Full MP3 Support Being Added To Fedora Linux

[starshipeleven]

And do look at the actual result: researchers have developed a new way of compressing audio, used it to fund their research and thereby created one of the most popular audio formats in use today. It inspired many more and better formats, which consumers keep profiting from.

It didn't inspire a damn, that's called competition and would have happened anyway.

The industry adopted it quickly by the way, because...

it was simply better than any alternative at the time and then it reached critical mass fast, so it made no sense to switch to something else even if it was better and free.

That's a far more transparent approach than when directors and politicians decide behind closed doors who gets how much money and from which pot, because on the high levels is it all a political game where neither tax payers, the voters nor the scientist gets to have a say in it. Whereas the use of a software patent allowed consumers to directly vote with their wallet if they want it or if they don't. And we sure wanted it...

hahahahahaha, yeah right, because industry choosing the standard behind closed doors and imposing it on customers is letting people vote with their wallet.
Also please keep the liberitarian propaganda for yourself.

You can argue about how negative you think this was as much as you like, but you did get to choose to pay for its research or to use something else. That's a freedom you often don't get as a tax payer and voter.

Please stop comparing patents to politics just to make patents look good.

In this specific case it was not terribly bad as the patent holder didn't act like an ass, but patents in general lend themselves to so much abuse that it isn't even funny.

[sdack]

It didn't inspire a damn, that's called competition and would have happened anyway.

it was simply better than any alternative at the time and then it reached critical mass fast, so it made no sense to switch to something else even if it was better and free.

hahahahahaha, yeah right, because industry choosing the standard behind closed doors and imposing it on customers is letting people vote with their wallet.
Also please keep the liberitarian propaganda for yourself.

Please stop comparing patents to politics just to make patents look good.

In this specific case it was not terribly bad as the patent holder didn't act like an ass, but patents in general lend themselves to so much abuse that it isn't even funny.

No, it wasn't terribly bad. I found it refreshing seeing how it got applied by scientists.

But if you're looking for an argument on patents being bad then I'm not interested. Guns are bad, too, but most people understand the need for them anyway without bringing in their likes and dislikes.

[Djhg2000]

No, it wasn't terribly bad. I found it refreshing seeing how it got applied by scientists.

But if you're looking for an argument on patents being bad then I'm not interested. Guns are bad, too, but most people understand the need for them anyway without bringing in their likes and dislikes.

It didn't get applied by scientists, it got worked around by relatively healthy competition.

This is probably the first time I've heard of someone comparing software patents to guns. That you might subjectively think of both as "bad" doesn't mean they compare in other aspects. The US constitution grants the right to bear arms as a tool to discourage corruption (the implication being that corruption poses a lethal risk). Does that make guns bad? My impression is that guns do exactly what they were designed to do, which is to give people the ability to fire projectiles without the need for a cannon. From an engineering perspective they are some of the most reliable complex mechanical constructions we have.

Software patents are more often than not abused to prevent other parties from using straightforward solutions to common logic problems. They strengthen the holding party by granting exclusive rights to an idea. Ideas which could otherwise be used to further development of the entire field because of their wide application. To enforce the patents a lenghty and expensive court process is required, thus often eliminating smaller parties without the required resources even if the patent is invalid. Since the courts are inherently biased to side with the party with greater resources I'd say the software patent system is broken.

So take your pick, is it the intended use or the engineering aspect that makes you think software patents are comparable to guns at any level?

[leipero]

Patents are harmful and unjust, there's really no way around it, and there's noa rgument against it. Just immagine if "wheel" was patented, where the world would be now, and yes, most of the patents are on that idiotic level.

The argument here is simple, do I have a right to use force against someone else if he manage to copy my work or come up with the same solution independently? No, I do not have that right, if someone is capable of copying my solution in more efficient manner, it is my fault. It's bs to begin with, the premise that "patent protect creators/authors", it does not..., most discoveries come with luck, if someone is true genius then he wouldn't need patents to begin with, since whenever competition copies his stuff, he would come up with even better solution. Software patents are on another diabolic level, i was speaking about patents in general, it starts to get even more idiotic once you dive into software patents...

TL;DR: If I am such a genius that I came up with solutions no one else could and I should profit from it somehow, patent laws are not needed, because i will come up with better solution when someone do copy me.., if it was pure luck (with mixture of env.), then there's no jsutification of using force against people who come up with same solution or copy mine.

[Wilfred]

Ok, what did i miss? Is it 1997?!!!
Is mp3 no longer one of the most used codecs for streaming (the other being some form of aac).

spotify uses vorbis, yt supports several codecs, but pushes you toward opus. Whatsapp voice calling uses opus.
Admittedly soundcloud still uses mp3, but everyone hates that. Tidal uses aac. DAB+ uses HE-AAC, but do you consider that streaming?
Amazon and apple also use aac. The BBC uses AAC.
My own national public broadcasting uses both mp3 and aac.

I think it's a pity so many people use AAC, but hardly anyone still uses old fashioned mp3.
Does anyone know when the aac patents expire?

[oiaohm]

I think it's a pity so many people use AAC, but hardly anyone still uses old fashioned mp3.
Does anyone know when the aac patents expire?

Even when you cannot find the patents you can work it out roughly by prior art and patent lifespan limitations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

The first AAC is 1997 so that means the first patents on that have to expire this year 2017 or 2018. The most advances version of ACC being HE-AAC is 2006 so longest possible patent expire is 2026-2027. Reason for the + one is the year after prior art being in the public you have to apply for patents any latter than that your patent is void due to prior art.

Please note those are longest possible. We can have that patents were taken out before prior art appears on record so expires years before the longest possible.

By using prior art limitations you have not mentioned anything that causes those who must not see patents for denial protection. The price for breaking a patent is less if you don't know it exists.

So MP3 has expired for most patent coverage there are some MP3 patents on the encoding side still but you can encode without them. AAC is starting the process of expiring.

So its a question of what ACC you need will define when you are patent free. Telecommunications uses AAC+ that is 2005 so 2025-2026 that will be 100 percent patent clear.

Really we have not been making that many new formats that are not open standards and a lot of old formats have got quite stable so patents are running out.

[liam]

It's not as odd as you think when you've read the article, which is about RedHat. And I didn't read anyone saying RedHat having violated open source licences. Or how else would one profit unfairly from open source?

I've read the phoronix article and the linked to Fedora Magazine article. I'm still confused as to what you think either article contained that should make your statement, or at least sentiment, less odd.

[liam]

spotify uses vorbis, yt supports several codecs, but pushes you toward opus. Whatsapp voice calling uses opus.
Admittedly soundcloud still uses mp3, but everyone hates that. Tidal uses aac. DAB+ uses HE-AAC, but do you consider that streaming?
Amazon and apple also use aac. The BBC uses AAC.
My own national public broadcasting uses both mp3 and aac.

I think it's a pity so many people use AAC, but hardly anyone still uses old fashioned mp3.
Does anyone know when the aac patents expire?

I think you missed the key part "...ONE of the most used....".
AAC is the other major audio codec, I would agree.
The last i heard, Google music uses mp3 (though i would expect that to change).
Amazon uses mp3 according to https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custo...deId=201379550

[sdack]

I've read the phoronix article and the linked to Fedora Magazine article. I'm still confused as to what you think either article contained that should make your statement, or at least sentiment, less odd.

So? You're confused. Who cares? It's your problem. Get over it.

[rudregues]

Interesting.
When is your set-up (and music) like where you determined 64k seems mostly transparent?
You don't see many folks like you who are willing to admit this, so, non-ironic applause for you!
The audio scene has WAY too many "Golden Ear" snobs for it to be a very welcome community, in my experience.

liam , I'm using Antergos (Arch Linux) and there is a program called abx in AUR (it's a very simple ABX tester). Then I converted some FLACs to 48kbps Opus. I used just musics that I really know (i.e. Hotel California - Eagles, from Hell Freezes album, and Echoes - Pink Floyd, from Meddle album). And there is specifics parts of the music to note the difference (yes, maybe some can note the difference "within the whole music" but I really have to hit the specific spots to then "aha! it's different there!"). Later tested 64k and couldn't pass the test.

But I will be honest, I am a normal guy. I have good ears, but not golden ones (maybe because of being part of a chorus, playing guitar, flute etc). I have a good in ear monitor, but very far from top headphones (even more far if you consider custom mold ones). I really think that the golden ear guys with top headphones concentrate in these websites and many would hit transparency in 96k with Opus, but just if cherry picking killer samples in ABX tests. But I tend to disbelieve people to say that hit transparency with 128k Opus...

Just check here 64k statistics http://listening-tests.hydrogenaud.i...c/results.html and here 96k statistics http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm. Do you have any doubt that the majority in these tests are the golden ears+top headphones people or do you think that it is full of average Joe's there? Music quality grading from 1 to 5 in 64k tests and Opus average was about 4 and in 96k it was 4.65.