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: FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality (Read 17431 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #25 –
Quote
At this time, it seems there are no patent infringements.
What remains to be seen is whether an opensource developer can withstand a legal battle with paranoid record company backed patent holders. The financial resources of these people can NOT be matched by Vorbis. And in court, this makes a BIG difference.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #26 –
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
How many people have downloaded the FREEWARE Liquid Auido AAC encoder? Doomed, huh?


Freeware as in opensource ISO AAC Freeware (as was implied in the context of the dicussion.. you seemed to miss that unsurprisingly..).

LQT certainly does NOT meet those criteria at all.  It is a secure and encrypted format which is totally useless out of the Liquid Audio environment.  Furthermore LQT is paying licensing fees for using this technology... hardly the same thing as FAAC at all.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #27 –
Quote
Ivan suggested that it is a waste to work on an opensource project if commercial companies can steal the improvements. There is nothing twisted about that.  I didn't ignore them. As I said, if Ivan doesn't want to contribute, fine.


Now you are really becoming ignorant -

As Dibrom said, my message was related to AAC - not opensource projects in general. Imagine you work on something that nobody is allowed to use, patent holders are busting your balls every few weeks with their letters and threats, and somebody else with the license is just stealing your code and making product that everybody could use, but guess how - for a $$$ and without any openess of any kind! JUST BECAUSE HE HAS $10,000 TO SPEND ON A PATENT LICENSE AND HAS A MARKET. And that company is certainly not an opensource fan.

You can ask Menno for my contribution to AAC and helping him in MPEG audio coding in general, I think you will change your opinion if you spend few minutes for asking him. I know that this sounds stupid and too egoistic, but I can't tolerate someone claiming that I don't have interest and I don't want to help FAAC team. Just like Andree helped me in my psychoacoustic knowledge, but he didn't write a single line of code for me or analysed my code for bugs.

Also, there are at least two papers on my site describing efforts and some of technologies begind 'optimized' and 'fast' AAC implementations. You won't find these sort of papers flying around - only most advanced AES papers from FhG contain such data, and they are being sold on commercial basis.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #28 –
Quote
Geez... do you even read what people post before responding to it?  Where did I say Vorbis was superior to AAC?  I said Vorbis was superior to FAAC. Sure, TUNED Vorbis is superior to UNTUNED FAAC. 
Quote
Ivan explained this quite well about 3 times already.  Please refer to his posts for details.
See Dibrom, unlike you I didn't NEED Ivan to tell me that FhG HAS gone after people who hosted mp3 binaries.
Quote
Not nearly as many sites which host LAME, and the sites which host AAC are not prominently linked to from all sorts of places.  Also I can assure you that if these sites have been discovered by Dolby and they are in any country which respects patent laws, they'd be taken down immediately.
And which countries host Lame binaries? If you honestly think FhG is cool with hosting Lame binaries, put yopur money where your mouth is. Host them HERE and see for yourself.
Quote
First you throw a fit when someone asks you to prove your claims.  Then you mysteriously apologize and decide you want to work together, probably thinking it wouldn't make you look so bad.  Then when someone sets up an ftp and it came time to deliver (after you already agreed to), you simply vanished.  No word or anything... and you didn't come back to the site and post for quite awhile after that.  A tad suspicious wouldn't you say?
As I started WASTING my time looking for the samples I had problems with I realized the folly in doing Andree's work for him so he can turn around and charge me for it. It seemed perfectly sensible to me at the time. If that's suspicious to you, fine. Be suspicious. Frankly I couldn't care less what you think about me.
Quote
Oh really?  How bout that Dolby enforced their patent rights and disallowed FAAC to post encoders or decoders in binary format, at all, and actively seeking out and shutting down sites that host them.  You don't consider that action against FAAC?  I certainly do.
Quote
Exactly the SAME way FhG enforces THEIR patent rights. Against BINARIES - NOT source code.
As Ivan already stated (and he knows a hell of a lot more about this than you), Fhg isn't actively seeking out and shutting down sites which host binaries.  An isolated incident or two may have occurred in the past but that is not representative of current behavior.  Dolby is actively enforcing their patents on the other hand.
Ivan clearly knows more about it than you. You were COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the FACT that FhG goes after people who host mp3 binaries. What makes you think Ivan knows more about it than me? You're SO sure of that. Host them and SEE for yourself. But you won't. You're are afraid to put your money where your know-it-all mouth is. You're wrong on this one, and you're just too proud to admit it.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #29 –
Quote
Imagine you work on something that nobody is allowed to use, patent holders are busting your balls every few weeks with their letters and threats, and somebody else with the license is just stealing your code and making product that everybody could use, but guess how - for a $$$ and without any openess of any kind! JUST BECAUSE HE HAS ,000 TO SPEND ON A PATENT LICENSE AND HAS A MARKET. And that company is certainly not an opensource fan.
It's exactly the same for Lame. It's the binaries you can't host, not the source. This is what you haven't explained: How is it ANY different to have a company steal your ideas from Vorbis and Linux verses FAAC?

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #30 –
Small clarification - FhG DID MP3 >E N C O D E R< binary hunting only once! And it was few years ago.

- FhG never hunted free decoders

- FhG never hunted encoder source code

- FhG supported plain-vanilla-unprotected ISO MP3 format
(ISO/IEC 11172-3, available from ISO bookshop)

- FhG's patent agreements are less tight than Dolby's


From what I see now, there are many companies even selling their MP3 encoding products on the biggest websites while they are not listed on 'licensed companies' list at www.mp3licensing.com! Which means that they are selling and making profit without a license - also, I haven't heard for any threat letter from FhG regarding MP3 for a while.

Now, my opinion is that FhG plays double-game here, when they are concerned about MP3 they only want to increase number of products floating around. This is quite good reasoning because:

1. They (FhG) know that they can't stop illegal mp3 binary distribution

2. More illegal binaries means more MP3s which means more legal products  Quite simple - and cost effective. Does anybody wonder why Windows never had copy protection (until XP) while other OSes (like SCO) had?

But, when they are concerned about AAC - they are playing different game, probably to make RIAA & Co happy.

Quote
It's exactly the same for Lame. It's the binaries you can't host, not the source. This is what you haven't explained: How is it ANY different to have a company steal your ideas from Vorbis and Linux verses FAAC?


NO - again, binary policy for LAME is quite different (as I described earlier in this post) than FAAC because of situation. And, Vorbis is  free project which could be used legally in binary form by ordinary users. Same goes to Linux. Also, it would be much easier to use ideas from already finished optimized AAC encoder in some commercial AAC encoder than trying to sell commercial Vorbis implementation.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #31 –
Quote
Dibrom wrote:
A freeware ISO AAC implementation will never be shipped in one easy to use bundle of program. If it is, it will instantly be a prime target for Dolby and shut down faster than you can imagine. 
layer3maniac answered:
You don't even understand the dynamics of the industry. Dolby isn't the one fighting ISO aac implementations. It's the RECORD COMPANIES. The SAME record companies which will urge their partners to go after Vorbis. It cracks me up to have someone SO uninformed accuse me of being uninformed. But hey, Dibrom. You know EVERYTHING. Even when you don't...
LOL LOL.  So you, layer3maniac, are saying that Dolby isn't fighting free ISO aac implementations, like FAAC? This must be the single biggest wrong information so far in the history of this site...

EVER heard of patent fees, license fees??? I'm sure Ivan can inform about these better...

Of course record companies wouldn't want any non-secured lossy digital audio around if it was up to them, but surely Dobly has very large financial interest also.
Juha Laaksonheimo

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #32 –
Quote
- FhG never hunted free decoders
Tell that to Tord.
Quote
- FhG's patent agreements are less tight than Dolby's
Dolby ENFORCES FhG's aac patents for them.
Quote
Now, my opinion is that FhG plays double-game here, when they are concerned about MP3 they only want to increase number of products floating around. This is quite good reasoning because:

1. They (FhG) know that they can't stop illegal mp3 binary distribution

2. More illegal binaries means more MP3s which means more legal products  Quite simple - and cost effective. Does anybody wonder why Windows never had copy protection (until XP) while other OSes (like SCO) had?

But, when they are concerned about AAC - they are playing different game, probably to make RIAA & Co happy.
I agree COMPLETELY. In stifling aac, FhG, Thompson, and Dolby are thier own worst enemies.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #33 –
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
As I started WASTING my time looking for the samples I had problems with I realized the folly in doing Andree's work for him so he can turn around and charge me for it. It seemed perfectly sensible to me at the time. If that's suspicious to you, fine. Be suspicious. Frankly I couldn't care less what you think about me.


Oh please.. that's about the most pathetic excuse one could think of.  "Doing Andree's work for him".. lol.  The fact of the matter is that you fell for the "me too" trap, and you couldn't deliver what you said you could.  You and I both know it.  And you behaved there in the same manner you behaved here, you simply couldn't stand the fact that people questioned what you said.. so you became exceedingly defensive.


Quote
Ivan clearly knows more about it than you.  You were COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the FACT that FhG goes after people who host mp3 binaries. What makes you think Ivan knows more about it than me? You're SO sure of that.


Yes, I willingly admit Ivan knows more about it than me.  He WORKS with Fhg and Dolby, he has been in contact with them, he knows the licensing policies and he has intimate exposure to their technologies.  He knows far more about it than I do, and I also know that he has a much greater knowledge of it than you do as well.  If you think otherwise, that's also pretty ignorant.  When have you ever been involved in any psychoacoustic audio development, let alone AAC?

As for the Fhg stuff,  I've explained it probably about 5 or 6 times now.  I was stating that Fhg is not actively pursuing binaries.  Ivan stated the same thing many times.  I've also stated before that I've stated it, and I'll probably end up stating that again because you can't seem to read these particular parts of the post for some reason.

Quote
Host them and SEE for yourself. But you won't.


Of course I won't.  Hosting LAME is illegal, and even if it is not actively pursued, I'd rather not participate in this aside from any development builds I may have no other option with.  It is simply a matter of it not being something I desire to do on PM.  I have hosted LAME on my home server many times in the past though for your information, and you probably would have known that if you had paid attention to the posts on this forum in the past.

Quote
You're are afraid to put your money where your know-it-all mouth is. You're wrong on this one, and you're just too proud to admit it.


I think you're really getting desperate on this one layer3maniac... lol

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #34 –
Quote
Dolby isn't fighting free ISO aac implementations, like FAAC? EVER heard of patent fees, license fees??? I'm sure Ivan can inform about these better... 
Dolby is protecting their patents just like FhG does. It doesn't MATTER if you pay liscense fees. You STILL CAN'T release an unsecure ISO aac encoder. NOT because of Dolby, because of the RIAA.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #35 –
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Dolby is protecting their patents just like FhG does. It doesn't MATTER if you pay liscense fees. You STILL CAN'T release an unsecure ISO aac encoder. NOT because of Dolby, because of the RIAA.
We have been talking about free ISO AAC. That's why I quoted some of Dibrom's text... "Open source" and "free" have been the issue here all the time in this thread, if you haven't noticed...
Juha Laaksonheimo

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #36 –
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Dolby is protecting their patents just like FhG does. It doesn't MATTER if you pay liscense fees. You STILL CAN'T release an unsecure ISO aac encoder. NOT because of Dolby, because of the RIAA.


See - and that is the reason why ISO AAC can't be widely used. MP3 is de-facto standard not because of LAME but because of worldwide availablity of MP3 decoders, players, CD-Rippers, Bundles... sure, some of them are "illegal" and unlicensed, but no one cares - they are cross-compatible with legal products, and some way they are increasing FhG's income.

We will never achieve this level of interoperability for AAC. I am aware of at least one project of "cracking" LQT files and stripping the header making the file ISO 13818-7 but it is impossible, something inside their RAW AAC bitstream is different and so far nobody has managed to write LQT2AAC convertor. Same goes for Panasonic AAC '.acp' files, or NEC AAC '.nac' files, or with Mayah AAC files (encrypted with some stupid XOR or MS MD5 algorithm)

Philips webcine .mp4 files could be converted to AAC, but you won't find their encoder anywhere. However, one good news is that both Menno and I am working on MP4 encoders and tools and this could make our bitstreams readable by worldwide players such as Philips WebCine or EnvivioTV.... actually, EnvivioTV is already compatible with my products on the elementary bitstream level  (but the MP4 multiplexer is quite problematic)

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #37 –
Quote
Oh please.. that's about the most pathetic excuse one could think of.  "Doing Andree's work for him".. lol.  The fact of the matter is that you fell for the "me too" trap, and you couldn't deliver what you said you could.  You and I both know it.  And you behaved there in the same manner you behaved here, you simply couldn't stand the fact that people questioned what you said.. so you became exceedingly defensive.
Gee Dibrom, I didn't realize that you could read minds too. I guess when you know everything that includes mind reading. Can you guess what I'm thinking right now?  Let me save you the trouble. I'm thinking I'm sorry I ever CAME to your site and subjected myself to your arrogance.
Quote
Yes, I willingly admit Ivan knows more about it than me.  He WORKS with Fhg and Dolby, he has been in contact with them, he knows the licensing policies and he has intimate exposure to their technologies.  He knows far more about it than I do, and I also know that he has a much greater knowledge of it than you do as well.  If you think otherwise, that's also pretty ignorant.  When have you ever been involved in any psychoacoustic audio development, let alone AAC?
We're not discussing psychoacoustic developement Dibrom. We're discussing PATENT ENFORCEMENT and LEGALITY. I have been in contact with Dolby and FhG for YEARS on these subjects. What you seem to be missing is that USING Lame is ALSO illegal. You actively promote and discuss your use of Lame on this site. Where's your fear of legal ramifications there?

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #38 –
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Gee Dibrom, I didn't realize that you could read minds too. I guess when you know everything that includes mind reading. Can you guess what I'm thinking right now?   Let me save you the trouble. I'm thinking I'm sorry I ever CAME to your site and subjected myself to your arrogance.


So am I.  And you are very welcome to leave this forum as well.

Quote
We're not discussing psychoacoustic developement Dibrom. We're discussing PATENT ENFORCEMENT and LEGALITY. I have been in contact with Dolby and FhG for YEARS on these subjects. What you seem to be missing is that USING Lame is ALSO illegal. You actively promote and discuss your use of Lame on this site. Where's your fear of legal ramifications there?


No, we were discussing AAC and the development of a freeware encoder which very much does fall under psychoacoust audio development -- that was before you decided to drag the discussion totally off topic because you couldn't find anything else to argue about.

Now your comments about LAME have nothing to do with the original points made about FAAC.  Both Ivan and I have already stated the differences between LAME and FAAC from a legality point of view (didn't I said I'd have to state I'd already stated this again? heh..).  LAME and MP3 make sense because they are already established and MP3 is pretty much ubiquitous.  Freeware AAC is not.

And as far as I'm concerned this back and forth stuff is going to stop soon.  You've attempted to make your point, now the discussion is totally off topic and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.  If you'd like to continue this, I'll just move these increasingly personal comments to the off topic forum, and then you can have fun talking to yourself.  Consider this a warning.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #39 –
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Gee Dibrom, I didn't realize that you could read minds too. I guess when you know everything that includes mind reading. Can you guess what I'm thinking right now?   Let me save you the trouble. I'm thinking I'm sorry I ever CAME to your site and subjected myself to your arrogance.
Ok, layer3maniac, this is going totally off-topic and personal. If you haven't noticed, there aren't many people supporting your point of view... If you can't deal with it, you shouldn't start playing in the first place...
Juha Laaksonheimo

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #40 –
I advise everyone to take a look at the 1998 snapshot of the FhG IIS website related to AAC:

http://web.archive.org/web/19981206125458/...cfaq/index.html

Quote
Q: Will there be a free decoder?   
    A: No. There is a public decoder source code available via MPEG but even when you use this public code, royalties have to be paid to the patent holders. For details on licensing, consult . Additionally, MPEG provides an encoder source code. This encoder is mainly intended to facilitate decoder development and does not provide AAC-like quality. 


Conclusion: From the very beginning of AAC commercial history (AAC was standardized in 1997) it was IMPOSSIBLE to make free decoder. This is not the case with MP3, because Mr. Brandenburg already stated that FhG has no intention to 'hunt' free, non-for-profit unlicensed MP3 decoders.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #41 –
Quote
Ok, layer3maniac, this is going totally off-topic and personal. If you haven't noticed, there aren't many people supporting your point of view... If you can't deal with it, you should start playing in the first place... 
I can deal with it just fine. When Dibrom makes personal attacks on me based on errant assumptions, am I not allowed to respond in kind? But hey, you guys can stroke each other's egos to your heart's content. I for one don't intend to join in it...

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #42 –
Also, for you and Tord regarding MP3 DECODERS:

http://web.archive.org/web/19981206001526/...egal/index.html

Quote
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. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #43 –
Quote
We have been talking about free ISO AAC. That's why I quoted some of Dibrom's text... "Open source" and "free" have been the issue here all the time in this thread, if you haven't noticed... 
Opensource and free - the EXACT same issues that face Lame. Just because something is illegal, it doesn't make it stop. Filesharing hasn't stopped. And unlike shady software patents as opposed to copyrite infringement, filesharing HAS been tested in court and found to be illegal. Did it stop?

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #45 –
Quote
Conclusion: From the very beginning of AAC commercial history (AAC was standardized in 1997) it was IMPOSSIBLE to make free decoder.
Impossible.  And yet I posess SEVERAL of them. Homeboy, Astrid Quartex, FAAC. Heck - one of them even bears YOUR company's name. Go figure...

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #46 –
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Opensource and free - the EXACT same issues that face Lame. 
I suggest you take some breath, and read all the Ivan's comments above. Lame and free ISO AAC are not treated the same. Period.
Juha Laaksonheimo

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #47 –
layer3maniac:

Enough of this.

You are not longer even trying to debate a point, you are simply arguing to start a fight.  You are completely disregarding everything everyone else is saying here and taking all comments totally out of context so you can continue this back and forth nonsense.  As far as I concerned this manner of conversation ends NOW.  You have attempted to make your point already enough and it is clear that you have no desire to reach any meaningful conclusion here.  I'm on the verge of locking this thread which would be a shame considering other stuff mentioned here, but if that is necessary, that's what I'll do.  This entire discussion has gone WAY off topic now and is pretty much pointless.

If you don't like that, then you can save me the bandwidth and go somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.  There are plenty of other people around here to have a meaningful discussion with.

To everyone else involved, please just stop responding to him.

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #48 –
You know what I mean: A LEGAL free decoder, and that is absolutely required if you wish widespread use of the format.

Ok, we could technically make lqt2aac tool (maybe - spending days and days on reverse engineering), and post decoders, optimized encoders, etc... - but there is not a single company that would incorporate ISO decoder in their worldwide product and that was my point.

I also said that IT COULD be possible with MP4, we'll see - so far Philips and Envivio are using raw MP4 format (without IPMP) and it is perfectly OK - if this trend continues we will be in position to make authoring tools for MP4 with huge industry support for ISO compatibility. In that case patent issues would be of less importance since legal or not - these encoders would be accepted by licensed decoders. Got it?

Now, If you can't understand this after 10th time then I really believe that you have some problems...

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality

Reply #49 –
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Impossible.  And yet I posess SEVERAL of them. Homeboy, Astrid Quartex, FAAC. Heck - one of them even bears YOUR company's name. Go figure...
I believe Ivan means that it is "impossible" (very hard)  to offer AAC decoder openly in the net, while nobody won't do nowadays anything if you host MP3 decoder binaries.

Also Astrid Quartex is/was not AAC at all. It was hacked version of PAC (by Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs) encoder/decoder.
Juha Laaksonheimo