Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing (Read 10513 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

I just wanted to get some clarification as I plan to encode MP4s (LC AAC) and put them on the Net for download and/or streaming. I have carefully reviewed both the MP3LICENSING.COM site and the Dolby MPEG 4 Audio Licensing site and wanted to make sure of my findings:

"There are no royalties or usage fees for content distribution in AAC format, either in electronic form or in packaged media."

Does this statement from Dolby mean that anyone can freely make and distribute AAC audio files (even in a MP4 container) without paying any type of royalties to distribute the audio files (like what is required for both MP3 and MP3PRO files)? I understand that encoder/decoder makers must pay patent licenses, but it appears end users or distributers of content in AAC format don't have to pay additional royalties to anyone to use the AAC/MPEG 4 Audio format.

If so, why would anyone use MP3 anymore (due to the royalties issue to provide or stream those files). This should be the BIG factor is motivating people (and companies) to switch from MP3 to MP4/AAC audio formats. Not to mention the improvement is audio quality by using the new MPEG 4 audio LC AAC standard.

Does the same apply to HE AAC MPEG 4 audio (as far as no licensing fees to be paid to streams or distributer of content in HE AAC format)?

Thanks for yout time and answers to this often misunderstood topic of royalties and licensing... Once this is cleared up I will feel more comfortably encoding in the MPEG 4 Audio format and dropping MP3/MP3PRO formats.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #1 –
Quote
Does this statement from Dolby mean that anyone can freely make and distribute AAC audio files (even in a MP4 container) without paying any type of royalties to distribute the audio files (like what is required for both MP3 and MP3PRO files)? I understand that encoder/decoder makers must pay patent licenses, but it appears end users or distributers of content in AAC format don't have to pay additional royalties to anyone to use the AAC/MPEG 4 Audio format.


Yes you are right - there are no limitations on content distribution - i.e. there are no per-use licnese fees (streaming, selling tracks, using AAC in games, etc...)   

There might be some limitations on >some< commercial encoders, i.e. some of them do not allow selling content (they are licensed for personal use only with EULA) but you have to check with encoder vendors to see do you have right for commercial broadcast of content encoded with end-user encoder.  Usually EULA has  a paragraph that deals with that but I think most of the encoders are clear.

Quote
Does the same apply to HE AAC MPEG 4 audio (as far as no licensing fees to be paid to streams or distributer of content in HE AAC format)?


I am not 100% sure, but I think that is the case,  but I will have to doublecheck.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #2 –
Thanks Ivan for the quick response.

Well that being the case, why hasn't their been a concerted marketing effort by MPEG 4 Audio folks (including Apple, Nero, etc.) to tell people (and the Media) about this licensing issue.

When people and companies are looking at audio codecs to decide on which one to use/standardize on:

1. Audio Quality is a key factor, but look how many people are still using plain old vanilla MP3, including some non-optomized encoder settings.

2. Price (including the audio format royalty licensing fees due) of distributing audio content to others is important for sites such as Live365.com, streaming Internet radio stations, music artists/bands, game makers, music publishers, etc.

If we could get the word out to the masses that distributing their content in MP3 or MP3PRO audio formats costs money in mandatory licensing fees to be paid (refer them to www.mp3licensing.com), then maybe the dollar will do the talking and convince them to go with the "free" and better sounding quality audio format (i.e. the one that has no licensing fees for end users/distributers of content) which is the MPEG 4 audio format (LC AAC) and possibly HE AAC (if there turns out to be no end user royalty fees required for that format as well).

This would sort of be like the PNG vs. GIF movement (i.e. "burn all GIFs") that was sparked after Unisys started charging fees to people who encoding their graphic files in the .GIF format. GIF was an entrenched standard (still is) but PNG has made quite a bit of headway and is now an ISO standard and is supported by all of the major software titles.

In a similar way, MP4 audio should be touted as the "royalty free" (for end users and distributers of audio content) alternative to MP3 and MP3PRO. People hate supporting the big corporations with licensing fees, and the "MP3 Revolt" against paying licensing fees should be no exception. For we pay these fees indirectly as they are including in the price of the content we listen to or buy (take Live365.com which must pass the cost of their MP3 and MP3PRO streaming royalty and patent fees to us as an example).

Let's start a "Boston Tea Party" here and encourage replacing MP3 and MP3PRO formats with MP4 Audio. Remember the "Disco Sucks" mantra of the late 70s and what effect that had for Disco... Well now we should start a "MP3 Sucks" or "Burn all MP3s"  campaign aimed at ending the payment of MP3 and MP3PRO licensing fees to the big corporate money hungry entities.

We will all win. And MP4 Audio will be the "king of the hill". Think of it in relation as to what "open source" and "Linux" did to revolutionize the software industry. Well, MP4 Audio has the opportunity to revolution the music & audio industry and be the clear winner. Your comments?

P.S. Also companies that support standards such as MPEG 4 Audio like Nero and Apple will stand to benefit financially from people wanting to buy their software (and possibly hardware based) MP4 audio solutions including encoders/decoders.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #3 –
I bet that most users will understand "Burn all MP3s" incorrectly (and after burning they'll rip those cds to aac files and nobody wants that  ).

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #4 –
All this being said, Sony Betamax and the Macintosh computer were "better."

Sometimes better does not decide what wins.

I still cannot find a car CD/MP4/AAC player. I would have bought a player from Pioneer/Alpine/Kenwood if one was offered.

To date, I have not seen a tagging standard for MP4/AAC. I may not have all the information, but based on what I know, I am annoyed that all MP4 devs did not go with the APEV2 spec. It seems to have the respect of technical types and to (gasp) simply work.

MP3 is alive and well because I can get a multitude of players, both hardware and software. It is a little like the VHS/BETA situation years ago. I appreciate all the hard work of the L.A.M.E. people and folks like Dibrom. They have improved a product (MP3) which is flawed by it's initial design through no fault of their own. I would love to use MPC/Musepack exclusively, however, I have to live in the real world. Try to find an MPC portable or car deck. Alas, we need a zealot.

So, I guess to sum it up:

  Make a codec free of gross flaws, preferably I get to pick Quality VS Size
  Settle on a good tagging format that all will use
  Sell me a player
  Don't charge me a fortune in fees or royalties

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #5 –
Quote
I bet that most users will understand "Burn all MP3s" incorrectly (and after burning they'll rip those cds to aac files and nobody wants that  ).

LOL

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #6 –
I didn't recognize the gaff in my initial post about "burn all MP3s" as I don't burn MP3s to CDs, but I see your point.

Now if only Nero would release a simple free standalone encoder app (say that encoded 128k MP4s only, like Apple iTunes already does) so that it will be free to distribute and use. It can have an ad inside to order the full Nero MP4 Audio encoder app (if a standalone full Audio encoder app is ever released by Nero) and/or an ad to order the Nero 6 Suite. This way many more people can get to experience encoding true .MP4 files (as opposed to them being able to encode AAC only audio files free with Winamp 5). It will set the bar for the MP4 audio standard and make Nero products (i.e. Nero Digital, Nero 6) synonymous with quality MP4 audio encoding to the many people not already familiar with the quality of Nero's MP4 audio products.

Then people wanting more flexibility (advanced bitrate encoding, other bitrate/sampling rate support, HE AAC support for low bitrates, etc.) can order the full Nero Digital Audio app or Nero 6, Nero Digtial Software, etc. A sort of try before you buy (but without any limits on number of encodes, just a limit to 128k encoding in the free version).

This should get MP4 audio saturated all over the planet, and once many people begin encoding to MP4 audio, the majority of the players (Winamp, Musicmatch, etc) will be inundated with requests to support MP4 audio natively in their programs (without the need for external plugins being found/downloaded). Once people try and hear the difference for themselves of 128k bit AAC inside MP4 files over 128kbps MP3 files they will likely switch.

You are right that we need to have MP4 car decks, MP4 portable players, CD players that support MP4 audio, etc. This will ONLY come once there are lots and lots of encoded MP4 files floating around out there in common use by masses of people. Give them a free 128kbps standalone MP4 encoder (sort of like what CodingTechnologies does with its free MP3PRO encoder app which is limited at 64k encoding only for MP3PRO).

After all, if it hadn't been for mp3enc and other Fraunhofer derived encoder front ends and apps, MP3 files wouldn't be as common and popular today. We need a "quick and dirty" free app that encodes MP4 audio files at a reasonable bitrate (128kbps seems to be a good number) so that the mass of MP4 audio files in use will set a standard that both software and hardware manufacturers can't ignore (for long)...

Top that off with the free MP4 licensing issue for distributing MP4 audio files  verses the paid licensing required for people commercially distributing/using files in the MP3 and MP3PRO formats and MP4 Audio is a TRUE WINNER.

Audiophiles like the high quality that higher bitrate AAC/MP4 audio files can achieve, while novices and end-users will likely prefer the simplicity of using an easy MP4 encoding app (if we can get a good, free, easy to use encoding app released). Hardware manufacturers should like the fact that MPEG 4 Audio is an internationally approved ISO standard for compatibility among a variety of players.

We potentially have an audio standard in MPEG 4 audio that will be around for quite some time and will hopefully be natively supported (soon) by many audio apps. Will 2004 be the year of MP4 audio? Time will tell.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #7 –
Quote
To date, I have not seen a tagging standard for MP4/AAC. I may not have all the information, but based on what I know, I am annoyed that all MP4 devs did not go with the APEV2 spec. It seems to have the respect of technical types and to (gasp) simply work.

IIRC, MP4 has a well-defined tagging standard.

Remember folks, MP4 is a container, like Ogg. AAC, like Vorbis, is the name of the audio codec.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #8 –
Quote
Remember folks, MP4 is a container, like Ogg. AAC, like Vorbis, is the name of the audio codec.

MPEG 4 (mp4) isn't just container. It's a complete standard including audio codecs, video codecs and systems part which allows one even to create Power Point like presentations.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #9 –
MP4 is just the container format defined in the mpeg-4 standard

mp4 != mpeg-4 (its a part of mpeg-4)

and mp4 also lacks a nice standard for subtitles and chapters
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #10 –
Quote
and mp4 also lacks a nice standard for subtitles and chapters

Hard-coded scene? (Was that the correct term?)

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #11 –
Quote
and mp4 also lacks a nice standard for subtitles and chapters

But can be added later without breaking compatibility with existing MP4 readers. Unlike bloody MP3 tagging exploiting "decoder-skipping-garbage logic".
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #12 –
Quote
I have carefully reviewed both the MP3LICENSING.COM site and the Dolby MPEG 4 Audio Licensing site and wanted to make sure of my findings:


Woah i never knew there was a fee for an MP3 decoder.  How does that work with software like foobar that can decode MP3 audio?

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #13 –
Quote
novices and end-users will likely prefer the simplicity of using an easy MP4 encoding app (if we can get a good, free, easy to use encoding app released).

You could argue that this already exists in iTunes.  The success of iPods and the iTunes music store may note a shift in the AAC direction...

- Matt

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #14 –
Yes there is iTunes software which encodes 128kbps M4A files, but it requires Quicktime 6.5 to be installed and is not just an encoder, but a music jukebox app. which is quite large to download. Then there is Winamp 5.0 that encodes straight AAC files. We really need an easy to use free app from Nero so people can make .MP4 files at 128kbps using their excellent encoding codec. This would really make things interesting and help get people to standardize on using the .MP4 audio format. Also it would be a big plus for Nero as it would get their name out there to more people and hopefully get people to upgrade to their other products and also encourage other vendors to license their MP4 audio codec/programs.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #15 –
Quote
Woah i never knew there was a fee for an MP3 decoder.  How does that work with software like foobar that can decode MP3 audio?

Freeware decoders are exempt of paying the license fees.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #16 –
Quote
Freeware decoders are exempt of paying the license fees.

For real? 

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #17 –
Quote
Quote
Woah i never knew there was a fee for an MP3 decoder.  How does that work with software like foobar that can decode MP3 audio?

Freeware decoders are exempt of paying the license fees.

What about AAC decoders?

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #18 –
Quote
For real? 

Well, there was a small note saying it at MP3licensing (that suspiciously disappeared last time they changed the site design)

Anyway, I never heard of them mailing freeware developers with cease and desist letters. There has been some riots in the linux world (distros stopped distributing MP3 decoders) when they removed that note (including a very lame public letter from the former Xiph CEO), but to the best of my knowledge it's unfounded, like most of Open Source paranoias.

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #19 –
Quote
What about AAC decoders?

Nope. Freeware AAC decoders must pay licensing fees.

That was a way they found of pleasing the patent holders when they decided streaming and transmission would generate no licensing revenue.
 

MP4 Licensing vs. MP3 Licensing

Reply #20 –
SUN had to remove MP3 decoding from JRE, the Java Runtime Enironment, or more specifically from JMF, the Java Media Framework, wich was freeware also ....