Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New "MP3 100% Compatible" Logo For DRM-Free Music

Posted by kdawson on from the plays-for-sure-this-time-we-really-mean-it dept.

Sockatume writes "A coalition of seven UK digital music stores have created a logo for DRM-free, MP3 music. The 'MP3: 100% Compatible' logo allows the stores to emphasize the advantages of the format, namely that MP3 files will run on any device and won't keel over and die as DRM-laden files are wont to. The BPI — the UK equivalent of the RIAA — is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores."

52 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Sweet by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The tide has turned: A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

    About frigging time.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The tide has turned: A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

      No kidding.

      A non-geek friend of mine bitched about this last week. He's nearing 40, doing well, and is a big metal fan. He was trolling memory lane on YouTube, and decided to go get some more albums of one of his old favorites. The store had a deal on the band's full boxed set -- sweet! -- then he noticed the DRM tag. He took it to the till and asked the clerks if he'd be able to play the tunes on his iPod. Clerk 1: "I dunno." Clerk 2: "Probably not."

      Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.

      This new "100% Compatible" logo is /exactly/ what he (and the store clerks) needs. It's due. Regular customers are fed up with this shit now, not just geeks.

    2. Re:Sweet by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Funny

      Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.

      Speaking of which: did you email him links to .torrents with instructions?

    3. Re:Sweet by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      having worked in the music industry i'd tend agree with you. i think this initiative, especially the fact that it's backed by a powerful trade group, will send a strong message to record labels and artists.

      while i'm hoping my boss learned his lesson after receiving a bunch of complaints and product returns on music CDs using standards-breaking DRM (i think a rep from Megaforce, our distributor, sold him the idea originally), i suspect the notion of DRMing future releases is still in the back of his mind. and, honestly, even without the product liability issues that come with CD DRM technology, it's still a huge waste of money that alienates customers/fans.

      resources wasted combating "piracy" and on anti-consumer policies/tactics like DRM, or any other means of restricting consumer freedom, would be better used on music promotion. record labels can't dictate to consumers how they can or can't use the music they've purchased. online file sharing, like swapping cassettes or CDs, is an timeless constant. the smart labels will use this to their advantage rather than try to fight human nature.

      record labels spend millions of dollars each year on promotion, whether it's buying spins on the radio, paying for TV/radio commercials, taking out ads in magazines & one-stops, printing fliers, putting your tracks on listening booths, co-op promotions, etc. it's all about getting the music out there, getting the band's name out there. you let people listen to your music for free on the radio, and you grow your fan base. in fact, the more plays you get on the radio, the more albums you sell. the industry understands the value of this kind of _paid_ promotion, but when it comes to free promotion, they just can't seem to wrap their heads around it. so they actually waste money to try to stop it.

      instead of worrying about the music "pirates" who don't pay for music, which is really a relatively small percentage of the population that you're never going to reach anyway, why not exploit the marketing value of the internet. viral marketing the most effective, and simultaneously cheapest, means of increasing your fan base, and subsequently your customer base. so it makes much more sense to distribute DRM-free MP3s that people can share with their friends and let file sharing work for you through viral marketing.

    4. Re:Sweet by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      I once bought a CD that refused to play on my computer. That was 4 years ago and that was the last CD I bought. Recently I discovered deezer and finally get to listen to other things than webradio

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:Sweet by Nursie · · Score: 2, Informative

      "don't know how I'll get well-written, well-performed, well-produced music in large enough amounts to satisfy me without my money becoming they money."

      Then you're not a music "sharer".

      You pay for it, make your money their money. The point is you're not going to stop people sharing it, thats pretty much impossible, but you can stop punishing legitimate users and learn to live with a level of piracy that's not going to go away.

      Meanwhile, you and I are paying for our music because we like it and want more. Actually, I'm buying CDs because I like having a thing and data seems temporary and unreliable, but then I'm apparently a dying breed.

    6. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the past I downloaded mp3 torrents - illegally. However, since Amazon.com started selling everything I like in mp3 format, I just pay the $1 per song. It is convenient and I feel like I am supporting the music I like. I know the labels take most of it, but at least the artist gets some of it.

    7. Re:Sweet by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Cool. So everybody... "

      Right at the word 'everybody' is where you indicate that you missed the point entirely.

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  2. Inevitable Tagging by dasuser · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I suppose this is gonna get the suddenbreakoutofcommonsense tag.

  3. yes but... by Sfing_ter · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will it run on linux? :?

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
  4. Time until TPB updates their search logo? by aliquis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    New logo on top of the Pirate Bays search logo in 5, 4, 3, ... ? :D

  5. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by darkhitman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, but '73.38% compatible'* just doesn't have the same ring to it, you know?

    *Number pulled out of ass, just so y'know.

    --
    Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
  6. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are mistaking "compatible" with "open". .ogg is open, but is compatible with significantly fewer devices and computers at the moment. I don't think my computer will play it (though I could download a codec for it if I cared), and I know my phone, portable music player (aka MP3 player), and car stereo can't play it.

  7. For varying definitions of compatible? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Proprietary or not, MP3 is THE audio format to play. Give an ogg file to most people, they are almost certainly not going to be able to play it without some hass.e Most audio devices don't play ogg files, while most audio file player devices can play MP3.

    1. Re:For varying definitions of compatible? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I travel most of the year and offer to share music with a lot of people I meet. Most of my collection is in FLAC, and I'm amazed at how many people I come across with limited computing skills are still open to getting files in such a format, "Lossless, CD audio-identical? Free codecs? Cool." While the lack of support is a problem in portable devices like iPods, I'm not sure there's that much resistence to Vorbis/FLAC/what have you among people who play their music off a desktop or laptop.

    2. Re:For varying definitions of compatible? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well, MP3 is an ISO standard (approved in 1991). however, i agree that the licensing/patent issues are a huge drawback. to quote Wikipedia:

      A large number of different organizations have claimed ownership of patents necessary to implement MP3 (decoding and/or encoding). These different claims have led to a number of legal threats and actions from a variety of sources, resulting in uncertainty about what is necessary to legally create products with MP3 support in countries where those patents are valid.

      The various patents claimed to cover MP3 by different patent-holders have many different expiration dates, ranging from 2007 to 2017 in the U.S. The initial near complete MPEG-1 standard (parts 1,2,3) was publicly available in December 6, 1991 as ISO CD 11172. Since US patents must be filed by no later than a year after publication, some of the later patents are questionable, and MP3 may be patent free in the US by December of 2012.

      sounds like typical patent-trolling to me. this is a prime example of how our IP laws hinder technological progress/innovation rather than encourage it. and a 20-year patent term for software algorithms is just plain insane. by the time the patent expires and finally goes into public domain the algorithm will likely be obsolete. technological progress is the result of open collaboration and collective efforts. these type of patent lawsuits are counter-productive and greatly hamper cultural symbiosis that every field of knowledge/research depends on to move forward.

      so it's too bad that petty patent claims plague the dominant digital music format. maybe Ogg should be made into an ISO standard. perhaps then more hardware manufacturers (and downloadable music retailers) will adopt it alongside of MP3. frankly, MP3 is already a little outdated as it's fallen behind other compression formats over the years.

    3. Re:For varying definitions of compatible? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that does make a good amount of sense, because computers can easily play just about any file format, given an easy installation of a driver or decoder program. Getting a typical phone, car audio head unit, iPod or ipod-like device to play them generally isn't going to be so easy. If you offer to install the player, I would bet the resistance would be low, but people without that kind of acquaintance would probably just forgo it.

    4. Re:For varying definitions of compatible? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since they're going for patented technology anyway, I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't push the AAC format. While I know geeks tend to associate it with iTunes, it's pretty much a universal standard in newer players. As a bonus, it's smaller, better quality, and a heck of a lot easier to license than the craziness behind the MP3 and MPEG formats.

      Yeah, yeah. I know that MP3 has brand recognition. But nothing will ever change if no one pushes things forward. And besides, MP3 100% Compatible? That doesn't even sound cromulent!

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    5. Re:For varying definitions of compatible? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I am sure that is true for the older generation,for the younger they pretty much think music=MP3. A few weeks ago I went to pick up the oldest from school and all you saw was MP3 players everywhere. Some of his buddies were talking up how they had all gotten these cool speaker docks to play their iPods at home. They started to laugh at how my nephew plays his tunes at home on his PC until he said "Well my uncle gave me his huge super powerful '80s Pioneer home stereo which he wired into my PC so all my games and tunes ROCK!" Needless to say they were impressed,LOL

      But the point is for the teens/early twenties crowds music=MP3 player. They just add all kinds of home/car adapters and carry the things wherever they go. So while I think having choices is great I doubt seriously when my nephew's generation grows up they are even going to know other formats exist. For them it is all whatever works on their iPod/Creative/Sandisk. And the only format you can be sure they will all play ATM is MP3.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:For varying definitions of compatible? by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I know geeks tend to associate it with iTunes, it's pretty much a universal standard in newer players.

      You mean Apple iPod or iPhone players? My two Creative mp3 players and my Krazor cell phone can not play .aac files. And the only thing on my computer that can play those files is the VLC player, and VLC can pretty much play anything -- anyway. .aac files are some of the most finicky media files I have. Almost all the other medias I have can be pretty much played on several of the players I have installed, .aac can not, it can only play on one software player, the VLC player (besides iTunes). And don't even get me started on the .aac quality, .aac files just sound awful.

    7. Re:For varying definitions of compatible? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure there's that much resistence to Vorbis/FLAC/what have you among people who play their music off a desktop or laptop.

      I'm fairly resistant even though my Rockboxed Sansa can play both just fine. My situations is that I ripped a few hundred of my CDs to high-quality MP3 and it takes up about 30GB of storage. With an 8GB portable player, that means I can take along about a fourth of my collection. This works out pretty well because a lot of it is my wife's stuff that I'm not into, and I don't like every single song from even my favorite artists.

      Now, suppose I were starting from scratch and considering FLAC. I'm going to ballpark estimate the resulting collection to be about 3 times larger than what I have now. This is no big deal at all on the desktop, but suddenly the Sansa presents an awful decision:

      • Only take 1/12th of my collection along, guaranteeing that I'll get an overwhelming desire to hear "Rye Or The Kaiser" which is sitting at home, or
      • Transcode from FLAC to something reasonably sized at sync time.

      You hear variants on the latter a lot: "just transcode when you want another format!" But why? Lame can already make MP3s that are much better than my concert-damaged hearing can distinguish, and they take a third the space of FLAC. Now, I love the idea of FLAC, but in practice I don't really see what problems it would solve for me.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  8. 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  9. Easier solution by sleeponthemic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Swastika on all the DRM'ed files.

    --
    I record my sleeptalking
    1. Re:Easier solution by duckInferno · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'd imagine that would send the wrong message in India.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    2. Re:Easier solution by z0idberg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Final...Easier...whatever.

    3. Re:Easier solution by Caetel · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Hinduism

    4. Re:Easier solution by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well said...

      Although I am a Hindu, I have lived in the UK all my life, and I see the swastika as an "evil" symbol because of the actions of a madman in Berlin over 60 years ago.

      In India though, the symbol is revered, as it is a Symbol of peace, tolerance, and welcoming.

      Its really sad, as some countries such as Germany and France ban the Swastika. They do allow exception to Hindus as a religious symbol, but its very difficult to use it still. A hindu would offer the symbol as a welcome to all, but if it still gives the wrong impression to a normal person receiving it, its no point using it.

      There is a grassroots campaign by some Hindus (and Jains, as well as other Dharmic Faiths) to reclaim the Swatika back to where it belongs, and restore its original meaning, but I think it will not be easy.

      --
      Have a nice day!
  10. Re:mp3 is nice, but... by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because it's hard, if not impossible to find a player that doesn't support MP3. You actually have to look for OGG or FLAC support while buying. This is about making it easy for consumers, not forwarding the agenda of open source/format nazis. Maybe, just maybe, something not completely open is actually...good?

    --
    As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
  11. Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course they won't. Unauthorized use of that logo would be copyright infringement... oh, f-

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
  12. Re:mp3 is nice, but... by phatvw · · Score: 4, Informative

    MP3 is supported on more handheld players and integrated chipsets that's why. It may not be the best compression scheme as there have been some great developments in psychoacoustics in the last 15 years, but MP3 just works.

    Also, don't worry about Fraunhofer/Thomson. The patents are gonna expire in a couple years and none of the big companies have sued anyone for using LAME yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

  13. Could have used a better name by sootman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow, what a mouthful. 12 syllables. "MP3 100% Compatible" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. They should have gone with something shorter, catchier, but with the same meaning... like "plays for sure!" or something.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Could have used a better name by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Plays Damn Well!"

      Great for heavy metal, but might seem a bit strange on the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's latest release.

  14. I'm a bit suspicious ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The BPI â" the UK equivalent of the RIAA â" is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores.

    I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones. Makes me think that as soon as they have people aware that MP3 is different than whatever it is they're offering, they'll start spending billions vilifying MP3 files. These guys are sneaky and not to be trusted under any circumstances.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:I'm a bit suspicious ... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones.

      I disagree. It is not odd at all.
      They are trying to break the back of iTunes and preventing anything like it from ever arising again.

      It drives them insane that a 3rd party has the kind of market power that lets it set pricing on their product.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:I'm a bit suspicious ... by FourthAge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And iTunes is the monster they created. "Hey, let's insist on DRM for all online music stores! Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?" The irony makes me feel all warm inside.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  15. Re:mp3 is nice, but... by Si-UCP · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

    You don't seem to have a problem using it on proprietary devices.

    Rockbox + your device with proprietary firmware (including iPods -- up to 5.5G) = your device with new, shiny open-source firmware, that, of course, supports .ogg.

  16. Not so by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, there's a legal, licensed MP3 decoder available for Linux. http://www.fluendo.com/resources/fluendo_mp3.php It's open source (MIT) with binaries approved by Fraunhofer available. So you're OK even if you do stick strictly to all patent law, live in a country where such law applies to software, and require source to all code running on your system (above BIOS/firmware level).

    1. Re:Not so by c_forq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I understand it they don't approve of all decoders, but allow them. As I understand it they will fight arm and leg for encoders though, as they see that as their money maker. I may be talking out of my ass though, so mod me accordingly.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    2. Re:Not so by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called "Insightful". Just look around for some examples of its proper usage.

  17. Re:mp3 is nice, but... by maglor_83 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't like encoding my music into a proprietary format.

    That's OK. The files will come pre-encoded.

  18. Re:Jews did 9/11. by v1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ah, but who runs the Catholics?

    the old dude with the tall hat isn't it?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  19. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Proprietary and compatible do not have to be linked.

    ogg is not closed source/proprietary, but despite this it only works on what, 60% of players? hardly "compatible". Being open source does not maketh compatible.

    But then WMV9 is closed/proprietary, and only works in maybe 1/3 of the players. Probably an intersection of where "proprietary" marries "profit".

    Then there's the third alternative, mp3. Proprietary, yet universally (100% for all practical purposes) supported.

    Can you find an audio player that does NOT support MP3 but DOES support ogg? Maybe you can find one or two. But I bet I can find a heck of a lot more that do MP3 and not ogg.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  20. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by Firehed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ogg is Open and Free As In Speech, but it's compatible with almost nothing. Yes, devices could be MADE compatible with it with no licensing costs, but good luck convincing Apple, who alone controls over two thirds of the mp3 player market with the iPod. I doubt the Zune supports ogg right now either, though I'm sure many of the less-popular players that are trying to nail as many features as possible in the hopes of taking a couple of Apple's customers support the format.

    That's not knocking ogg - it's hardly the format's fault. But I don't think there's a portable player in existence that doesn't support mp3, and that's what consumers care about. And from that standpoint, mp3 is as close to 100% compatible as any format ever will be.

    Ogg is fantastic for some things (game audio comes to mind, with zero licensing costs), but portable media player compatibility is unfortunately not one of them. Likewise for FLAC.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  21. Re: 'MP3: 100% Compatible' != legit by Firehed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, if you use the logo and don't provide MP3 files to your customer, I'm pretty sure you've just gone and opened yourself up to a false advertising lawsuit.

    Doesn't address piracy issues, but then again I don't tend to associate piracy issues with retail stores or well-known online sellers like Amazon.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  22. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Flac, then. Turns into mp3 or ogg easily enough, and is open and unpatented.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  23. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by jabithew · · Score: 2, Funny

    Indeed. The .ogg format would need a new label. "100% incompatible", perhaps?

    --
    All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
  24. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by jabithew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's also fully lossless. I'm not sure people need or want that, considering the ballooning size of digital music libraries even with lossy compression.

    --
    All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
  25. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's also fully lossless. I'm not sure people need or want that, considering the ballooning size of digital music libraries even with lossy compression.

    Hard disks are up to 1.5TB. That's maybe a hundred times what they were when Napster first became popular. FLAC is typically, what, ten times the size of an MP3? Seems to me the time for lossless compression is here.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  26. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by RockWolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    *Number pulled out of ass, just so y'know.

    This is slashdot. We know.

    --
    February 9th, 2009 8:55pm: Slashdot becomes self-aware.
  27. High end and jukebox by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are there even any unhacked non-PC devices that play FLAC? Nothing against FLAC

    FLAC is currently the most popular Lossless compressed format for hardware players.

    High end living-room digital players usually support it. Some offer services where you send your CDs and when you receive your player it's pre-loaded with FLACs of your music (like Olive for example)

    Several Jukebox also exist with support for FLAC, like in car systems from PhatNoise's.

    Logitech's latest Squeezbox supports it too, for a more recent example.

    For more detailed and longer list see FLAC's own list.

    In addition to all these branded software, don't forget also about all the countless of no-name "multimedia-harddisk-case" (small box usually centered around some miniITX board running a small embed linux-based mediaplayer. Sold pre assembled in store and buy-your-own-harddisk in computer shops). Granted most of them DO use Linux and PC-like hardware. But they are sold as ready-to-use appliance, like your DSL/Cable modem and Wifi router (which is most likely to run Linux, too).

    In short the fact the iPod doesn't play it, and Microsoft's "Play-for-Sure" logo forbids it in the USA, doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't already using it.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  28. Why no lawsuits? by anilg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've wondered about why no one is sued for using LAME> My theory is that almost everyone has licensed rights to MP3 patents if they have ever:

    *Bought windows
    *Bought am MP3 player
    *Bought a music playing software
    *.. etc.

    I think most of us have paid F/T multiple times for the rights to MP3.. thus they wouldnt really stand a chance in court in proving that a person used MP3 encoder without rights.

    Of course, IANAL, and my understanding of this is very naive.

    --
    http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
  29. Re:MP3 != 100% compatible by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Informative

    I could download a codec for [.ogg] if I cared

    Hi. I'm mister pedantic.

    Ogg is a container format, meaning you can stick audio and video data inside ogg files much the same way you can files into a zip file. Except that zip has features to enable corruption detection and ogg has features to enable corruption handling (find next magic number, continue from there). Also, Ogg is streaming friendly, zip puts the data first and all the inode-like data last.

    The ogg container format is most typically used with Vorbis sound and Theora video. There's also a Speex audio codec optimized for human voices (as opposed to "all sound").

    Similarly, AVI is a container format [AVI = Audio Video Interlace], often storing mpeg data I'm told. Other container formats include Matroska (.mkv).

    See wikipedia if you lack something to nerd out over :)