Originally posted by EarthMind
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Full MP3 Support Being Added To Fedora Linux
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by sdack View Postscience should be allowed to directly profit from successful research in order to fund more research and to have the industry pay for it.
* Are they harming the free software community in the process? Patent licensing is often hostile to free software, yet it doesn't have to be. In MP3's case, it was – distros were shipping without it, and "Linux sucked" for it. The way it should be done is how HEVC Advance is licensing software-only implementations.
* Feeding a monopolist much longer than the relevance of their contribution is undeserved. The world tends to lock itself into an arbitrary single format for a given use, and stay locked in for many decades. The format becomes technically obsolete in ~5 years, but the patents are valid for 20 years.
Therefore, I deeply disagree when it comes to patents on formats (I don't care about other software patents actually).
Software patents are forbidden in EU, but in this case, law and practice differ. I've seen a list of European software patents (HEVC Advance's list), and they were explicitly licensed in many European countries!Last edited by andreano; 05 May 2017, 07:49 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bug77 View PostThey sound the same at higher bitrates.
AAC sounds better at lower bitrates (below 128kbps), but nobody encodes at that anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postthis is bullshit fantasy. in reality studies show that research progresses faster in patentless jurisdictions. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/genera...al/against.htm
Comment
-
Originally posted by andreano View Post2 objections:
* Are they harming the free software community in the process? Patent licensing is often hostile to free software, yet it doesn't have to be. In MP3's case, it was – distros were shipping without it, and "Linux sucked" for it. The way it should be done is how HEVC Advance is licensing software-only implementations.
* Feeding a monopolist much longer than the relevance of their contribution is undeserved. The world tends to lock itself into an arbitrary single format for a given use, and stay locked in for many decades. The format becomes technically obsolete in ~5 years, but the patents are valid for 20 years.
Therefore, I deeply disagree when it comes to patents on formats (I don't care about other software patents actually).
Software patents are forbidden in EU, but in this case, law and practice differ. I've seen a list of European software patents (HEVC Advance's list), and they were explicitly licensed in many European countries!
Comment
-
Originally posted by sdack View PostFree software had it's own implementation. Nobody said MP3 would need to be free but the suckers, those who want a free meal.
If I do this in low volume, then it is as you say: Nobody cares, except that I would feel a little bad. But say I distribute software! Suppose I am Mozilla, and I want to add MP3 support to Firefox: Maybe I have 1000000 downloads a year (just to say a number), for which I earn nothing, then you see how that was unjustifiable…
Originally posted by sdack View PostAre you calling the scientists monopolists for when they use patents against the industry and to get their worth of money for their research?Last edited by andreano; 05 May 2017, 09:40 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rudregues View Post
Same here. Computer or external HDD with thousands of FLAC's and convert everything to 64kbps Opus to carry in my smartphone.
It's increadible how 64k Opus is pretty transparent to me (phillips she9000 here), while 64k mp3 is really crappy.
Comment
Comment