Fraunhofer and Thomson Multimedia release their new mp3pro codec and new licenseconditions for streaming mp3 : http://www.techreview.com/web/kiang/kiang060701.asp My comment is that the licensecharge isnt frighting compared to what we broadcaster pays in musicroyalties allready. Is this what you feared jack? :) -- Venlig hilsen/Kind regards Thomas Kirk ARKENA thomas@arkena.com http://www.arkena.com I'D LIKE TO BE BURIED INDIAN-STYLE, where they put you up on a high rack, above the ground. That way, you could get hit by meteorites and not even feel it. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-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, 9 Jun 2001, Thomas Kirk wrote:> http://www.techreview.com/web/kiang/kiang060701.aspDid you notice the bit at the end? Next week: An open-source music alternative Should be interesting. Geoff. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-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.
"Thomas Kirk" <thomas@arkena.com> wrote:> Fraunhofer and Thomson Multimedia release their new mp3pro codec > and new licenseconditions for streaming mp3 : > http://www.techreview.com/web/kiang/kiang060701.asp > My comment is that the licensecharge isnt frighting compared > to what we broadcaster pays in musicroyalties allready. Is this > what you feared jack? :)I agree that the prices are accessible (it's even free for non-comercial usage), but the problem with licenses is that they can *change* - so if there's no real competition like Ogg Vorbis or WMA, the prices can go 10x up... --- Aleksandar @ Vorbis Xtreme | http://solair.eunet.yu/~aldov Ogg Vorbis is the free, open source alternative to MP3 --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-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.
some half-quote from the forum/list, why also the reply here... Jack Moffitt said:> But there are no royalties if you are streaming for free.>It doesn't say that. It says if you are distributing music for >free.It doesn't say anything about streaming. I would hope there >would be no fees, but I bet they will just be passed upstream. ie, >live365 will have to pay based on a percent of their total revenue, >even though the users are streaming for free, etc.It says what it says:>Quote:"If MP3 is used for free distribution on the Internet, we will >not charge royalties," he says. But "if people monetize, the >inventors should have their fair share," he adds.this reads: + artists can distribute their music for free via the net + you can have a site, distributing free samples or free albums by different artists for free + you'd only have to pay if you were selling MP3 tracks and albums + music/radio stations can freely air/send out mp3 streams What Moffit says is imo mistaken and does not make any sense. If what he says is true then any artist must pay 2% of his global income because they give away even ONE free mp3. So rolling Stones put up some free clips for their fans and they get charged on global income? This would be ridiculous and can't ever be done or asked. It is like stated: You only are charged 2% if you set up a commercial music distibution via mp3. (distribution is imo still streaming + any other form of "distributing" music) I can understand this is could be harsh news for OGG developers that just saw 85% of the OGG target use, and reason for existing, been taken away. Now artists/radio can freely and legally stream/distribute MP3. Those that do want to charge on a digital distribution will very likely opt for some watermarked/crypted format rather than OGG. It says just that imo. But if you disagree, you disagree. - r3mix.net -- Best regards, Roel mailto:vdbj@yucom.be --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-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'd only have to pay if you were selling MP3 tracks and albums > > No. The licensing terms for selling mp3 online are more onerous, are > seperate, and have been around for longer. This new stuff has nothing > to do with selling music online - it's for streaming.You are probably correct about the discrimination between streaming and putting online mp3's. At least, this is how the author of the article interpreted:> "If MP3 is used for free distribution on the Internet, we will not > charge royalties," he says. But "if people monetize, the inventors > should have their fair share," he adds.if that was in streaming-context only it is as you say.>>+ music/radio stations can freely air/send out mp3 streams > > If they don't make ANY money in any way, yes. How many significant > online radio stations can you say that of?I don't know, but>The royalty rate is two percent of revenues related to streaming, >with a minimum fee of $2,000 per year.combined with earlier statement, this time in a streaming context, clearly states it's the intention of the licensing that you can have a free online 'radio station' and would not have to pay any kind of fee.>>What Moffit says is imo mistaken and does not make any sense. >>If what he says is true then any artist must pay 2% of his global >>income because they give away even ONE free mp3. So rolling Stones >>put up some free clips for their fans and they get charged on >>global income? > > No, you didn't read what Jack said properly.I think I did, but it's a non-issue anyway. I checked their site on "Electronic Music Distribution":> Electronic Music Distribution systems, where mp3 encoded data is > sold to end-users, are licensed as follows: ...o this means an artist was already allowed to legally _give away_ his music using mp3 without having to pay royalties to Thomson. I thought this was not yet the case, but seems I was mistaken there.> This is wrong. They explicitly license online distribution seperately, > and more expensively.if you were selling. giving away mp3 for free is no issue.> The new charges are for streaming. ANY streaming > that brings in any money at all. So, you can freely stream stuff if you > don't charge for it AND don't make any money from doing it (which means > no advertising, etc.). That doesn't mean they have to give 2% of all > income, just income _related to_ streaming. There is absolutely nothing > unclear about that.Over the not making money we agree, but I think if or not advertising is income related to streaming is highly debatable and far from clear. Would receiving a donation and thanking the donator be considered income for a free radio station? imo, given the first statement ("not charge royalties for free distribution") from Thomson, running a free online mp3 broadcast and keeping it running via advertising is no problem. Only charging the listener in order to access the stream would make it subject of the royalties. So for me that boils down to: - artist can already distribute mp3's for free and not be subject to royalties. (very clear) - free radio station can use mp3 to stream and not be subject to royalties. (debatable, but what else would "not charge royalties for free distribution" mean?) -- Best regards, Roel mailto:vdbj@yucom.be --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-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.
>> - artist can already distribute mp3's for free and not be subject to >> royalties. (very clear) >> - free radio station can use mp3 to stream and not be subject to >> royalties. (debatable, but what else would "not charge royalties for >> free distribution" mean?) > > So what you saying is all artists should distribute their music for > free, or at least without making any related incoming to the > distribution?This "related to distribution" is pulled open too widely. As long as the artist/radio station does not charge for the mp3 there needn't to be paid license fees.> I thought the whole idea here, was to empower artists to leave the > current distirubtion shackles and give them a world where distribution > shackles don't exist.but I completely agree. of course I find OGG a fine alternative and I also think an artist should be able to sell his music, and that $15.000 or 1% of income for music may be too harsh and using OGG would save them that.> MP3 has shackles. For tools, very harsh ones, for selling mp3's, fairly > harsh ones.Indeed, mp3 technology comes at a cost. Anyways, free is better, but the current cost is far from dramatic. An artist distributing music via the web has traffic and hosting costs, must pay for the "e-retail" service and for the payment conversions and insurance against fraud. If, as an artist, you'd join a service that has more than 100 clients, there would be the (little) extra cost of 1% or $150 at the least per year per artist. 500 Clients would make this 1% as I assume you sell for more than $30/year if you're into selling music.> For streaming radio, very harsh ones.as long as you don't sell the stream it's no problem. What do you think is meant by "If MP3 is used for free distribution on the Internet, we will not charge royalties" then? At Thomson they know a free radio station has costs and they get funded. So as long as you are not asking $ to hear the stream they can't charge you. It is _not_ their business how you raise funds. Can be + donations + advertising on the site via banners or + advertising or thank sponsor messages in the programs sent out via mp3 which, in the end are all related to the broadcast directly or indirectly and all raise funds. So when they say "If MP3 is used for free distribution on the Internet, we will not charge royalties" this means: we only ask royalties if you charge to listen. analogy. Some techie inventing a transistor that is in all tv's can't claim 2% of global TV-station-income of their TV commercials.> While it's all fair and good the free users may not have to pay > (remember, that streaming and distributing are differentiated between in > most documents and licenses I've seen, which is why I've been saying > 'may'), the artists still have some corporation that makes money off > their work, by controlling the distribution channel.You will always have that (hosting, site, insurance, money transfer, ...), but it's the extra costs, and if you can do it free why not, indeed.> There are plenty of reasons to switch to Ogg without this extra > licensing, but I'm glad they added it, because now a lot more people > will understand what we're doing here. Changing the patent license on > the fly any time you think there might be a new revenue stream is not a > good thing. > > jack.uhm, this was announced a few years back by FhG and Thomson and was normally for 2000 and got delayed to 2001 beacause of the release of mp3PRO. So allow me to say that "Changing the patent license on the fly any time" is more a vision that fits the OGG perspective and would not be the way I'd tell it since this was announced a very long time ago. Actually, I think now many people are relieved (the low cost, could've been much worse) and a significant group, the free radio stations, are very happy. Being the advocate of the devil, as always, I honestly don't know if Vorbis is able to change their current "free and open" statute on any random day. I'm quite sure you won't but what is my guarantee that one day, with the help of the "excellent team of legal representatives of Vorbis", you'd try to to raise license fees once OGG is mainstream or maybe come with "OGG 2.0" or "OGG PLUS" which do try to recover some developing costs using license fees? I know, that's the last thing on your mind and against the whole spirit of the project, but I'm just mentioning this as a counter-weight to the claims that Thomson is changing patent license agreements on-the-fly. ok, I'll be gone now :) thanks for Vorbis! -- Best regards, Roel mailto:vdbj@yucom.be --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-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.
Maybe Matching Threads
- [thomas@arkena.com: [vorbis] mp3pro and the mp3 streaming license]
- [thomas@arkena.com: [vorbis] mp3pro and the mp3 streaming license]
- OGG encoder, was: Re: [thomas@arkena.com: [vorbis] mp3pro and the mp3 streaming license]
- [thomas@arkena.com: [vorbis] mp3pro and the mp3 streaming license]
- [thomas@arkena.com: [vorbis] mp3pro and the mp3 streaming license]