At 14:45 6/9/2001 -0600, you wrote:>Streaming music is $250 minimum, with, I believe, less than 2% >royalties. For $500 a year you can stream all the music in the world >pretty much, prefectly legally. If you make a profit, it's a royalty. >But MP3's royalty here is higher than the royalty for the actual music. >That is out of whack. Especially in an age where we are diligently >search for new ways to compensate artists.According to the RIAA, their (SoundExchange) suggested flat rate is $0.004 per performance.. which is hardly a flat rate at all, unless you look at how they currently negotiate rates. A performance being defined as the number of clients that listen to a given title on a stream. If you're streaming music with copyright owned by RIAA members on Live365 say, and that stream is full, that is 365 performances per song.. or $1.46. With a quick rough estimate, I have about 1000 mp3s in my master playlist which spans about 60 or 70 hours, so I'll call it 70 hours for 1000 performances. That's ~125,000 performances a year, which equates to about $180,000. Significantly higher than the Frauhofer license, unless you generate $9Mil/yr or more in revenue from your stream.>Fraunhofer didn't invent parts of mp3. Netscape certainly had their hands >in the spec. Microsoft too.MS had their hands in it yes, NS maybe, but they're not currently a W3C member. A full list of members is available at http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List All the W3C 'specs' are released in an RFC style, free to all.. not NS nor MS nor anyone else can charge for implementation of recommendations made by the W3C. Anyway, this is beside the point you were trying to make, which I do grok.. just picking nits for no reason here I guess. I think something that is overlooked is that Fraunhofer didn't just pull this out of their ass, they are designated by the MPEG as the people to contact for licensing of Layer 3 audio technology for MPEG-1 and MPEG-2. I'm going to step out on a limb here and assume that if any of the other members of the MPEG had a hand in the development of it (mp3) and wanted compensation/royalties, that those royalties would be distributed to other MPEG members by Fraunhofer. If that is the case, then it's pretty obvious to me what could make the costs as high as they are; every MPEG member wanting their "fair share.">Sure they do. They pay for that code. Then they pay extra for teh >technology patents. Look at the licensing fees. They double when you >use FhG's code.I think this would support what I just stated above, if the royalties without the FhG code are distributed among MPEG members (or at least members who helped develop it) and the additional costs go to FhG alone.>LAME uses 0 FhG code, and it still has to pay. > >Yes, these are normal patents, and this is how patents work. But the >patent system is also fucked. And the FhG patents are a good instance >of why.I agree with this, I just don't think they're even close to the most fucked. I saw some report on television a month or two ago about some people that while participating in a, for lack of a better term, medical experiment. The people basically just had a bunch of tests done and left, maybe they were paid, I can't recall. The result of this testing was that it turned out two of these people were totally immune/resistant to HIV. Time and again, HIV was introduced into their blood, and it failed to infect it. Now, if you want to examine this data or use the test that determined they were immune, you must pay outrageous fees to the company that did the tests. Even if you contacted the two people and tested them yourself, you would be bound by law not to use that data without paying the licensing. This is the hight of greed and criminal behavior when it comes to patent law, IMHO. We could have some real work being done in the field of AIDS research, and a possible cure just around the corner, if it weren't for these jerks, and the lesser jerks that aren't interested in paying the fees.>This isn't analogous. FhG here is charging for a result of the content >that you made. It's like buying a toaster that also charges you for >every piece of toast you make. > >Or, to do it the way FhG did, sell you a toaster for X dollars, and then >later charge you y dollars per slice after you bought it, because they >can.I agree, it's not very cool at all in principle. I just think that in this case, the principle put into practice is not nearly as upsetting or restrictive as it could have been. If FhG wanted to, they could charge half a billion dollars to license their technology. I don't think this applies however to the non FhG code, I'm going by gut instinct here, but I believe the MPEG sets those rates.>This isn't true. Only SOME of the time do you not have to pay. The >rest of the time you do. For instance, encoders are _never_ free.I meant you in a more specific sense, once for each case. If "you" are writing a codec, or creating one in hardware, then yes you have to pay.. either just once, or per unit. LAME doesn't have to pay $X every time mp3 encoded data hits the internet that was encoded with it. If FhG wrapped things up in a more convienient one-time fee for the developer of an "original work" (read: doesn't charge end users that use tools, only the tool makers) but charged them much more than they do, would that be acceptable? I just don't think it's all that "wrong" for them to charge everyone who takes part in the chain, so long as they don't charge them too much (subjective I know).>Since when? Winamp was always donation ware, and I bleieve now it's >just free to use. Where's a pay for version of winamp?Hmm looking now all the versions are free, but I thought there was a non free version at some point in the past. Perhaps I was thinking about the various versions of real player and "winamp" spewed forth from my hands instead.>That's all well and good. I agree here. But, what if I recorded >winamp's audio output on tapes. Do I owe them a royalty if I play the >tape for someone else? > >This isn't a question of fraunhofer charging money for something they >should be. They are charging you money to send bits from poitn a to >poitn b, if those bits are in a certain pattern. There's no decoding or >encoding going on here. Just data transfer.This paragraph answered your own question above. If you're playing it on audio tape, it's no longer in the "bit pattern" of mp3. ;) But anyway, they're not charging you to send a bit pattern from point a to point b. They're charging point a and point b both for encoding or decoding that bit pattern. You can send mp3 data around all day long with a new product you write, charge a million dollars a copy, and not pay FhG one red cent if your program doesn't encode or decode the data. If it were otherwise, all the ftp, http, email etc software companies would be paying as well.. right along with cisco for making an "mp3 transfer utility" called a router, and belkin for making another one called a "cable.">We're in a world were intellectual property law has gotten out of hand. >Copyrights no longer seem to expire, patents are overly general and >broud, and litigation is increasing. Huge companies are getting bigger, >exerting more influence over government and our daily lives, etc. > >The current state of affairs is probably not was what was envisioned >when the provisions for copyright and patent law were written into the >constitution.I agree with all this.. but the politicians and judges are to blame, not the companies (which are just people, or run by them) who are trying to pull something shady. Everyone at some time or another tries to pull a fast one.. if they try to pull a fast one in court, well, we're supposed to have people that can see through that. In any instance where the "wrong thing" gets passed into law, only the lawmakers are to blame.. whether they were bribed, extorted, or just plain too dumb to see the forest for the trees.>Devil's advocate is fine. I think intellectual proper in media is a >perfectly legimate thing to get bent on, and by no means am I only bent >on this one instance of Fraunhofer's greed. I'm bent on it all. > >I tell you, it's quite depressing.Some things more than other, as the example in the genetics field illuminates. Profiteering at the expense of music is one thing, doing it at the expense of all of humanity is quite another. -asym -------signature file------- PGP Key Fingerprint: 446B 7718 B219 9F1E 43DD 8E4A 6BE9 D739 CCC5 7FD7 "I don't think [Linux] will be very successful in the long run." "My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse." -Ken Thompson, Interview May 1999. http://www.freebsd.org FreeBSD - The Power to Serve http://www.rfnj.org Radio Free New Jersey - 435 streams - 96kbps @ 44khz Stereo http://namespace.org -- http://name.space Resist the ICANN! Support name.space! --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'icecast-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
> performances. That's ~125,000 performances a year, which equates to about > $180,000. > > Significantly higher than the Frauhofer license, unless you generate > $9Mil/yr or more in revenue from your stream.The rates are in arbitration, and I doubt they will come out anywhere near that amount. It just isn't feasible, even for large companies. Reember, tradidional radio doesn't have to pay these, even if they are broadcasting online. Nor are they subject to the compulsory license. There's still a possibility that the DMCA will be dismantled before the arbitration is even finished. You shouldn't have to pay the RIAA anyway, and the fact that they are even involved is astrocious.> All the W3C 'specs' are released in an RFC style, free to all.. not NS nor > MS nor anyone else can charge for implementation of recommendations made by > the W3C.Exactly. All standards should be done thsi way. Including audio. That's what we're here for.> I think something that is overlooked is that Fraunhofer didn't just pull > this out of their ass, they are designated by the MPEG as the people to > contact for licensing of Layer 3 audio technology for MPEG-1 and > MPEG-2. I'm going to step out on a limb here and assume that if any of the > other members of the MPEG had a hand in the development of it (mp3) and > wanted compensation/royalties, that those royalties would be distributed to > other MPEG members by Fraunhofer. If that is the case, then it's pretty > obvious to me what could make the costs as high as they are; every MPEG > member wanting their "fair share."Fraunhofer has 12 patents by my count, that represent the sole intellectual property on the MP3 format. They are all licensed by Thompson. If you build something that is MPEG, you can license the patents from MEPG i believe, and MPEG's charter states that these will be fair and reasonable. But time and practice have shown us that they are anything but. And it's only worse with MPEG4, especially since the patent pools aren't even done yet, resulting in a similar situation to the lack of a compulsory interactive music license.> >Sure they do. They pay for that code. Then they pay extra for teh > >technology patents. Look at the licensing fees. They double when you > >use FhG's code. > > I think this would support what I just stated above, if the royalties > without the FhG code are distributed among MPEG members (or at least > members who helped develop it) and the additional costs go to FhG alone.They definately do this as a Patent license + Code license. While there may be other people with intellectual property claims on MP3, afaik, Thompson is the only one getting paid. I'm pretty sure MPEG is charged with distributing money, but if you pay thompson directly, thompson (and fraunhofer) keeps the money.> I agree, it's not very cool at all in principle. I just think that in this > case, the principle put into practice is not nearly as upsetting or > restrictive as it could have been.You make it sound as if this is a done deal? Remember, these royalties didn't exist yesterday :) Who knows what the future brings, or whether the rates will go higher. I would also claim that Thompson can't get away with as much murder these days, because of Vorbis. They know that if the rates are super super high, people will move to vorbis, if only for financial reasons. I will also claim that this will happen anyway. There's no advantage to MP3, and it's expensive. Vorbis wins.> If FhG wanted to, they could charge > half a billion dollars to license their technology. I don't think this > applies however to the non FhG code, I'm going by gut instinct here, but I > believe the MPEG sets those rates.MPEG sets rates on MPEG. Thompson sets rates on mp3 if you deal directly with thompson. I imagine that's MPEG rates would be higher, or else, no one would bother talking to Thompson directly. It's not as if they are easy to communicate with.> This paragraph answered your own question above. If you're playing it on > audio tape, it's no longer in the "bit pattern" of mp3. ;)That example was a more general one. Since do people pay for derivative works? I can't think of any example of this off the top of my head. Usually when you buy something, the stuff you create with it is free. Compilers are another good example. You pay Microsoft for Visual C++, but you don't pay them royalties on programs you create.> But anyway, > they're not charging you to send a bit pattern from point a to point > b. They're charging point a and point b both for encoding or decoding that > bit pattern.Oh really? So since icecast does niether encoding nor decoding, why is a person using icecast getting charged? See my point here?> You can send mp3 data around all day long with a new product > you write, charge a million dollars a copy, and not pay FhG one red cent if > your program doesn't encode or decode the data.Not true. The streaming royalties are on transmission. streaming has nothing to do with encoding or decoding. I don't see were streaming royalties can be applied to any intellectual property that Thompson or Fhg owns. There's no decoding. There's no encoding. I'm taking files, spitting them out over the network, and who cares what happens. Now I have to pay for that?> If it were otherwise, all the ftp, http, email etc software companies would > be paying as well.. right along with cisco for making an "mp3 transfer > utility" called a router, and belkin for making another one called a "cable."You don't think Fraunhofer will try this? :) Live365 pays ASCAP, BMI, and is signed up for the compulsory RIAA license. Even though you'd think they wouldnt' have to. I guess they do it on behalf of their users. I think shoutcast pays this as well. Recordable CDs are taxed. People are proposing media taxes on general computers, because they can play mp3s which could be pirated. Don't underestimate the lengths to which these corporations will go.> I agree with all this.. but the politicians and judges are to blame, not > the companies (which are just people, or run by them) who are trying to > pull something shady.But these corporations are also putting money into the hands of the judges and the politicians. Campaign finance is a huge issue, and to ignore it and say the politicians are atonomous is downright ignorant. Corporations do exert political influence, otherwise, why do you think that the MEGA HUGE computer industry is beholden to the lousy $50b a year music industry? It doesn't make sense. The media industries have far better lobbying and influence than any of the new tech industries. And it shows, because we are losing on every front, because we didn't help make any of hte laws we are being prosecuted and sued under. Where were companies like napster when the DMCA was enacted? There was barely time for DiMA to get organized to at least participate in those days.> Everyone at some time or another tries to pull a > fast one.. if they try to pull a fast one in court, well, we're supposed to > have people that can see through that. In any instance where the "wrong > thing" gets passed into law, only the lawmakers are to blame.. whether they > were bribed, extorted, or just plain too dumb to see the forest for the trees.Or rather, the people who elected them are to blame. But since we're given only a few choices, and the rest can't afford to stand out without selling out, you can't really blame the people either can you? The system is as fault. It's been corrupted by greed and coporate interest.> Some things more than other, as the example in the genetics field > illuminates. Profiteering at the expense of music is one thing, doing it > at the expense of all of humanity is quite another.We all have to pick the battles we're passionate about and that we're willing to fight for, because we can't fight for them all :) I agree that there are far nastier things afoot, but I think personally I can make the most difference in this one. It may not save lives, but I think it will make the world a better place. jack. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'icecast-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
> >So uh, you think it's worth more for mp3, than the actual music > >involved? > > > >Come on. > > Hmm.. so what you're saying is that for under $2K I can get an unlimited > distribution license from the recording industry? To burn, distribute, > sell and market as much of their material as I like? Wow. Sign me up.Streaming music is $250 minimum, with, I believe, less than 2% royalties. For $500 a year you can stream all the music in the world pretty much, prefectly legally. If you make a profit, it's a royalty. But MP3's royalty here is higher than the royalty for the actual music. That is out of whack. Especially in an age where we are diligently search for new ways to compensate artists.> >You think it would be nice if Netscape charged 2% of all website > >royalties for HTML, etc? > > Netscape didn't invent HTML.Fraunhofer didn't invent parts of mp3. Netscape certainly had their hands in the spec. Microsoft too.> >I think it's fine that fraunhofer charges money for their code, but this > >is different. > > > >They charge you for the tools they provide. > > It's called "selling software."Yes, this is fine. I don't have a problem with this.> >You have to pay for tool makers to pay royalties for tools Fraunhofer > >DOESN'T make. > > I think a lot of -commercial- products do use the frauhofer codec..Sure they do. They pay for that code. Then they pay extra for teh technology patents. Look at the licensing fees. They double when you use FhG's code. LAME uses 0 FhG code, and it still has to pay. Yes, these are normal patents, and this is how patents work. But the patent system is also fucked. And the FhG patents are a good instance of why.> >You ahve to pay to stream the content you already created with a tool > >you already paid for. > > I don't know. How many times should I have to pay $6 to go across a bridge > along with the millions of other people that go over that same bridge every > day? That particular rate just went up from $3.50. I guess $40 million > (being very conservative) a day just wasn't enough to keep that bridge running!This isn't analogous. FhG here is charging for a result of the content that you made. It's like buying a toaster that also charges you for every piece of toast you make. Or, to do it the way FhG did, sell you a toaster for X dollars, and then later charge you y dollars per slice after you bought it, because they can.> You may pick up on a common point. Fraunhofer isn't the first or worst at > this game, from any angle. If you use products free of revenue generation, > in an application that itself is free of revenue, then you don't have to > pay. If some part along the flow wants to generate revenue with their > product, then they have to pay.This isn't true. Only SOME of the time do you not have to pay. The rest of the time you do. For instance, encoders are _never_ free.> Take winamp for example. Winamp has a non-free version.Since when? Winamp was always donation ware, and I bleieve now it's just free to use. Where's a pay for version of winamp?> To sell that > version, I'm sure they have to pay this new fee.The fee is outrageous, even for large companies, for encoders. For decoders, genereally you can do it for free, or for very little, depending on your negotiating skills, mostly because the decoder patents are very weak.> However, if you buy it > and use it in a free environment, then you yourself don't have to > pay. They want to get paid each time their technology is used to generate > income, and while that may be greedy, unless you're a subscriber to some of > the religious doctrines out there, it is not evil.That's all well and good. I agree here. But, what if I recorded winamp's audio output on tapes. Do I owe them a royalty if I play the tape for someone else? This isn't a question of fraunhofer charging money for something they should be. They are charging you money to send bits from poitn a to poitn b, if those bits are in a certain pattern. There's no decoding or encoding going on here. Just data transfer.> It would be a "wonderful" world if everyone that came up with some sort of > new technology or idea always gave it away for free, but that isn't the > world we're in.We're in a world were intellectual property law has gotten out of hand. Copyrights no longer seem to expire, patents are overly general and broud, and litigation is increasing. Huge companies are getting bigger, exerting more influence over government and our daily lives, etc. The current state of affairs is probably not was what was envisioned when the provisions for copyright and patent law were written into the constitution.> Pardon me for playing devils advocate, but IMHO there are a lot of better > things to get bent about, if you want to get bent over something.Devil's advocate is fine. I think intellectual proper in media is a perfectly legimate thing to get bent on, and by no means am I only bent on this one instance of Fraunhofer's greed. I'm bent on it all. I tell you, it's quite depressing. jack. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'icecast-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.