Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Full MP3 Support Being Added To Fedora Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by EarthMind View Post
    Software patents, what's that?
    ~ almost every European
    clueless european. put software into computer and you have patentable combination in europe

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by sdack View Post
      science should be allowed to directly profit from successful research in order to fund more research and to have the industry pay for it.
      2 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!
      Last edited by andreano; 05 May 2017, 07:49 PM.

      Comment


      • #23
        OK, if no one is eager to do it than I will.
        -> At last. <-
        No sarcasm intended.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by bug77 View Post
          They sound the same at higher bitrates.
          Yeah, I meant 128-192k. I guess most would consider that medium bitrate.

          AAC sounds better at lower bitrates (below 128kbps), but nobody encodes at that anymore.
          People do use HE-AAC or opus at lower bitrates if they're limited for space.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by pal666 View Post
            this is bullshit fantasy. in reality studies show that research progresses faster in patentless jurisdictions. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/genera...al/against.htm
            Who cares? It's just more scientists making a claim and you don't even know who's been paying them. And like I said, as long as we have patents is it just stupid to pretend they don't exist, but instead use them for funding science. Did you even read what I've wrote? I think I'm repeating myself here.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by andreano View Post
              2 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!
              Again, who cares? Free software had it's own implementation. Nobody said MP3 would need to be free but the suckers, those who want a free meal. And as far as I can tell could we always use MP3 software as long as it wasn't for commercial use. Also who are you calling a monopolist? Are you calling the scientists monopolists for when they use patents against the industry and to get their worth of money for their research? Or are you just happy using the word "monopolist" like it meant "evil monster"? Because if you want to start beating on the "evil monster" drum then you'll quickly see how free software can turn into an "evil monster" or "monopolist" when it in itself makes restrictions on how and where it can be used. So I'd be careful about it if I was you.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by pete910 View Post

                Wish they'd get the forum back up
                my guess there doing a forum upgrade, it does take awhile to do all of that,

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by sdack View Post
                  Free software had it's own implementation. Nobody said MP3 would need to be free but the suckers, those who want a free meal.
                  The problem is that if I copy a free software implementation, then I owe the patent holders a small amount of money. How am I expected to pay that? It doesn't work.

                  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 Post
                  Are you calling the scientists monopolists for when they use patents against the industry and to get their worth of money for their research?
                  Not for their methods, but for the result: A monopolist is someone who owns the market so much that competition is futile.
                  Last edited by andreano; 05 May 2017, 09:40 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    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.
                    Any comparisons for Opus vs MP3? Sound quality is important to me as well.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      MP3 is certainly still a relevant format. Have any of you managed to find all of your indie music in FLAC? A lot of them offer FLAC/WAVE/AIFF as an option through one merchant or the other, but the only common denominator is still MP3.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X