Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Thomson Multimedia says 'MP3 has never been free'
By on
August 29, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- By Robin "Roblimo" Miller -
Dave Arland, a U.S. spokesman for Thomson Multimedia, says that MP3 licensing terms have not changed in seven years, and that as far as he knows there are no plans to change them in the future. According to Arland, the Slashdot poster who claimed Thomson's license structure changed recently "was apparently misinformed."
Dave Arland, a U.S. spokesman for Thomson Multimedia, says that MP3 licensing terms have not changed in seven years, and that as far as he knows there are no plans to change them in the future. According to Arland, the Slashdot poster who claimed Thomson's license structure changed recently "was apparently misinformed."
The controversy was created by the removal of this line in the old MP3 royalty licensing page (courtesy of Internet Wayback Machine) from the current version: "No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."
But the lack of these few words on the latest version of the MP3 licensing Web site does not represent a change in Thomson's policy.
Arland says Ogg Vorbis is apparently using this small Web site wording change "to get publicity," and that if Ogg Vorbis or anyone else wants to produce multimedia encoders and players and give them away, that's fine with Thomson. But he said Thomson does not do that and never has; that its policy has always been to allow free use of the company's MP3 patents in "freely distributable software" while charging royalties to all commercial software or hardware makers that use Thomson's MP3 technology.
Because the GPL (General Public License) allows all software licensed under it to be sold, this may mean that "freely distributable" MP3 players cannot be licensed under the GPL. Arland says he is not familiar with the GPL; that Thomson laid down its licensing terms long ago, and that if Thomson's terms are not compatible with the GPL today, then they never were.
Arland says Thomson not only allows but encourages the use of MP3 technology in free client-side players. He also says Thomson has no plans to start charging royalties to producers of freely-distributed MP3 player software, and that "it would not be in our best interests to do so." But, he says several times -- using slightly different words each time -- the second you sell software or hardware that contains Thomson's patented technology, the company wants money, and this is not negotiable, GPL or no GPL.
Thomson makes its money on MP3 from licensing both commercially-distributed MP3 players and encoding software. "We have hundreds and hundreds of companies that have taken out licenses with us," Arland says.
And, as far as people who thought MP3 was free (in the GPL sense) or should be free, Arland says, "We developed the technology in partnership with Fraunhofer. We license the technology. It is not free. It has never been free. We're not going to give it away. That's the way it is."
Comments
on Thomson Multimedia says 'MP3 has never been free'Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Not a problem - if the vendor, not the author, is responsible for paying the royalty, then anyone who chooses to sell a GPL'd MP3 player uses some of their income to pay the royalty.
Re:Not a problem for sold GPL software, surely?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2002 02:32 AM
The GPL does not restrict sale of the software, but the patent license does. That's an "additional restriction", which the GPL doesn't allow. So yes, it is a problem.
Re:Not a problem for sold GPL software, surely?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2002 04:49 AM
Thank you. I was about to try to point that out, but you said it very clearly and succinctly.
Basically, if indeed decoders cannot be distrubuted freely, including for payment, then the authors of the decoders have to cease distributing them under the GPL.
Possibly there is some other licence that could be used.
However, what happens to the rights of people who have copies of previously distributed GPLed code. Do they just evaporate?
Basically, if indeed decoders cannot be distrubuted freely, including for payment, then the authors of the decoders have to cease distributing them under the GPL.
Possibly there is some other licence that could be used.
However, what happens to the rights of people who have copies of previously distributed GPLed code. Do they just evaporate?
Re:Not a problem for sold GPL software, surely?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2002 05:32 PM
If the license is invalid ("additional restriction"), then they never had any rights to the software in the first place.
Re:Not a problem for sold GPL software, surely?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2002 06:21 PM
I think the GPL has a clause that essentially says you have all (and only) the rights granted by the GPL even if whoever gave you the software did so in violation of the license. It's as if you got the software directly from the author(s) (who, of course, can flaunt the GPL as much as they like, being the original owners of the copyright), even if you really didn't.
In this case, however, it seems you have no right to redistribute the software, which is pretty much the only right the GPL gives you. But you still legally own the copy you have, and you do retain the right to use it, since you have that by default and the GPL doesn't restrict it in any way.
(Disclaimer: IANAL, and I'm not looking at the GPL as I type this, so I could be misremembering.)
In this case, however, it seems you have no right to redistribute the software, which is pretty much the only right the GPL gives you. But you still legally own the copy you have, and you do retain the right to use it, since you have that by default and the GPL doesn't restrict it in any way.
(Disclaimer: IANAL, and I'm not looking at the GPL as I type this, so I could be misremembering.)
The GNU GPL gives you five base rights:
0) Free use: the ability to use the software in whatever way you deem fit to use it.
1) Free redistribution: the ability to distribute the software to whomever you see fit.
2) Access to the source code: you have the right to request the source code for the program that you're using and the distributor is legally obligated to give it to you.
3) Ability to modify the source code: this is distinct from freedom 2 because one can be given the source code without the ability to modify it for their own personal use. This is where much of the freedom in the GNU GPL stems from.
4) Ability to redistribute your modifications: this is important because a license could restrict you to only personally using your modifications, without allowing the rest of society the benefit of your modifications - if you deem fit to distribute the software. Note, this is an ability, not a demand. You don't have to redistribute changed software.
Inability to provide these rights when distributing modified or unmodified GNU GPL'ed software results in removal of your license. So, if a company decides to violate the GNU GPL and base their primary product on it - and this license violation is found to be true - then that company (or person) can have their license revoked and no longer has the right to use said GNU GPL'ed software for any reason. So, violation of the GNU GPL, for whatever reason, is foolish.
0) Free use: the ability to use the software in whatever way you deem fit to use it.
1) Free redistribution: the ability to distribute the software to whomever you see fit.
2) Access to the source code: you have the right to request the source code for the program that you're using and the distributor is legally obligated to give it to you.
3) Ability to modify the source code: this is distinct from freedom 2 because one can be given the source code without the ability to modify it for their own personal use. This is where much of the freedom in the GNU GPL stems from.
4) Ability to redistribute your modifications: this is important because a license could restrict you to only personally using your modifications, without allowing the rest of society the benefit of your modifications - if you deem fit to distribute the software. Note, this is an ability, not a demand. You don't have to redistribute changed software.
Inability to provide these rights when distributing modified or unmodified GNU GPL'ed software results in removal of your license. So, if a company decides to violate the GNU GPL and base their primary product on it - and this license violation is found to be true - then that company (or person) can have their license revoked and no longer has the right to use said GNU GPL'ed software for any reason. So, violation of the GNU GPL, for whatever reason, is foolish.
They "sell" a linux distro that contains MP3 players. Are they supposed to pay $0.75 per copy of redhat they sell?
I would think yes, they are compelled, but when their distro costs $60 a copy and contains literally thousands of packages, the value added by those MP3 players doesn't add up to the 1% of sales cost they are being asked for.
I would think yes, they are compelled, but when their distro costs $60 a copy and contains literally thousands of packages, the value added by those MP3 players doesn't add up to the 1% of sales cost they are being asked for.
Tough - if RedHat owe $0.75 for every copy they sell, they ought to pay it. Why should they have a get-out clause? If someone sells a copy of a RedHat CD at cost, that's a trickier matter - are they really selling it?
hey but you have the right to sell a redhat CD for more than the cost, you can sell it and make a very big profit out of it if you want.
LONG QUOTE
" 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. 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.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.
"
" 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. 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.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.
"
So from what I understand this doesnt make it impossible to distibute the software under the GPL. It only make it impossible to SELL the software under the GPL, as distributing it for free does not infringe on the patent liscense.
Scott.
Scott.
No. It means if the patent prevents any type of distribution that is required by the GPL, then it may not be distributed at all. Since, the patent prevents selling the software without paying for the license, you cannot distribute it AT ALL under the terms of the GPL.
Where does the GPL require you to be able to sell the software? To which section are you referring?
I thought you could not sell 'the software' under the GPL, you could only charge for distribution costs.
RedHat chuck in a load of other stuff, plus support + manuals when you 'buy' it from them - that (and the distribution costs) are what make up the price. You can download the software for free.
Steve.
RedHat chuck in a load of other stuff, plus support + manuals when you 'buy' it from them - that (and the distribution costs) are what make up the price. You can download the software for free.
Steve.
I believe this is the reason cited for the incompatibility:
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.Do note that that's just an example -- the actual rules are given in the rest of the license, and (IIRC, IANAL, etc.) do make GPL incompatible with any patents that would restrict redistribution in any way.
you honestly think 'they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License'. is true when it comes to a court judgement ? Fuck right off, GPL is not above the law, smucks. GPL is not law either, it's a license agreement, and not a law, law will always rule.
excuse you from the conditions of this License'. is true when it comes to a court judgement ? Fuck right off, GPL is not above the law, smucks. GPL is not law either, it's a license agreement, and not a law, law will always rule.
Judging by that quote from GPL and the quote from Thompson (I am not a lawyer)
then mp3 players are GPL-compatible, (as the patent-holder licenses royalty-free)
BUT mp3 encoders perhaps should not include GPL software.
So I would expect to see LGPL and Berkeley-style licenses on ENCODER software when freely distributed, and maybe CD vendors will have to negotiate distribution royalties.
This is well-known by the vendors. SuSE does include xmms and vorbis-tools, but won't distribute LAME on CD.
So nothing has changed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as Roblimo said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... except that vendors can use Ogg Vorbis as a lever to negotiate cheaper royalties from Thompson/Fraunhofer.
then mp3 players are GPL-compatible, (as the patent-holder licenses royalty-free)
BUT mp3 encoders perhaps should not include GPL software.
So I would expect to see LGPL and Berkeley-style licenses on ENCODER software when freely distributed, and maybe CD vendors will have to negotiate distribution royalties.
This is well-known by the vendors. SuSE does include xmms and vorbis-tools, but won't distribute LAME on CD.
So nothing has changed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as Roblimo said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... except that vendors can use Ogg Vorbis as a lever to negotiate cheaper royalties from Thompson/Fraunhofer.
encoders have ALWAYS required a liscense if distributed in binary form. That's why the lame site doesn't host binaries. It links a few sites in countries that don't recognize software patents that offer binaries for download.
The site also mentions that you are responsible for obtaining a liscense if you want to compile the source and use it. Other encoder site mention the same restrictions.
That is why distributions don't include lame or any other MP3 encoder.
As to decoders, it remains top be seen.
It is possible that the liscense prevents distributors and others form selling CDs with "free" decoders. They could offer the decoders as a free download, but not put it on the CDs that are sold.
The liscense needs to be clarified. It should explicitly state that free decoders are granted a royality free liscense and that they can be redistributed in a comercial collection of free and non-free software. Special mention of the GPL might be nice too, something like "A royalty free liscense is granted to software decoders released under free liscenses such as GPL, BSD, and Apache" would help clear up the issues too.
The site also mentions that you are responsible for obtaining a liscense if you want to compile the source and use it. Other encoder site mention the same restrictions.
That is why distributions don't include lame or any other MP3 encoder.
As to decoders, it remains top be seen.
It is possible that the liscense prevents distributors and others form selling CDs with "free" decoders. They could offer the decoders as a free download, but not put it on the CDs that are sold.
The liscense needs to be clarified. It should explicitly state that free decoders are granted a royality free liscense and that they can be redistributed in a comercial collection of free and non-free software. Special mention of the GPL might be nice too, something like "A royalty free liscense is granted to software decoders released under free liscenses such as GPL, BSD, and Apache" would help clear up the issues too.
except sellers of cd's that contain mp3 player code -- such as red hat's boxes, or suse's boxes, or books with debian distro's, are violating thompson's policy.
Why are they? They only charge a distribution fee and for the support, so they are not SELLING their distro's only distibuting it, as allowed by section 1 of the GPL.
I'm not sure if this means that it is GPL compatible, the no royalty part was only an example, it seems to me that for this to be GPL compatible you have to have the right to sell a decoder at any price not just zero or some price + the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.75$ or whatever, so if I don't have the freedom to sell an mp3 decoder for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.50$ does this work with the GPL??
BSD and LGPL has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is mainly royalties.
anyway we have ogg so there is no need to panic
BSD and LGPL has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is mainly royalties.
anyway we have ogg so there is no need to panic
It appears as though their website has removed the 'no royalties on freely distributable decoders' clause.
See http://mp3licensing.com;
"Where do I get mp3/mp3PRO software?
Many software companies have a license for mp3 software applications from us (See list of Licensed Companies). Please contact them directly for their mp3/mp3PRO products or visit their web site.
Currently there are discussions with major companies supporting the mp3 format to upgrade to mp3PRO technology. We expect to be able to announce the first products that support mp3PRO technology in the near future. These products will include software players/encoders, as well as hardware players and associated technologies."
Sounds like they are using licensing to get people to stop using mp3 and start using mp3pro.
I wonder if DRM is involved
See http://mp3licensing.com;
"Where do I get mp3/mp3PRO software?
Many software companies have a license for mp3 software applications from us (See list of Licensed Companies). Please contact them directly for their mp3/mp3PRO products or visit their web site.
Currently there are discussions with major companies supporting the mp3 format to upgrade to mp3PRO technology. We expect to be able to announce the first products that support mp3PRO technology in the near future. These products will include software players/encoders, as well as hardware players and associated technologies."
Sounds like they are using licensing to get people to stop using mp3 and start using mp3pro.
I wonder if DRM is involved
But he said Thomson does not do that and never has; that its policy has always been to allow free use of the company's MP3 patents in "freely distributable software" while charging royalties to all commercial software or hardware makers that use Thomson's MP3 technology.
Simply not true for encoding
Simply not true for encoding
QUOTE
" 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
"ENDQUOTE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which is pretty important in this case -- it restricts CD vendors rights to ship to those few backward countries (like the one where I live) that allow software patents. So of course a GPL Encoder may exist despite Thomson's reported reluctance to license the patent -- but the authors (not Thomson) may have the ability to enforce GPL to limit my distributing it.
However I still don't understand why the Policy statement regarding free-of-charge distribution disappeared from the Thomson website. Does that mean that the author of a free decoder needs to apply for an individual license in his name, or does Thomson still issue a general license to free software authors?
" 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
"ENDQUOTE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which is pretty important in this case -- it restricts CD vendors rights to ship to those few backward countries (like the one where I live) that allow software patents. So of course a GPL Encoder may exist despite Thomson's reported reluctance to license the patent -- but the authors (not Thomson) may have the ability to enforce GPL to limit my distributing it.
However I still don't understand why the Policy statement regarding free-of-charge distribution disappeared from the Thomson website. Does that mean that the author of a free decoder needs to apply for an individual license in his name, or does Thomson still issue a general license to free software authors?
I am still not a lawyer, just a music lover<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
the website used to say
"No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users.
"
quoting from
http://web.archive.org/web/20000620125739/mp3lice<nobr>n<wbr></nobr> sing.com/royalty/swdec.html
This could be considered a perpetual grant of license to the xmms team and many others.
I suspect that Thomson would be violating MPEG/ISO rules if they won't grant such a licence to a new developer.
They really have some chutzpah to remove that from the website. But now that MP3 has a life of its own, maybe they don't need MPEG or ISO to promote their invention any more.
the website used to say
"No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users.
"
quoting from
http://web.archive.org/web/20000620125739/mp3lice<nobr>n<wbr></nobr> sing.com/royalty/swdec.html
This could be considered a perpetual grant of license to the xmms team and many others.
I suspect that Thomson would be violating MPEG/ISO rules if they won't grant such a licence to a new developer.
They really have some chutzpah to remove that from the website. But now that MP3 has a life of its own, maybe they don't need MPEG or ISO to promote their invention any more.
"is expected" is the key phrase. This implies that while none exists now, and they are not currently planning one in the future, it IS possible and they reserve the right.
Re:web.archive.org - I just duplicated what Rob
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2002 02:44 AM
... I just duplicated what Rob said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I did't read his article to notice that he already quoted archive.org.
I hope that in actual fact developers can get free-of-charge licenses for GPL decoders.
I hope that in actual fact developers can get free-of-charge licenses for GPL decoders.
I've got 4 copies of the LAME, and DECSS, and XMMS source on my 4 home boxes, and several backups on cd too, and there are probably thousands of other copies all over the net. AFAIK it's still perfectly legal to distribute source code, so if anybody REALLY can't live without mp3, I'm sure you won't have any trouble getting a copy. I seriously doubt that fraunhoffer will be searching your PC (ala RIAA) to find infringers, but if you're ridiculously legally scrupulous (or morally anal retentive), just use OGG and get over it. Most popular software players already support vorbis. As for hardware players, how long did it take to get hardware mp3 players? Most folks I know still don't have portable mp3 players. It may take a while, but by the time we get there ogg will be an option.
I wonder if KDE could maybe include the source for lame in kdevelop as an example, maybe as a tutorial, for kdevelop. That would solve redhat (et al)'s problems. (IANAL, they'd probably have to include legal disclaimers or such, BFD to the end user).
I already re-ripped my whole cd collection to ogg when 1.0 was released. Nothing to do with IP issues, it (-q6 ogg) sounds better than (192Kcbr) mp3s and gives better compression ratios too.
If fraunhoffer wants to push users from mp3 to mp3pro, I think they are more likely to push users to ogg or (uggggh!) wma. For me mp3pro is not an option, as is wma (which sucks quality-wise anyway).
There is no incentive for anyone to buy mp3pro - ogg vorbis is technically superior, and is free (beer & speech). And wma is free (beer, as far as windoze lusers are concerned). As far as I (and most people I know) mp3 is a deprecated format, headed for extinction. All our future works will be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg. And our past works (16 trak > PCM) will be redone in vorbis.
(Disclaimer : AFAIK, IIRC, IANAL so YMMV and I've had too much (not-so-free) beer so TIWAGOS)
I wonder if KDE could maybe include the source for lame in kdevelop as an example, maybe as a tutorial, for kdevelop. That would solve redhat (et al)'s problems. (IANAL, they'd probably have to include legal disclaimers or such, BFD to the end user).
I already re-ripped my whole cd collection to ogg when 1.0 was released. Nothing to do with IP issues, it (-q6 ogg) sounds better than (192Kcbr) mp3s and gives better compression ratios too.
If fraunhoffer wants to push users from mp3 to mp3pro, I think they are more likely to push users to ogg or (uggggh!) wma. For me mp3pro is not an option, as is wma (which sucks quality-wise anyway).
There is no incentive for anyone to buy mp3pro - ogg vorbis is technically superior, and is free (beer & speech). And wma is free (beer, as far as windoze lusers are concerned). As far as I (and most people I know) mp3 is a deprecated format, headed for extinction. All our future works will be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg. And our past works (16 trak > PCM) will be redone in vorbis.
(Disclaimer : AFAIK, IIRC, IANAL so YMMV and I've had too much (not-so-free) beer so TIWAGOS)
hmmm...i wonder why some people could such
fanatic assholes..just because you're using
Linux you conclude your one of the elite eh?.
"winduz luzers" you say?..okay so you're one
of the elite..but a stupid at that...sheeeshh..
Linux sucks!!!...i'd say it's just as buggy as
Windows..if not more...and it looks terrible too!
eewwww!...and you elites claim that you have the
best operating system in the world...hahahah..
i'd say you're disillusioned...
fanatic assholes..just because you're using
Linux you conclude your one of the elite eh?.
"winduz luzers" you say?..okay so you're one
of the elite..but a stupid at that...sheeeshh..
Linux sucks!!!...i'd say it's just as buggy as
Windows..if not more...and it looks terrible too!
eewwww!...and you elites claim that you have the
best operating system in the world...hahahah..
i'd say you're disillusioned...
I'd say you're bored - and I'd be right!
sounds to me like you need to learn how to type and that maybe you need to actually look at Linux before making a post like that.
Let me see. I assume you do know what site you're on, right? Posted as Anonymous. Paid no attention to grammar and spelling. Made an apples to oranges comparison by comparing a kernel to the all the things that make up Windows, and didn't even support that. I know! It's a troll, and an ugly one at that. Thank you. Yes, just call me Sherlock. If I want to read trolls I can always go over to ZDNet and read Mike Cox posts; at least they're funny.
This is quite true.
It's really, truly stupid for thompson to do this. The cat has been let out of the bag. The free decoders and encoders are in distribution. Let them eat bandwidth, I say.
It's really, truly stupid for thompson to do this. The cat has been let out of the bag. The free decoders and encoders are in distribution. Let them eat bandwidth, I say.
People should be using open formats such as Ogg Vorbis rather than MP3. Graphics formats, document formats, media formats, we should all scrap any proprietary or royalty based formats and go with 100% free formats.
Is there any application out there that rips a cd, encodes the result to ogg vorbis, and automatically fills out the tag information (using CDDB). Grip does this for mp3. I would like to switch to ogg vorbis, but editing tag information is tedious.
Yupp!
Grip @ sourceforge.net/projects/grip
Grip @ sourceforge.net/projects/grip
Why don't you set Grip to encode as ogg instead of mp3?
I did. Ripping and encoding went fine, but tagging didn't succeed. When playing the ogg file, XMMS showed the file name but not the tags.
I think that Grip only handles ID3 tags and ogg vorbis uses some other kind of tagging mechanism.
I think that Grip only handles ID3 tags and ogg vorbis uses some other kind of tagging mechanism.
Try CDEX
just google for it, its a great program does mp3/ogg and numberous other formats and supports the tagging of vorbis perfectly and from gracenot/cddb/freedb
just google for it, its a great program does mp3/ogg and numberous other formats and supports the tagging of vorbis perfectly and from gracenot/cddb/freedb
Konqueror (the KDE file manager/browser) will do this. It pretends to make a 'virtual' directory on the CD containing all the tracks as oggs, with all the cddb info.
When you try and copy the files off the CD, it actually does the encoding.
Make sure it is using an up-to-date version of libogg though.
When you try and copy the files off the CD, it actually does the encoding.
Make sure it is using an up-to-date version of libogg though.
My version of grip works v3.0.1 with libogg v1.0. I think I remember something about older versions of libogg not supporting tags but I could be wrong.
CDEX, from sourceforge. Will get track information from cddb, encode as ogg (or about 10 other formats), and is small to boot.
Grip works fine, the stock ogg encoder parameters suck though.
I would recommend replacing the default oggenc "MP3 command-line" with:
-o %m -a %a -l %d -t %n -N %t -G %G -d %y -q 4 %w
Replace the -q 4 with whatever quality value you want to use
I would recommend replacing the default oggenc "MP3 command-line" with:
-o %m -a %a -l %d -t %n -N %t -G %G -d %y -q 4 %w
Replace the -q 4 with whatever quality value you want to use
The following message in the Cooker mailing list actually puts to rest much of the questions and shows that this has all been just a knee jerk reaction.
http://www.mail-archive.com/cooker@linux-mandrake<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> com/msg72930.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/cooker@linux-mandrake<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> com/msg72930.html
Except it doesn't exist
The correct link is to <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/cooker@linux-mandrake.com/msg72930.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/cooker@linux-mandrake<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> com/msg72930.html</a mail-archive.com>. The original post has an extra space in it.
If they ever decide to sue someone, that press release will be worthless as a defense. The license will be the only thing that counts. It does not matter how many Thomson Multimedia execs or their PR flacks insist that nothing has changed. Their reassurances are worthless unless they are added to the license. But those exact reassurances were just removed from the license. So who are you gonna believe, a press release or the license?
The license changed. That is a fact. That is the only fact that will count if there is a lawsuit.
--Tony
The license changed. That is a fact. That is the only fact that will count if there is a lawsuit.
--Tony
The GPL allows both gratis and for-charge distribution. The MP3 license only allows free-of-charge, which is not the same as Free in the terms of the GPL.
Since MP3 players such as XMMS, FreeAMP, etc cannot be "sold" without royalty they are not compatable with the MP3 licensing, never have been. The notion that they did was an urban legend. Thanks go out to the Slashdot poster for bringing this topic back to life. The free software community is, and always has been, in violation of copyright infringement everytime they distribute XMMS/etc on any medium, gratis or not, anywhere the MP3 patents are valid.
Since MP3 players such as XMMS, FreeAMP, etc cannot be "sold" without royalty they are not compatable with the MP3 licensing, never have been. The notion that they did was an urban legend. Thanks go out to the Slashdot poster for bringing this topic back to life. The free software community is, and always has been, in violation of copyright infringement everytime they distribute XMMS/etc on any medium, gratis or not, anywhere the MP3 patents are valid.
I don't see any problem with Thompson's Licensing plan at all. Isn't it more or less what GPL tries to do. Software is available free, but the minute you try to sell software with Thompson's input, i.e., the encoder/decoder, you pay. Therefore no one profits from Thompson's technology unfairly
i had the same interpretation, that is you can download xmms or winamp for free, and their makers will not be charged. But if ms windows or red hat has a mp3 player packaged they will be charged because they charge for their product. Im pretty sure that red hat have dropped xmms because of this. Doesnt matter to the end user because they can download mp3 players and install them anyway. I can see the format owners point, and i think its fair. They are not after any end user to pay,(well not directly, and even if you did end up paying for it indirectly, its because you didnt get it from a free source - which is why i applaud red hat dropping xmms instead of raising their price - anyway most linux users use ogg vorbis), they want share of any profit made. The only downside is if other op systems keep a mp3 player on their install cd and pass the costs onto you.
The problem comes from companies such as Sony who would be required to pony up $60000 or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.75 cents per player for every walkman unit that included a mp3 decoder chip.
If, at some time in the future, the licensing agreement changes (and it will change) to ask for more cash from companies (or other terms), then the companies are in a sense being held hostage by the patent.
Were I Sony, this state of affairs would be sub-optimal. Sony would never know from week to week what changes to expect of the mp3 license and the more mp3 becomes adopted as the "standard" the more cornered Sony is.
The mp3 patent might even eventually be sold to a competitor such as M$ or a rival company.
If, at some time in the future, the licensing agreement changes (and it will change) to ask for more cash from companies (or other terms), then the companies are in a sense being held hostage by the patent.
Were I Sony, this state of affairs would be sub-optimal. Sony would never know from week to week what changes to expect of the mp3 license and the more mp3 becomes adopted as the "standard" the more cornered Sony is.
The mp3 patent might even eventually be sold to a competitor such as M$ or a rival company.
policy?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2002 01:21 AMJust because it's part of their "policy" doesn't mean they are obligated to hold up to it.
#