search for: frauhofer

> I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not charging anything. As > mentioned, the royalties to record labels still stand if you don't follow > the rules, but this will be true regardless of the format > (mp3/vorbis/whatever.) Do you have any ads on your site? That's probably streaming related revenue. Do you list on shoutcast.com? There's definately

...venue. See above. >Maybe you won't have to pay, but someone is going to eat 2% in most >cases. I agree with that much of it, but that doesn't seem to me like such a "bad" deal. I applaud the vorbis effort, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's evil for Frauhofer/IIS to charge people who want to use their technology if they're using it for profit. It may be ugly and unsavory, but it's nothing to get terribly upset over. I think it'd be far more outrageous if they did decide to charge those of us that just stream for free, totally out of po...

Hi There have been some discussions regarding OGG as audio stream in DivX video at http://forums.projectmayo.com/. Is there or will there be an OGG codec like Frauhofer MPEG 3 & Microsoft Audio? This could boost the usage of OGG (mainly underground?). :) But on the other hand it could give OGG bad reputation when associated with 'illegal' copies of video. :( Matts --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepa...

> I agree with that much of it, but that doesn't seem to me like such a "bad" > deal. I applaud the vorbis effort, don't get me wrong, but I don't think > it's evil for Frauhofer/IIS to charge people who want to use their > technology if they're using it for profit. It may be ugly and unsavory, > but it's nothing to get terribly upset over. I think it'd be far more > outrageous if they did decide to charge those of us that just stream for > fre...

...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 syst...

...milar. If you want a website, fine.. if you want it to handle X users simultaneously though, well then you'd better pay up for an X user license. >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.. so do a lot of hardware manufacturers.. but that isn't the point, the payment isn't for tools, the payment is for a technology license.. it works the same for every other patent. Rambus works in exactly the same way, although they're losing big time; They don't make mem...

...rmances 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 memb...

> 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...