how-to block ads
|
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| reply to Bob Jenkins
Re: the Overlooked Problem
said by Bob Jenkins:
you missed my original point on the fact that it is this MP3 licensing "law" that is the problem. I don't agree with (as do many people) the fact that you can patent something such as Thomason did with the MP3 technology.
I got your point in its entirety. It's one I've heard echoed before. But just because people don't like the present patent system doesn't mean they should actively and illegally circumvent it. It's not like I'm telling you to go to hell because you feel that way. However, because you feel that way, you should try to change the laws. I know a bunch of people who feel all software should be free and that since it is technically just 1's and 0's and not a physical product, it is OK to freely copy it. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? I hope it does.
quote:
Your whole argument is based on the fact that this is an absolute..that something like MP3 decoding or encoding is, in fact, a patentable (and thus enforcable) object. Well, this is where the controvery is...I don't have a problem with Fraunhoffer/Thomason licensing their specific implementation of MP3 (which is very good BTW and worth the money), but claiming a blanket license of all MP3 encoding/decoding is where they crossed the line...
Well I'm sorry you find controversy in our (USA's) current system of copyright protection and patents. But again, it comes down to "Well I don't like it, so I'll just pretend it didn't exist." My friendly advice to you is to make sure that when the patent-holders of the technologies you're stepping on come to collect their dues, you better be darned sure you're in the right and have all your bases covered. But who knows? Maybe if you keep a low profile, they won't notice. Isn't that what the gamble is?
quote:
I don't trust our Patent system in the least, expecialy when it comes to computer-based algorithms.
Then change our patent and copyright system to one that better suits your needs. If you can come up with a sure-fire solution to everything you see as vague, then you'll be the envy of all the people whose job it is to figure this one out. | |
Anon | said by dfountain:
Then change our patent and copyright system to one that better suits your needs. If you can come up with a sure-fire solution to everything you see as vague, then you'll be the envy of all the people whose job it is to figure this one out.
So if I may translate? Yes I may.
What fountain is saying is that you should quit your job and devote your entire pool of time and resources to getting some tiny change in this law...because at a minimum you'll need to give it that much since you'll be fighting against some of the most active, belligerent and well-funded lobbyists in the country.
And after all, when the day is over and all the pockets have been picked, he and the people he sides with are really in it for the money and couldn't give a rats asthma about right and wrong. It's obvious from the many direct references to the 'law' that he isn't even clear on what's right.
It's funny how people who support the gubmint's general corruption always and I mean without fail tell you that if you don't like it then do something to change the laws. They say that smugly though because they know that you are not funded. You are not politico-economically viable. They know with the surety of a scientologist (which is not a religion) that they are right because they're on the side that has the biggest gun.
Fortunately there are enough liberated minds in the world that this kind of crap is getting harder and harder to shove down the throats of people who don't want it. This means that there are people who do things for higher reasons than the profit gobble that fountain spews.
Uh hehehehe I said fountain spews. HAHAHAHA sorry.
SO like I said, suck on the law all you want, the fact remains that there are way too many people smarter than us who know how to encode, decode, emulate, decypher, digitize, collimate, chop, crop, slice, dice and peel. And they won't do it for money and kids like you will never stop them and if you ever did stop them, you'd only be stopping yourself because those are the people who keep technology vibrant.
The RIAA seems to be a lot like the tobacco industry.
A bunch of pimps. They hire high-priced lawyers who know how to confuse and challenge even the smartest and most well-meaning judges, (buying off the ones they can't confuse) and all for a service that they don't even deliver.
Let's face it man, the only thing the RIAA is good at is keeping CD's expensive. The truth is that if you sell 100 of something it should be one price, but if you sell a million of them it should be a much lower price.
That being the case, a CD should cost about $5. Especially since even the best artists seem to put out albums (ack I'm old) with only 2 or 3 good songs out of 12. Metallica comes to mind. When they're good they're great (that was 10 years ago) and when they're bad they'll put you right to sleep. $40 for a boxed set? *scoff!* *CHORTLE!*
Yeah so their cover of turn the page was better than the original, most of the album stunk.
How about the RIAA actually WORK for their money and do a little quality control.
"No, Yanni...this song sounds like the other 8 songs you've recorded this week. Let's change the tempo or something"
"Hmmm... you know Madonna baby, I think the novelty of you being a whore-like saint (or is it saint-like whore?) has worn out...how about you start making good music again..hmmm?"
Most of the crap on the radio isn't even worth downloading from napster let alone buying on CD. Maybe the RIAA should start wondering about what they're going to do after their chapter 11 filing. I don't think RJRTC is going to welcome them into the fray. | |
Anon
|  reply to statemachine
More Re: The Overlooked Problem
Well dfountain you raised some good points about MPEG Layer-3 licensing. So today I fired off an email to Thomson Multimedia. They are the worldwide licensing agents for the MP3 patents held by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft IIS-A. It turns out the information online at »mp3licensing.com is current. Basically they charge relatively little or nothing for MP3 decoders, but claim royalties on all MP3 encoders (even if you do develop your own encoder):
- Free decoders/players: "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."
- Decoders/players you sell, where you write the decoder: $0.50 per unit, or a one time $50,000 fee.
- Decoders/players you sell using Fraunhofer's code: One-time fee of $60,000 (object) or $100,000 (source).
- Limited software encoders (max. 56K bitrate): A one-time payment of $100,000 if you write the code, or $200,000 for Fraunhofer's. Free redistribution rights.
- Full quality software encoders, where you write code or license from a 3rd party: $2.50 per unit.
- Full quality software encoders using Fraunhofer's object code: $5.00 per unit (source code not available).
- Hardware encoders: $2.50 per unit.
- Paid downloads, music-on-demand: 1.0% of revenue, subject to a minimum $0.01 per download.
- Broadcasting / streaming: "We do not charge royalties for MP3 streaming or MP3 broadcasting (e.g. Internet Radio) until the end of the year 2000. Beyond this date we anticipate to charge a small annual minimum and a percentage of revenue. However, this model is not yet fully developed because we cannot yet oversee where this new market is going."
So based on Thomson / Fraunhofer's current business practices, it would appear that the StreamRipper and StreamRipper32 *applications* per se are compliant with MP3 licensing. As long as they don't use Fraunhofer's code, and are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for the personal use of end-users, which they are. Otherwise the developer Jon Clegg would have to fork over cash if he decided to start charging money.
But the *use* of Streamripper is more problematical, since it turns a digital broadcast into a download. There is already a precedent case here, see »www.realnetworks.com/company/pre···ion.html for RealNetworks vs. StreamBox. StreamBox independently developed a stream recorder and ripper for RealAudio / RealVideo formats. RealNetworks gained an injunction based on StreamBox violating their proprietary rights AND the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that prohibits distributing stream recorders. I think the same arguments could apply against any StreamRipper object code distributions.
Now the interesting part is where Jon says StreamRipper is open source. As opposed to object code, source code has typically been Free Speech protected. But the backers of DMCA are trying to claim higher privileges, so I don't know how long that will last. I mean, you are certainly free to joke about having a bomb in you luggage on a plane, and if you do you will certainly be arrested at the next stop.
Now is it proper for Live365 to yank Roger's Classical because of the station manager's son's involvement with StreamRipper? Does an ISP have to spy on private messages and file transfers to make sure no copyrighted material is going back and forth? Or on the other hand, are the record labels forced to sit idly by while the cracks for DVD encoding and digital watermarking are published freely in the press?? Some of the issues out on the table now. Something like one of these will wind up in the US Supreme Court I think.
But, I digress... | |
IFT
@mc.vi
| reply to statemachine
Re: the Overlooked Problem
Supose for a moment that tomorow there's a new law that says it's ok to beat old ladies with a baseball bat (Don't ask me why I came up with this...I just don't know). So since it's the LAW and you take pride in siding with the law...it's ok with you do that? You're just gonna let it happen because someone said it is?
Siding blindly with the law can be just as bad. Never let go of your freedom to think for yourself. | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| reply to Anon
Re: More Re: The Overlooked Problem
Entranced,
Thank you for the informed and thought out commentary. I didn't know that tidbit about "free" distribution until now. Though the rest of what I knew seems to have held true.
You get a thumbs-up from me because unlike some others on this thread, you used your brain. Kudos to you! Maybe we'll get somewhere after all. | |
Anon
| reply to Anon
Re: the Overlooked Problem
[QUOTE=Captain DSLAM
They say that smugly though because they know that you are not funded. You are not politico-economically viable. They know with the surety of a scientologist (which is not a religion) that they are right because they're on the side that has the biggest gun.
[/QUOTE]
Which side again, mate?
[text was edited by author 2001-05-11 05:55:42] | |
pUmkInhEd
@telusplanet.net
| reply to IFT
Wow, you guys really beat this topic to death. I'd just like to add something, if I make a program to convert microsoft outlooks databases into say eudora's databases, does that mean that I am breaking two different copywrites just because I have discovered their 'tricks'? | |
|
