> 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.
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 04:30:33PM -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:> > 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.Actually we (KFCF) have been informed that this is not the case and we do have to start to negotiate or pay. This is what came from a lawyer we consulted with as what we must do with the content to comply... Tim Pssss... Hey, Wild Bill! Any thoughts on this? -- To comply with the statutory license the following conditions must be met: In a 3 hour period webcasters may not play no more than three songs from an album including no more than 2 consecutively; or; four songs by a particular artist or from a boxed set, including no more than three consecutively. Archived programs may not be less than 5 hours in length, and may only be retained for two weeks. Merely changing a few songs or temporarily removing a program and putting it back on, does not meet this condition. Looped or continuous programs may not be less than three hours in length. Advance program schedule or prior announcement of Song titles may no be announced in advance by text, video or audio. It is permissible to announce the title of a song immediately prior to it being performed. Programs may only be repeated: 3 times in a two week period (if under one hour) 4 times in a two week period (if over one hour) When performing a sound recording, the recording, the album and featured artist must be displayed in textual data during the performance. No ties-ins suggesting a product endorsement. Copying by recipients must be disabled if the technology allows. Must accommodate measures by copyright owners to identify or protect works. Cooperate with copyright owners to defeat scanning. Transmission made from bootlegs, illegal copies or pre-release recordings is not covered by the statutory license. Automatic switching of channels is prohibited. Transmission of copyright management information is required if technically feasible. Royalty rates for the statutory license have not been set and will be retroactive after determined by the US Copyright Office. --- >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.
At 16:30 6/9/2001 -0600, you wrote:>broadcasting online. Nor are they subject to the compulsory license.Right.. it would be nice to see online broadcasters treated the same way.>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.I think having the DMCA repealed would be too much to hope for, but one can dream right.. :) I agree that they shouldn't have been involved in this at all, but Napster was bound to attract their attention to what was going on online.. I think they were pretty clueless before that, and now they see an untapped potential revenue stream. Anyone can say what they want about Napster and the other services of that nature, in regard to how the RIAA hasn't lost any money, how it doesn't go to the Artist anyway, etc.. but IMHO the truth of the matter was that 90% of the users or more were using it just to avoid buying albums and nothing else.. breaking the law, attracting attention to themselves, and in so doing, to the rest of us.>Exactly. All standards should be done thsi way. Including audio. >That's what we're here for.And I'm honestly excited about all of the Ogg stuff.. I really hope to see winamp support for it as a built-in, but if that doesn't happen, there are always plugins. I only want to see that because I'm sure everyone agrees.. the vast majority of clients that connect are winamp.>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.It's a crummy situation all around using their stuff.. but somehow, some people seem to make it work, even if they are just the giants like the hardware manufacturers that want to sell DVD players.>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.Huh.. I wouldn't have guessed that, but it could be true. What is MPEG going to do, go after Thompson?>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.Well "for now" it's a done deal.. yeah the licensing could evolve into something alot uglier.. I just hope you guys are a ways past beta when that happens so I never have to look at mp3s again. Honestly I pretty much hate them myself, and can't stand listening to them if I have a choice.. I'm just forced to so I can monitor my stream. :) Other people don't seem to have as discerning tastes, or they just have crummy PC sound setups I guess.>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'm not sure if they're afraid, or even know.. best from a "war" standpoint to both assume that they've never heard of it from a fear standpoint, while at the same time assuming they've already come up with a strategy for dealing with it.. never take anything for granted in a war.>I will also claim that this will happen anyway. There's no advantage to >MP3, and it's expensive. Vorbis wins.If the consumer mind were that simple.. FreeBSD would've long ago replaced windows and the linux-based oses a long time ago.. there is a lot to be said for entrenchment and peoples desire to not 'relearn' things they're already familiar with.>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.Sometimes yeah.. I can think of some examples in the realm not of the actual development environment, but of using tools or third party components that compile into your executable. There are some out there that charge on a "sliding scale," although they are not as numerous as the pay-once style.>Oh really? So since icecast does niether encoding nor decoding, why is >a person using icecast getting charged? See my point here?icecast is getting charged? I think the person using it is getting charged, usually they are the same person. If you just set up a repeater on port 8000 that allowed an authorized user to connect and just send raw data, and then others to connect and have that data copied to them.. could they charge you? I don't think they could, especially if you didn't directly present the data. If they could.. could they start charging anonymous ftp sites because they -could- be a transport for mp3? What about the admins of any random http server? Maybe they could start charging the people that create INN as well.>Not true. The streaming royalties are on transmission. streaming has >nothing to do with encoding or decoding.What is streaming except sending data that is used as it is received, instead of waiting for a completed transmission?>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?That's what I'm saying.. I don't think it would hold water in court.>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.FhG might try it.. until they butt heads with someone with the resources to say "ok, enough of this nonsense out of you." In one sense this is why it's good to have a few large corporations around (like Microsoft) that don't compete directly or indirectly.. I doubt Mr. Gates would take any crap from Fraunhofer saying "Hey, you know that nifty IIS thing? You better start paying us, because people could copy MP3s with it." I don't think it would work with the Apache people either, or Sun, or Cisco.>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 don't.. I'm just somewhat comforted by there being other big corporations who will eventually fight them, by choice or by force. I've heard the only reason the CD-R drives have escaped this so far is because they can be used (and their primary market target is) for normal data archival.. they are mostly not designed or marketed as "mp3 burners.">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.No I don't agree with this. They are autonomous, but they are also human, and as many of them are as corruptable as in the general public. The simple fact is they and they alone have the power and the charter to stop this sort of abuse. If they don't, then they and they alone hold responsibility for it happening.>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.I'd rather not discuss Napster in great detail.. they basically drew a huge bullseye on their chest and then taunted the music industry. "I dare you to try anything. You can't stop us. We're going to keep doing this for as long as we like, and since we ourselves don't do anything illegal, you can't stop it." It's one thing with believing that and being prepared to actually defend it; It's quite another to yell at the top of your lungs and then not have a plan besides "we have faith that our voice, no matter how small or underfunded, will be heard." I will say something is really whacked with the DMCA though in the DeCSS case.. There is a clause in the DMCA that gives expressed -permission- to reverse engineer and then reinvent software if the purpose is to provide support for some media or device on a platform that currently lacks that support. I don't see how, having demonstrated that clause, the MPAA has a foot to stand on vs. DeCSS at large.. yet they seem to wrap enough doublespeak and buzzwords and money around their lawsuits to actually get them to trial.>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.Perhaps that is true.. but then, that still goes back to the people in power. Perhaps they just lacked foresight when the first whittles were taken, and said "yes mister corporation, this sounds reasonable." Perhaps there was a back alley deal where BigCorp said "listen mister senator, help us out here or we're moving our shops and jobs to the next state over that has promised to help." I think the bottom line is that the humans are flawed creatures.. there isn't a system around that is going to make up for the flaws in those that designed it, or those that desire to exploit it. So what's left? Educate the people, try and raise a higher percentage of decent ones, and hope that in a few generations, we'll have weeded out all the corrupt crooks that currently run things.:)>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.I can respect that much at least, and I'm appreciative for what you guys are doing over there.. if for no other reason than I'd like to have gotten out from underfoot of FhG before they come smashing down on me.. getting out of the way or the RIAA on the other hand is going to be a bigger problem.. but I'll face that battle when it comes, and just maybe i'll have made a couple million I can use to defend myself with. ;) Take it easy.. this discussion has been pretty interesting so far. -------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.
> >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. > > I think having the DMCA repealed would be too much to hope for, but one can > dream right.. :)At the very least section 1201's days are numbered. That's the anti-circumvention section. The most evil.> And I'm honestly excited about all of the Ogg stuff.. I really hope to see > winamp support for it as a built-in, but if that doesn't happen, there are > always plugins. I only want to see that because I'm sure everyone agrees.. > the vast majority of clients that connect are winamp.Well this has already been the topic of much discussion :) We finally disontinued our Ogg Vorbis plugin for winamp, because the Winamp team has created an official Nullsoft one. It will be shipped with an upcoming release of winamp, but which one, we don't know. So at least this part is already done. I've been working all day on a Windows Media Player plugin too.> Huh.. I wouldn't have guessed that, but it could be true. What is MPEG > going to do, go after Thompson?Well MPEG is just a blanket organization. You can license the MPEG technologies in whole or part from them (I think) but there's nothing stopping you from going to each technology provider and getting just the pieces you need. I guess it all depends on the hassle, the negotiations, and the price. With MP3, people have just dealt with Thompson. I'm not sure why.> Well "for now" it's a done deal.. yeah the licensing could evolve into > something alot uglier.. I just hope you guys are a ways past beta when that > happens so I never have to look at mp3s again. Honestly I pretty much hate > them myself, and can't stand listening to them if I have a choice.. I'm > just forced to so I can monitor my stream. :) Other people don't seem to > have as discerning tastes, or they just have crummy PC sound setups I guess.The Ogg Vorbis Release Candidate should be out this summer (maybe this month), which will be 100% feature complete on the decode side. 1.0 will follow shortly after, but probably won't be too different (we have to allow at least a small cushion to let the community test and see if anything major is missing or wrong).> If the consumer mind were that simple.. FreeBSD would've long ago replaced > windows and the linux-based oses a long time ago.. there is a lot to be > said for entrenchment and peoples desire to not 'relearn' things they're > already familiar with.Exactly. That's why Vorbis is in the tools people already use. Hell, Tord is even adding it to Bladeenc :) There's a few major tools left to go, but we'll get there.> >Oh really? So since icecast does niether encoding nor decoding, why is > >a person using icecast getting charged? See my point here? > > icecast is getting charged? I think the person using it is getting > charged, usually they are the same person. If you just set up a repeater > on port 8000 that allowed an authorized user to connect and just send raw > data, and then others to connect and have that data copied to them.. could > they charge you? I don't think they could, especially if you didn't > directly present the data. If they could.. could they start charging > anonymous ftp sites because they -could- be a transport for mp3? What > about the admins of any random http server? Maybe they could start > charging the people that create INN as well.Of course they'll charge you (maybe it's only if you make money from it). And if you run an FTP site, the RIAA will certainly claim that you owe them money. Why do you think they get shut down? Makes since that if there are financials involved FhG would be after them too, although I don't know of many ftp sites that make money, although maybe those weird signups on hotline servers would be liable for royalties. Who knows what they will do. The RIAA _does_ go after individuals, usually by shutting off their accounts, calling the school IT team, etc. The RIAA is pretty small too, and Thompson is much larger. So who knows how it will all work, or even if they'll do anything at all.> That's what I'm saying.. I don't think it would hold water in court.It doesn't have to usually. Going to court is an expensive enough deterrant to most people. Why do you think they make these claims? :) The risk factor is not worth it for most people, and they will back down. I'm already trying to figure out if I could be liable for any contributory infringement, although I don't think there's an issue.> I don't.. I'm just somewhat comforted by there being other big corporations > who will eventually fight them, by choice or by force. I've heard the only > reason the CD-R drives have escaped this so far is because they can be used > (and their primary market target is) for normal data archival.. they are > mostly not designed or marketed as "mp3 burners."There's been some interesting discussion on possible 'computer media tax' based on teh fact that Apple's main campaign (or one of them) is Rip.Mix.Burn. Kudos to apple for assertingi the legitmacy of Fair Use. Like I said before, the recording industry is tiny compared to the internet industry, and they've all but killed online entertainment as we knew it. Even MP3.com and EMusic are now owned by universal. Ick. There will be people to fight, but the RIAA is entrenched, but good.> I'd rather not discuss Napster in great detail.. they basically drew a huge > bullseye on their chest and then taunted the music industry. "I dare you > to try anything. You can't stop us. We're going to keep doing this for as > long as we like, and since we ourselves don't do anything illegal, you > can't stop it." It's one thing with believing that and being prepared to > actually defend it; It's quite another to yell at the top of your lungs and > then not have a plan besides "we have faith that our voice, no matter how > small or underfunded, will be heard."I didn't bring up napster to discuss napster, only commenting that one of the most well known media companies wasn't even around when the 'media laws' were passed. So how could there have been any kind of fair representation? Congress passed the DMCA much much too quickly, and we are seeing the fallout of this premature and awful law now.> I will say something is really whacked with the DMCA though in the DeCSS > case.. There is a clause in the DMCA that gives expressed -permission- to > reverse engineer and then reinvent software if the purpose is to provide > support for some media or device on a platform that currently lacks that > support. I don't see how, having demonstrated that clause, the MPAA has a > foot to stand on vs. DeCSS at large.. yet they seem to wrap enough > doublespeak and buzzwords and money around their lawsuits to actually get > them to trial.IIRC, one of the defendants was DVDCopy.com. At least in the New York case. Hard to claim they were porting the code :) In any case, the fact that a professor is suing the RIAA in order to publish his research should make it clear to even the most ignorant, that the DMCA is a bad piece of legislation.> I think the bottom line is that the humans are flawed creatures.. there > isn't a system around that is going to make up for the flaws in those that > designed it, or those that desire to exploit it. So what's left? Educate > the people, try and raise a higher percentage of decent ones, and hope that > in a few generations, we'll have weeded out all the corrupt crooks that > currently run things.:)There are certainly systems that can compensate for flaws, and those than can expose them frequently. The florida ballots are one example. In any case, education is good, but difficult. I think having it get this bad will be a good incentive to make it better. But who knows.> Take it easy.. this discussion has been pretty interesting so far.Yep :) 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.
You know..... live365 could probably improve their position regarding royalties right now by showing they do more than mp3.... Maybe they want vorbis support ;-) (Actually - i guess they work with layer 2 as well) The myplay technology works with many formats - it is just bits being pushed over the network.... -- Scott Manley (AKA Szyzyg) Streaming Media Hacker www.myplay.com --- >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.