAN, this may be a much larger problem.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...or move it to an even more legally-backwards locale?
Actually, considering the nature of software patents, I should think we're looking for a place that is more legally forward-thinking...
On a sidenote, mplayer has the same message on its website. have a look: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/index.html
OSS Developers will have to start migrating to the US to develop free software????
It should be legal to reverse engineer/use patented techniques when it is used to enable integration and compatibility in a non-commerical manner. Using patents to stiffle integration and compatibility should be considered a violation of fair use.
Patents which exist solely for the sake of preventing compatibility aren't "innovation."
One modern video codec is as good as any other. They're just all different implementations of the same basic mathematics. They all produce similar quality from similar file sizes. Businesses do the same stupid thing every time: patent one particular method (which is not necessarily better than any other method) of encoding, distribute EITHER the decoder to recipients or the encoder to content producers, whichever is easier for your business, and thereby bully the other group into paying for the use of your amazing "technology."
Gah. It's all bullshit.
The general concencious is that software patents are mainly stiffling the ability for new software to be produced. Here's an interesting tid bit about problems with software patents. It's a really interesting read I suggest it. Here it is http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html
During their implementation (which started years ago), they were aware that there were no software patents in Europe.
Given the number and scope of multimedia patents, the only way to clean up any potentially infringing code would involve rm -rf...
Let us get the names of those entities that are threatening with software patents. I will be very willing to join the effort to turn these companies the SCO route. My fear though, is that VideoLAN and other OSS companies will simply shift production to Asia where patents are not that well respected. This will mean that the US will be left behind. We are not doing that well in cell phone technology already. Asians and Europeans seem to be very advanced. We all know that the cell phone technology we are now getting as Americans is kin-of old if one compares it with what the Asians are doing now.
They are about to become patentable in Europe under new legislation for the EU, and due to world wide treaties (that mainly benefit the US in this case) foreign patents will apply here in the EU when the Patent laws are enacted.
Programmers are generally recommended NOT to investigate patents at all. If they knowingly offend, they pay triple damages when taken to task over it in the US (holy mecca of patent litigation)
The generally accepted practice in the business world is build it without having any awareness that it was previously discovered or patented, then have your lawyers look for infringement and negotiate a deal. The developers, engineers, etc are generally prohibited from going anywhere near patents.
Consciously avoid being exposed to other ppls ideas, reinvent the wheel, employ a bunch of people who could be doing something productive to find out after the fact if anyone has invented this before, and then hope that there's enough revenue for your new idea left after you pay to license the patents.
Kind of puts the lie to the whole "in the interests of progress" thing, doesn't it?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
If this project disappears then it will be a huge step backwards for digital multimedia. On every system I use this is one of the first packages I install. One cannot trust quicktime or windows media players.
it is semi odd that Europe is anti media players in Windows, and then they are threatening to slay free media players. Seams like a double standard.
That's exactly the problem with patents on software.
The ideas don't really cover rocket science, but just common engineering sense.
When you develop *any* non-trivial application, you are sure to violate at least ten patents, as *all* patents are in a way trivial and so end up in one or another application.
Ideas should not belong to anybody.
Die Gedanken sind frei! (German: thoughts are free/libre)
Making free (beer) software non-free to pay for some people monopolizing on ideas isn't the solution to this problem.
if i see a video stream, and decide to write a program that takes any chuncks of "000000000" and replace it with a "01", and so forth, and that is my way of compressing a file, but someone else programed that before me and filed a patent, does that mean i can't use that kind of code?
it is stupid to me to have patents on things that anyone can think up. what happens if a professor at a university thinks up something, but does not patent it. he teaches it to students, and they are free to use it. 2 years later a start up company in california has an employee who thinks up the same simple idea, and has it patented. what does that mean? that the original professor can no longer use it? that his students who might have used that idea in projects now have to remove it?
what is the purpose of patents. it seems to be very anti-competitive, and creates monopolies.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
1) Only play unpatented formats. 2) Make sure utilities are available to translate to those unpatented formats but don't own them. Just release them free out into the wilds of the internet where they will never entirely disappear despite efforts to squash them. 3) Encourage all encoders to only use open formats. --- Within the next 5-10 years, you will not be able to get content short of video taping it off a screen. They are going to have it completely locked down. It won't be because of technology per se but technology combined with severe legal penalties for circumventing that technology. They will send encoded audio and video streams that will be decoded as close as possible to the point where it becomes audeo and video. Picture a solid state combination speaker code and decoding device impossible to separate or patch into.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Why can't all these software packages just be hosted in outer mongolia (or somewhere where the patents don't apply that actually has hosting)?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
You just threaten that it breaks one of your patents, it ties up the developers into looking at the code and the patents. Development will be slower because of tied up resources, and you can attempt to kill it off. Even if the claim is bunk, you still make them lose much development time.
While it's probably not what DTS is after, they really don't compete with MPlayer, perhaps other companies will try it.
I'm just surprised DTS would even bother. After all, if your decoding capabilities are built-in to the most commonly used players, wouldn't that give prospective clients more incentive to use DTS? *shrug*
Vip
I have not RTFA, but I'm sure almost all of the codecs and the patents that are being discussed are owned by the MPEG group (being they are using MPEG-2 encoding/decoding without a license).
LAME is already illegal in the U.S. because it did MP3, and I suspect the rest of these projects will be killed off for similar reasons.
I'm not suprised - when you look for "free mpeg-2 decoders" you don't find much. Well, you don't find anything that is gratis. After careful research you find that open source projects are doing a lot of mpeg-2 work, but they usually don't advertise that fact.
I didn't say it was "right", but it's not suprising. Really, you can't do anything with SVCD or DVD on Windows without owning a MPEG-2 decoder. If I was someone who made money on selling MPEG-2 codecs, I'd go after VideoLAN too. It's a lucrative business.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Thanks! But isn't it an oxymoron that projects and software that are around for years will become illegal suddenly? I mean, presently, nobody has the ability to patent an algorithm in Europe. So, imagine someone in Europe that has thought of an original algorithm for, say, image compression. He is the first to think of it, but naturally he can't patent it. A year later, a company in America goes an patents the same technology. Now suddenly the EC decides to pass this stupid stupid stupid law. The original inventor would be in danger of getting sued for using something he originaly invented.
Brazil would probably be a good choice.
One stitch of GPL'd code and it is forbidden.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Section 7:... "... For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Kopete has a warning message on its site as well.
In other words, unless your company is so big that you can use your huge patent portfolio against all equal-sized or smaller companies, you're hosed. This is a game that only multinationals can win - and that's why IBM and HP lobby for Software patenting in Europe despite their affiliation with Open Source. It's more important to them to be able to dominate the entire computer software industry than it is to work with us.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So whilst writing a letter to my local MEP, I did a little research around the subject - and stubled upon this speech.
"Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal, since Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programs or other software as such. It means inventions that make a technical contribution and that are truly novel. Such inventions are present in a number of everyday consumer goods such as cars, mobile telephones and domestic appliances. The Commission's intention in making its proposal was to avoid the patenting of pure software and make a clear distinction between the European Union and the United States. Nothing that is not patentable now will be made patentable by the directive.
The current rules in the European Patent Convention leave patent examiners very wide decision-making powers. There can be different interpretations as to whether an invention can be patented. This leads to uncertainty for businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are negatively affected by the lack of clarity in the existing rules.
I would like to remind Members that, in the absence of a directive, patents will continue to be granted. If patent offices decide to grant patents for pure software, then expensive procedures before the Courts will be the only option for those who wish to object.
Those of you who have been directly involved in working on this proposal know as well as I do that this is a very complex area. Any modifications will need to be carefully examined. The directive cannot be turned on its head. We need to maintain a proper balance between stimulating innovation and making sure competition is not stifled."
I'm a little confused...
from that site:
The European parliament will now be taking the last stand against software patents in a voting for which an absolute majority is needed. Such a majority is hard to come by in a parliament with a low attendance level.
But not all is lost yet as long as you decide it is time to make a difference and take action. This is our last opportunity to fend off software patents worldwide, there will be no second chance for the foreseeable future.
Signing petitions will not suffice. Contact your local EU representatives and educate them why software patents are a bad idea in the first place and why they must attend that parliament session to vote against them. Make it clear that they need to stop the machinations of the EU council and reaffirm the power of the EU parliament, the only democratically elected EU institution. For in-depth information and starting points to get active visit the software patent page of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and NoSoftwarePatents.com.
HD Trailers
What I think should be done is patents should be modified to include a "Fair Use" like clause. Under this idea, F/OSS software, as long as its for "personal use" can use patented technology without having to pay licensing fees, but if its sold or used commercially, or if said program is a commercial application, then said program (or the user of it) requires a license. Now excuse me while I go patent this concept....
I'm friends with the youngest daughter of the former head of the PowerPC division of IBM you insensitive clod!
Yes, projects and software that have been around for years suddenly become illegal. That is exactly how intellectual property laws work. And that in turn is why they are unpopular here on slashdot.
IP law (and economies that suffer under it) is an utterly broken system, which is why a lot of talented people refuse to do creative technical work any more. Creative tech work simply doesn't pay.
The most recent version of WMP for Mac only plays .wmv and possiblly .asf files. It doesn't work to play .avi files with the video encoded as wmv3 (WMP video). There is no way at all to play these files on a mac.
Aside from the GPL which is pointed out by another user, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE PATENTS CAN BE LICENSED BY AN END USER. Read that. Twice.
IP Holders have done this for decades. Remember RSA's patent on the encryption as used by SSL/https? RSA refused to license their patent to endusers, instead only licensing in bulk to developers of specific webservers. SCO offered to license Linux... unless you were a single person, in which case they wouldn't even take your name and number for a callback.
I'm getting off track here since this has nothing to do with the EU situation, but bullshit like this is the "Other 50%" of Whats Wrong With Patents. The part nobody talks about, and when it comes to the Freedom To Code, the part that is even more damaging than bogus patents. Imagine that you're just one person and you'd like to write a webserver that was SSL capable while RSA still held the patent. Back then, RSA wouldn't even give you the time of day, much less an individual license for the RSA algorithm. Even for educational purposes, you're fucked.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The patent system is really, really, screwed!
In the long term there is NO WAY we can keep the EU or any other part of the world from approving patents on software, because politicians will always care about the interests of whom/what put and keep them in place, ie corporations not common people. The point is that we're slowly approaching the critical level where the concepts of doing "the right thing" and "the legal thing" take opposite directions and become mutually exclusive until we'll be forced to make THE choice.
The real question is not if, but when the moment arrives, are we ready to act as pirates? Because that's the point "they" are leading us to.
This website plastering is just scaremongering, FUD of the worst order, to
try and make people run off frightened and contact their local politicians
about it.
Nobody threatened VLC, MPlayer or FFMPEG with shit. If anyone wants to use
the code commercially they will no doubt buy a license to do so, the advantage
here is that there is a simple way to get some working code, which allows more
people to get to a point where they need to license.
It's a distinct advantage to patent holders (no requirement to maintain their
own source code base etc., and an entire market of willing customers which
would otherwise not exist) and the patent holders know it.
Neko
In that faq linked to from the main article, it doesn't discuss the fundamental problem between software patents and "normal" patents. Sure, patents patent an "idea" but not the actual process. Patents protect the idea to carry out a process, not the process. For example, James Dyson invented the duel cyclone vacuume cleaner, and patented the idea. He didn't come up with the idea (process) of sucking up dust from the ground and putting it into a recepticle.
This is what I feel is the main problem with software patents, they patent the actual process, NOT the way the process is actually carried out by the code. eg. method by which text is highlighted in a document by encasing the text in quotation marks... This is a process, the way it's implemnted is the patentable bit, the actual code use.
Obviously you'll need programmers to compare code to make sure people aren't simply copying it, but surely this isnt a problem in closed source anyway?
It's like Ford making the first car, and then Toyota making a car... "hey, you're infringing my patented idea of motorised transport!" Where the hell would we be now if this were the case? Ford would be very rich....
I recognize that there aren't a great deal of resources available to the average Free Software programmer, but surely after the deal with GIF a little more dilligence has been put into patent research?
Um... Why?
Some will take this as a troll, but I mean it in all seriousness when I ask "So what?"
The current patent minefield leaves NO room for independant implementations of any software concept any of us have ever heard of that that didn't originate either with-or-before Turing, or directly from the Open Source world. And even for those, it wouldn't surprise me to hear about some astoundingly trivial and ancient technique suddenly under patent, by companies that have adopted "extortion racket" as their business model (small enough fish can't afford to fight back).
Software like VLC and MPlayer know perfectly well that they violate a countless number of patents, and the authors just don't care (and if you really think they all live in Europe, I'd like you to show me "Connecticut" on a map of Europe). Any legit project that makes use of their source code needs their head checked, but projects like VLC don't care about infringement. And users thereof don't, either.
The corporate world, and the governments that pander to it, needs to realize that a growing number of people simply don't care about copyright or intellectual property in general (or to extend this a bit, about drug laws, speed limits, Terri Schivo, the outcome of our quadrennial tweedledum-vs-tweedledee popularity contest, and so on). The more they buy laws that result in serious congnitive dissonance when compared with physical reality, the less people take all laws seriously.
Software patents in Europe will have absolutely no effect on "our" world. The CEOs can all fret about the impending end to their current business models, the congresses/parliaments can all pass laws as fast as they like, but we will win. This particular "setback" just means that we'll start seeing a LOT more projects coming out of the Vanuatu's newest territory, Michigan. And in a decade, we might well have a large volume of software written on Saturn's newest moon, California, despite not even having a lunar colony by then.
Why ? Because GStreamer was designed *from the start* to be pluggable. The whole patent issue is one of the main reasons why GStreamer is designed the way it is. Sure, it took a lot longer to get to a point where stuff starts to Just Work, because we wanted to make sure we would be around when the shit hits the fan.
So while a lot of other projects chose to ignore the whole patent problem, and a lot of projects used the GPL as a license (which indeed is not compatible with patents), making it possible for any distro to ship them, we had the focus of making sure that the GStreamer platform is pluggable to the point where the libraries can be put in or taken out without breaking the applications. It's also one of the reasons why GStreamer, from the start, has been LGPL - because that allows distributors to ship a complete stack of GStreamer applications legally in places where software patents apply (like, say, the whole US). Fighting software patents is a great idea. Waving the problem away as if it's not there is not.
Also, with the arrival of Fluendo, a company building stuff on top of GStreamer, (and also a company I happily work for :)), people will be able to get codecs for the patented formats in a legal way, if they chose not to run the risk, or if they want to be legally safe.
What does this mean in the end ?
Very few distros have taken the risk to ship one of the other projects, for legal reasons. (Apparently the mighty Debian ships Xine, and while on any other non-free subject lots of noise is made, this one seems to be left alone because it's a big deal).
It is no coincidence that projects like mplayer, vlc, and xine do not get shipped by most distributions. In fact, coincidentally, Fluendo did a press release on this very issue yesterday.
The burden of proof should just run the other way. Assume you had the idea independently, and require some proof of breakin/code theft etc to get damages. Criminal law should cover this problem just fine.
Patents worked ok when the average level of education was much much lower and the number of people capable of inventing any given thing was much lower. There are so many inventive people around today it just doesn't make sense to have the system work this way anymore.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I've writtent to my MEPs.
:-(
Conservative party are FOR patenting software. The letter was a disgusting patronising excuse, and tries to worm out at the end suggesting they want a 3-year 'review' clause.
(from Nirj Deva)
Green party are AGAINST patenting software. They also mention consulting with Alan Cox and Richard Stallman. A very well written response.
(from Dr Caroline Lucas)
The Liberal party are AGAINST patenting software. A short letter saying they've heard the fears of small businesses are will definately vote against the directive.
Labour never replied but that is because they are FOR the Directive. Especially since Mr Mandelson, kicked out multiple times from government for corruption, is our EU council representative and has the ear of Tony Blair.
No matter how you want to vote in the General Election, remember when voting for your MEP not to vote Labour or Conservative. Even if some of us HAVE voted for a certain party all our lives
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I'm Amer^H^oh sorry, Australian.
Our government is a few tiers below the US government wrt authority over Australian Law.
The Australian government has shown that, given the choice of protecting it's citizens or doing something in the US's interests, it will do what the US wants, even when an Australian's human rights are being violated.
The fact that we're not granting frivilous patents here is nice but it's irrelevant if our country is beholden to another country's IP laws. It effectively means that we will be left with fewer patents than other countries and they'll beat us down with their patent portfolios.
Right?
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
So this is what the patent office does: For every category under which your invention falls, the patent office has a number of "experts" to whom it might refer. These experts can really be anybody who can demonstrate in-depth knowledge of a field, perhaps by meeting certain criteria set by the patent office, through tests of sorts. These experts would be paid by the patent office and given access to resources needed to analyze and research a patent application, in addition to the current patent researching procedures. The experts would then have the opportunity to swing the outcome of the patent application into one of several directions, such as "no", "yes", "need to be more specific", etc.
There wouldn't be just one expert assigned to a particular patent application. There would actually be a number of them, all of whom would cast some sort of vote to determine the outcome of a patent application. How many experts will have access to a patent application will depend on how many experts are signed up to review applications for the affected fields, how many applications are being reviewed, etc. When you file an application, you never know who or how many will review it. None of the experts will know who any of the other experts working on an application are.
Many safety precautions will be put into effect to make sure that the system works. If you think that all experts will vote "no" on all patent applications because it's something they might want to do themselves, the patent office will require an explanation of why the patent application is being rejected. This will be reviewed by the office's normal staff, who currently do all the work of reviewing patent applications. If you worry that companies will file zillions of patents for the same thing in an effort to make one of them get through the process, this can be fixed by keeping track of applications filed by particular organizations, with the office's normal crew rejecting duplicates that are too similar. If you are worried that experts will not put enough effort into reviewing applications, you can throw applications at them that have already been rejected as if these are new applications, to see if you get the same outcome. In fact, patents would, in this way, undergo a certain moderation, kind of like comments posted here on /., and there would be a sort of meta-moderation system in effect.
Hopefully, this would allow lots of people to spend, say, a few hours a week--PAID hours, mind you, paid for by the applicant--researching new patent applications in addition to current office research efforts. This will act as a filter to prevent a lot of crud from getting through.
This means several bad things will happen: Patent application fees will go up for the "lone inventor" working in his garage, while big corporations don't give a flying darn, but this can be fixed by implementing several changes:
It would be nice to hear a professional opinion: Were those patent decisions correct at the time they were made, and can one really defend their continuing existence now?
Ok, so software patents suck big time. What do we do about it? Why not start a Free Patent Foundation (FPF). All patents owned by the FPF are freely licensed to anyone with the following restriction: Any party that makes use of a FPF patent library is required by the license to cross license their entire patent library with the FPF. Using a FPF patent constitutes acceptance of the license. Corporations would simply be blind sided because they are advised to NOT research patents or face triple damages. Now, when they violate our patents, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! ;-) Either that, or they have to stop shipping their product. If these companies really do patent 'defensively' as many say they do, then they shouldn't mind a bit now, should they? Once they are in the fold, all patents created by them are added to the FPF. Of course, I'm not a patent lawyer, so feel free to inform me that I'm a clueless moron...
...is just ignore patents, carry on regardless and make great software.
I know it all seems terribly seriously and gloomy, but when you have bad laws the only way they are killed or rendered impotent is if a large chunk of people reject it in everyday life and that's what people need to (carry on) doing. The FOSS community needs to harden it's resolve, stop flipflopping around and whining and just stay true to it's goals.
The 'law' has failed many many people throughout history and delivered incredible injustices and attrocities on humanity. It is not an absolute righteousness handed down by God or whatever creator you believe or don't belive in. It has certainely failed the FOSS movement, which needs to start looking beyond whatever the current law is now.
I suspect VLC and MPlayer are trying to drum up some sympathy and are shooting themselves in the foot a little bit with their "it will all end soon" messages (great software though they both are). And remember it was always pointed out to Slashdot by some here that Europe would not be the bastion of justice and morality some in the US thought it would be when it came to patents etc. Unfortunately the EU is riddled with corruption.
Just go forth and continue to make your software and distribute it by whatever means necessary. Because if you really believe in your heart you would let nothing or no one stop you.
DTS Inc. holds a patent in Europe on that. It is no secret that, for now, official VLC releases no longer support DTS sound decompression.
It is true that VLC violates many many patents that are valid in the United States. It is no wonder why we have no download mirrors in the United States. We did have offers, but we denied them for fear that the people hosting the mirrors might get themselves into trouble.
We DO care. It doesn't mean we make sure not to infringe any patents, but we still do care, because we have had problems, and we expect to have a lot more if the EU directive is passed.
Who knows, we might have to remove MPEG2, MPEG4, H264, etc etc. Who would want a VLC media player that can only read Vorbis and Theora ? (that's not to say these codecs aren't good)
The original aim of the VideoLAN project was to stream TV channels over IP. It turns out all digital TV channels use MPEG2 (or more recently MPEG4 or H264). We couldn't even access these...
Whether we care or not, we have been a target, and we are much weaker than big companies to defend ourselves. We'd be fools not to care.
Remi Denis
Hi Thomas,
:))
First of all I would like to thank you for bringing to my attention the fact that Fluendo are working hard to support proprietary plugins. Hopefully this will work out and will have a happier ending than other commercial forays into open source / commercial collabortion. Of course what will be interesting is what the eventual licence of these plugins will be (if I pay for a plugin on one distro and I migrated to a free solution do I have permission to copy my plugins across too?)
However I take issue with some of the points in your post:
It is no coincidence that projects like mplayer, vlc, and xine do not get shipped by most distributions...
Xine was shipped by SUSE (at least up to 9.2) and Mandrake/Mandriva (up to 10.2RC2) last time I checked. Red Hat are not the be all and end all.
GStreamer platform is pluggable to the point where the libraries can be put in or taken out without breaking the applications
Both SUSE and (old) Mandrake (watch out Mandriva) shipped Xine without potentially dubious plugins. A while ago I added Theora after the original install.
(If the BBC can do it [make content available in free formats], so can they
Are we thinking of the same BBC? The BBC I'm thinking of does not make much (Radio 1, Listen to 6Music) of its content available on free formats. Where are you getting this from? Last I saw the BBC had dropped its ogg trials never to return. This is surely a damning example of how Free media formats are doomed to failure. Nice to see Novell using those Free media formats too eh?
I concede that there is a slim chance such formats may become popular on devices like mobile phones but I think between patents and big media companies if they did get a toehold then they would eventually be squeezed out.
The basic problem though is that people (big or small) don't want to provide content in formats that most people can't already play (notice the shift away from RealPlayer towards Windows Media). Without DRM support and the promise that it won't be broken (whether those promises can be kept or not) there is no reason for big media to look at Free formats and almost no Free media format will have critical mass like MP3 did (which itself was not Free). Grassroots stuff is nice but most people aren't listening/watching it and don't really care to.