![Music Music](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/music_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Patents Patents](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/patents_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Linux Linux](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linux_64.png)
Real Pays For Legal MP3 Playback On Linux 618
kforeman (aka Kevin Foreman, GM of Helix RealNetworks, Inc.) writes "As part of the free RealPlayer 10 for Linux, Real has paid Thomson for a legal MP3 playback license and then includes it at no cost as part of the newly released RealPlayer 10. As I speak to people, many are under the false impression that MP3 playback patent and royalty rights are free, since there are open source implementations of MP3 playback available. Not true. Nonetheless, we are glad to do our part of making the Linux desktop a first class citizen by legally providing MP3 playback to users via our new RealPlayer."
Spyware on Linux (Score:4, Funny)
I notice the page signature reads "Shit Happens"
hmm...
Re:buffered stuff.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:buffered stuff.. (Score:5, Informative)
Only if you are in the USA and are encoding/decoding MP3s for certain commercial purposes (as Thomson explicitly let you do it for personal use) does this patent apply to you.
Even then, you are highly unlikely to be sued by Thomson and can claim ignorance of their stupid (and possibly invalid) patent claims.
Re:buffered stuff.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, their site [mp3licensing.com] says that end users don't need a license, but does using an unlicensed decoder expose you as well? Or is there also an exemption for people who develop decoders for their own personal use?
For someone who doesn't want to participate in patent civil disobedience, isn't it just as unethical to use an unlicensed decoder
Re:buffered stuff.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:buffered stuff.. (Score:4, Informative)
I suppose it appeals to those who cut their teeth on Winamp, and so are used to its ideosyncracies. However, some of the rest of us would like something that is less flashy and more functional.
Re:buffered stuff.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does a word processing program have a picture of a typewriter that you have to click on in order to type characters? So why the fuck does an MP3 player have to look like a stereo deck?
Re:buffered stuff.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Computers don't have an image of a typewriter, but they DO have a keyboard, which is designed in the same manner as a typewriter, slow key placement and all...
There is a lot to be said for designing things based on user expectations of utility. Having buttons that reflect buttons that users have experienced on previous audio equipment is not a dumb idea at all.
Certainly you can improve upon and modify the interface to reflect it's new environment (the Ipod for portable mp3 players, for example), but use
Re:buffered stuff.. (Score:4, Informative)
Strange... (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't that last bit read "corporate whore?"
Well damn (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well damn (Score:2)
Moll.
no surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:no surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no surprise (Score:2)
Re:no surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this patent is not really a valid patent as it is not on an invention (and didn't take time and effort and there's probably prior art and it would likely not have been kept a trade secret).
Re:no surprise (Score:2, Interesting)
Yup, with you so far.
> Of course, this patent is not really a valid patent as it is not on an invention
Well, that's a point of contention. Obviously the Patent Office thought it was, and there's certainly plent
Re:no surprise (Score:2)
Someone could invent this from their armchair and it is just a mathematical formula.
Re:no surprise (Score:3, Informative)
Someone could invent this from their armchair and it is just a mathematical formula.
You do not patent a physical item, you patent the devices for creating the physical item. Do you think you ship a new washing machine down to
Re:no surprise (Score:4, Funny)
Discover? Do you think that's easy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do you think that (non trivial) algorithms are any different to inventing any other system? A lot of patented devices would have been produced by trial and error until a working one
Re:no surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm very choosy about which laws I break.
Re:no surprise (Score:2)
Re:no surprise (Score:2)
Thomson might be able to sue MP3 encoders/decoders but they certainly couldn't be prosecuted for theft.
However, I agree that you should try and get laws changed before breaking them (and only break them after informing interested parties (e.g.: Thomson) that you have broken them).
Re:no surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, because they weren't enforcing their IP rights, people figured they were up for grabs. Otherwise, nobody would have used mp3 at all. It's not like its the only encoding technique of its kind; every step in mp3 was actually invented by someone else, and each step is freely available.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but if you give away an intellectual property right, isn't taking it back legally questionable?
Re:no surprise (Score:4, Informative)
That's not specific to mp3 at all, that's more like a patent on constant bit rate encoding (if you use an entropic encoder inside the loop). The mp3 patent holders initially couldn't even believe themselves [com.com] that ogg did not infringe on any of their (broad) patents.
Re:no surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they didn't have to publish it. But what if someone else discovered the algorithm independently? The ugly {well, ugly for fatcat corporations; for mathematicians and scientists, it's really quite beautiful} fact is, MP3 encoding and decoding are nothing more than mathematical processes and as such should fall squarely outside the scope of patentability in any count
Distributions? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if Real are positioning themselves to get their client distributed with distributions. We might finally see Fedora (et al) with an mp3 player.
I wonder what the license says about redistributing the client? Would Fedora et al be able to distribute it?
In the meantime, I'll stick to Gentoo since they are happy to provide source code for all sorts of mp3 players.
Re:Distributions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Distributions? (Score:3, Informative)
What if Real contributed this to our community? (Score:3, Interesting)
As it is, I don't see how this story is any more interesting than running Windows Media Player or WinAMP via WINE on an i386-based GNU/Linux system.
Re:Distributions? (Score:2)
Ok, people fall into at least 1 of 2 camps.
1. Zealot: use Free software no matter how painful.
2. "Normal": use whatever software does the best job, is easiest to use, etc.
Now, I have no problem with (1), as long as they realize that (2) will use Free software if it does the best job. This is just how it should be (obviously, I'm in the (2) crowd).
See, that's true freedom: the ability to thoughtfully choose the application t
Re:Distributions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunatly, most of the general public has no use for these freedoms, since they're not software developers.
Software like realplayer can legally be distributed for free because Real, Inc. has done the legal footwork to license other codecs. This makes Helix player "the best choice" by default since no open source alternative can legally exist. (thanks to patents and what not)
Re:Distributions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, people fall into at least 1 of 2 camps.
1. Zealot: use Free software no matter how painful.
2. "Normal": use whatever software does the best job, is easiest to use, etc.
No, #2 should be called "geek". The real definition of "normal" is:
3. "Normal": Use whatever came with the computer they bought because it was heavily advertised and "everyone uses it". If they can't find software to do the job, they copy some app from a buddy's machine, or as a last resort laboriously download something from whatever web site their browser directed them to.
A major part of the problem with the "market" arguments is that for most people, there really is no market for software. That is, people don't decide in any meaningful sense what software to use, and they don't make informed choices among competing apps (or OSs). They are totally baffled by the supposed "market", and mostly just use whatever someone offers them.
In the computing field, doing comparison shopping immediately qualifies one for the "geek" label.
Re:Distributions? (Score:2, Informative)
Helix DNA Technology Binary Research Use License
REDISTRIBUTION NOT PERMITTED
Rad Complete license [helixcommunity.org].
Re:Distributions? (Score:2)
Re:Distributions? (Score:2)
Of course; a special exception for Debain would be no use to the Debian project.
Re:Distributions? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes [realnetworks.com], we [realnetworks.com] are [realnetworks.com].
Rob Lanphier
Development Support Manager
RealNetworks
Stay away from Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Real (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Real (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Real (Score:2)
Re:Real (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the little toys on my wish list does have Ogg support, but 99% of my music has been ripped in MP3 format. Converting that to Ogg gets me nothing. Reripp
Re:Real (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real (Score:3)
You're right. Waiting will not b
But, but... [lip shaking] (Score:5, Funny)
How many times do I have to license it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh.... (Score:2)
Re:How many times do I have to license it? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How many times do I have to license it? (Score:2)
So is it or isn't it?
Re:How many times do I have to license it? (Score:4, Informative)
Following the great history of GNU naming, LAME originally stood for LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder. LAME started life as a GPL'd patch against the dist10 ISO demonstration source, and thus was incapable of producing an mp3 stream or even being compiled by itself. But in May 2000, the last remnants of the ISO source code were replaced, and now LAME is the source code for a fully LGPL'd MP3 encoder, with speed and quality to rival all commercial competitors.
Re:How many times do I have to license it? (Score:2)
Re:How many times do I have to license it? (Score:3, Informative)
You haven't paid for the licence. You've paid someone else to pay for the licence on your behalf. This is an important distinction, because your vendor probably got a much better deal for mass-producing thousands of copies than you could possibly get for your single licence.
You don't pay to use the MP3 decoding, you pay to have MP3 decoding in your product. Therefore everyone who puts MP3 decoding in their product must pay.
Re:How many times do I have to license it? (Score:3, Informative)
player not free, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:player not free, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
You [debian.org] sir [debian.org] are [debian.org] wrong [debian.org].
Debian includes several MP3 players, but no MP3 *encoders*. To rip to MP3 on Debian, you must download the sources and compile the ripper yourself.
I hope that this makes it into the Helix Player [helixcommunity.org], which has RPMs (convertable to debs via alien).
Don't need a license for personal use anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Also, does anyone know were the patent on decoding is so we can check whether it is valid (in the USA--it is obviously invalid in the free (i.e.: non-US) world)?
And, if you don't want to be sued, use a free and better lossy format (e.g.: Ogg Vorbis for music or Ogg Speex for speech).
Re:Don't need a license for personal use anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
you mean if you do not want to use your portable devices anymore use OGG.
I love ogg, but it is worthless to 90% of us that use mp3.
my car stereo does not support it, my home stereo's high end player does not support it and the 5 different portable players in the house does not support it.
therefore it is not a choice.
Until people pester the hell out of the player makers to support ogg, it will stay a special segment that very few use.
players like the audiotron and other home stero players can support it but the developers are being asses and refuse to add it. many portables certianly have the power to use it and again, the makers are intentionally refusing to use it.
until large numbers of people ask for OGG support and flood the support channels of the player makers it will never be supported.
I suggest that many here pice a few mp3 player makers and get at least 5 friends to mail the support email address asking for ogg support.
Until then, OGG is not the answer to anyone.
Re:Don't need a license for personal use anyway (Score:2)
You could also, use a non-lossy encoding like PCM that is supported by your portable players.
It also helps... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't need a license for personal use anyway (Score:2)
oh well (Score:5, Insightful)
...buffering... (Score:3, Funny)
I've managed to go without using real at all for many years now. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.
Props to them (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet the slashbots will still find a way to make them appear evil. After all, they're competing with apple.
Re:Props to them (Score:2)
Re:Props to them (Score:2)
I'll be the first to admit Real used to be one of the worst companies around, but they really do seem to have improved recently.
Re:Props to them (Score:2)
I honestly don't understand what you mean. What is the "very good thing" they've done?
AFAICT, they're appealing to the very dubious claim that the MP3 patents cover decoding in order to promote their proprietary software. This is the classic FUD tactic: "Using a product competing with ours will cause you legal trouble!"
Re:Props to them (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but there's something to "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." No matter how apparently good Real is acting, I ask "What are they trying to pull now?" Lock-in? Bait and switch? Embrace and extend? I mean if I got to pick my brand of poison among closed source and DRM, the ranking is:
1. Apple, the "benevolent" master. Not really all that angelic as the slashdot crowd say they are, but at least they pretend not to be harsh.
2. Microsoft, menacing and harsh, but at least you know where you got them. One Microsoft way, all the way. The sheer market power makes you their puppet.
3. Real, the sleezy and creepy master. Isn't the menacing type, but you never knows what he'll do next. The kind you should fear with good reason.
Of course, there should be an option "none of the above"....
Kjella
Re:Props to them (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but of all of them only Real is actually trying to improve - Apple just coast along on the basis of their fans ludicrous brand loyalty, Microsoft coast along on the basis of their monopoly and piles of cash, meanwhile Real has been contributing to open source and cleaning up their software, as well as making it portable to Linux. I say, good for them, and I'm certainly willing to give them a second chance.
I actually have to give them credit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I used it all that much what with mplayer and all, but it was nice to think they weren't complete jerks.
Re:Props to them (Score:3, Insightful)
And now they have a linux client. And they paid Thompson for MP3 playback rights on their Linux
GPL point 8... (Score:2)
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.
Re:GPL point 8... (Score:2)
AT LAST!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Doing Linux a Favor? (Score:2, Funny)
Depends on where you are from (Score:4, Informative)
Yours sincerely,
shurdeek
Re:Depends on where you are from (Score:2)
Regardless of all
Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course there are some features missing, for example c
Sorry folks... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sorry folks... (Score:3, Insightful)
open source decoders? (Score:2)
- Andreas
Interview (Score:2)
Playing fair??? (Score:2)
MP3 patent encumbered? (Score:2)
Yo, Apple! (Score:2, Interesting)
Legal MP3 - who cares (Score:2)
Not including some big corporation of course, I'm taking users here.
I bet you can count them on one hand.
http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3-licensing-faq.html (Score:5, Informative)
II.a) Software DECODERS
*****
Q. I wish to distribute a FREE MPEG Layer-3 software decoder on my WEB-site. Do I have to pay royalties?
A. For the FREE distribution of decoders we do not charge a royalty. At the Fraunhofer IIS and OPTICOM web-sites you can find the players we have developed and which may be downloaded for FREE also. Fraunhofer IIS and OPTICOM do not give any technical support for the free players. Emails complaining about bugs in free software will not be answered!
More in general, as long as desktop software decoders are distributed free-of-charge for personal use, no license fee is expected. However, in all cases we expect that MPEG Layer-3 products reference the licensors, like "MPEG Layer-3 audio compression technology licensed by Fraunhofer IIS and THOMSON multimedia".
*****
Q. And what if I sell the software decoder?
A. In this case, the royalty per decoder is US $ 1,00. We just remark that we have not asserted our patents against decoders of which less than 10 000 units have been sold.
Re:http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3-licensing-faq.html (Score:3, Informative)
Try to find any royalty-free arrangement here:
http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html [mp3licensing.com]
I couldn't find any.
What about live streaming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, there is a big difference between a simple MP3 or Ogg Vorbis capable client and an actual stream player. Playing your MP3s and movies off your hard drive is not the end all of streaming...in fact, its not really streaming at all, but rather decoding and/or progressive downloading. How about live streaming from an actual broadcast? For that, you need an actual stream client: Windows Media Player, Real Player, Quick Time, and Flash with its content server.
Besides Real Helix, what other live network stream clients with actual stream servers are there for Linux? Unless we can name a couple of decent live streaming alternatives, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to slam everything Real does?
Re:huh? (Score:3, Informative)
No, mp3 has always been patent encumbered.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Re:MP3 Playback IS Free... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MP3 Playback IS Free... (Score:3, Informative)
Thomson have licensed the MP3 codec universally to software developers providing it's not for profit. Though, strictly speaking, a patent only covers the commercial exploitability of a product or concept, so that kind gesture is a little empty.
Remember that guy who patented the "means of exercising a cat" using a laser pointer? Does that mean you can't tease a cat in your home? No. You can do that all you like. What you can't do is charge money for
Re:Legit (Score:2)
In other words, this is more akin to a deal with the devil.
Not ready yet (Score:2)
It's nice, except that (compared with MP3), few files are found in this format, and few digital music players play it.
Re:Not ready yet (Score:2)
What does a legal MP3 player have to do with OGG?
"You know, the stuff on Kazaa and similar places was not "found", it was copied"
Since when does copying preclude finding? You are also forgetting that most of the programs used to rip your OWN cd's to digitial music files for your OWN usage use MP3.
Re:on Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
In many years of exposure to Real Player under Linux, I've never seen a single ad from it. Apparently, it's been a problem on Windows, but it never has been under Linux. Indeed, Real Player 10 seems to be quite a reasonable product on Linux. No more proprietary GUI, it now just looks like any other application, it loads quickly, and runs well. Looks like the Helix community stuff might actually be paying dividends. Now if
Re:No idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll admit to being a Real skeptic, but