Thomson: MP3 Licensing Same As It Ever Was

Thomson Multimedia is downplaying the recently reported change in the licensing of patented MP3 technology as nothing more than a trivial, semantic change. In a NewsForge report today, Robin ("roblimo") Miller quotes a spokesman who denies that any change in the licensing terms has taken place, "that Thomson laid down its licensing terms long ago, and that if Thomson's terms are not compatible with the GPL today, then they never were." The patent encumbrance of MP3 codecs has worried Free software enthusiasts for a long time; if the recent wording change represents no change in policy, it seems that they really have been right all along. (NewsForge, like Slashdot, is part of the sinister OSDN keiretsu.)

so we're safe...... for now

[pbranes]

So it turns out that we don't have to pay royalties. How long before they come under new management or are bought and we are forced to pay to create and listen to mp3's? This could still turn into another compuserve .gif patent fight very easily. We should not make ourselves be at the whim of a company like that. We really should all use ogg. We know that it will always be free and open source, and the quality of ogg sound files rock.

stop blaming Thomson

[exhilaration]

It's difficult to really fault the company - in the end it is their product (no one debates that) and they have every right to charge what they wish.

Frankly, it's our fault for making MP3 a standard - but I guess it was best technology available a few years back.

I agree with other posters - hardware manufacturers will pay the cost and raise their prices by a buck or two. But as for software decoders, only companies like MS will be able to afford the licensing fees. This spells the end of GPL MP3 decoders.

It's time to start moving to OGG, and it's time to start putting pressure on hardware manufacturers to support it. OGG is the future.

Yes, the poilicy never changed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Thompson is right, the policy and $$ were at the same ammount for years now. Be, Inc. had bought the encoder AND decoder rights for $50,000 3 years ago already, for their BeOS.

And Be was a poor, small company that actually went down last year. And you tell me that Red Hat backed down for something that is already like that for years and they do not want to pay for the licensing for their "new desktop OS"? That shows how much respect they have for their users and the fact that they have never actually checked out the license before this got on Slashdot.

That would be the wrong conclusion I think

[FreeUser]

At the same time, though, we see the "Red Hat = Microsoft?" articles and the subtle opposition to anything that is 'tainted' by capitalism (sinister OSDN [not that it isn't a keiretsu], etc.) I've since decided that open source people are simply disinclined toward business

That would be an erroneous conclusion.

A more accurate (though not necessarilly 100% correct, since it is difficult to know what 100% correct is in the context of so many diverse people) conclusion would be that

OSS (and Free Software) enthusiasts are a diverse bunch of people, and among them are included some few who dislike any 'taint' of commericalism.

I am very inclined toward business (and quite good at it, if the last few years' tax returns are to be believed), and that doesn't stop me from being accused of zealotry or anti-commercial sentiments when, in fact, my sentiments are anti-monopoly, not anti-business, as are the sentiments of anyone who understands how a free market and competition are supposed to work.

Since copyright grants a 95 year (or life+75 year) government enforced monopoly, this means I come down firmly on the side of Free Software, both philosophically and, based on a great deal of bad experience with proprietary software, practically. But this has more to do with the problems inherent in having a vendor with authority over aspects of your business, and the power to coerce one's business into taking actions not in your best interests (but theirs instead), and having that power over you backed by a government gun, that it does with any "anti-commerical" sentiment.

There are others, quite likely the majority of Open Source and Free Software enthusiasts, who are much deeper in the pro-business camp than I, so I suspect your characterization really describes only a tiny, if outspoken, minority of people who use and advocate free software and open source.

MP3 technology not compatible with GPL

[renard]

A couple of points that seem to be escaping some:

1. Thomson is not going after anyone who writes/releases a free (as in beer) MP3 decoder (well, not yet anyway);
2. However the patent license granted to free (as in beer) MP3 decoders does not allow redistribution for $$;
3. Hence, the patent license for free (as in beer) MP3 decoders is not compatible with the GPL;
4. Hence, any GPL'd MP3 decoder is in violation of the patent license.

It's hard to see Thomson as the bad guys here. Rather, the fault lies with those who slapped a GPL on top of their MP3 player-programs, without considering the legal restrictions (vis, that they were violating MP3 patents thereby).

-Renard

Sweet Jeebus.

[American AC in Paris]

The patent encumbrance of MP3 codecs has worried Free software enthusiasts for a long time; if the recent wording change represents no change in policy, it seems that they really have been right all along.

...and yet, Free software enthusiasts have used MP3 for a long time, knowing full well that it was a proprietary format.

In all honesty, was it not perfectly apparent from the outset that MP3 was very much a proprietary, owned format? Did anyone with brains enough to write MP3 code ever think that MP3 = Free Software/OSS?

MP3 is a proprietary format. MP3 has always been a proprietary format. Did you think that a bunch of geeks wishing really, really hard and writing lots of really cool Free apps would somehow change this fact? Are you really just coming to this startling realization?

Re:the right tool for the right job

[RobertNotBob]

the required featureset (ASP, database connectivity, CGI) demands IIS

What?

If you can't use CGI or connect to a database with a Linux box, I sure don't want you consulting for my company!

Life imitates art and MP3

[Mulletproof]

You know that story about how aliens were going to take over the world, mass panic ensused and people died, right? But there was the darndest thing-- Not one damn person saw an alien. Then you feel insanely stupid because it was merely radio fiction the entire time. Welcome to the MP3 taxation story on Slashdot. You weren't getting charged for MP3s before even though similar (if not higher priced) charges existed in the past. You won't get now even though they changed the price. Too many alternatives to Mr. Frokenfilmhiegnmierbozel's codec exist to ever effectively tax anyone. His position is too weak to even give it a second thought. Move along, nothing to see here and try not to kill anybody in the ensuing hysteria.

Re:the right tool for the right job

[glwtta]

just because the required featureset (ASP, database connectivity, CGI) demands IIS

I don't mean to start a Linux vs whatever thing here, I'm just curious (really).

How are databse connectivity and CGI something that's specific to IIS? (ASP is a bit different, I could see situations where it was in fact a requirement, but I'd imagine usually a server-side scripting language is needed and not specifically ASP).

I'm just wondering because these things are what I do for a living, and I've never used IIS in my life.

PS This "right tool for the right job" thing has just been ridden to death - it doesn't even apply here, your main claim is that MP3 is well entrenched, how does that make it the right tool?

Re:the right tool for the right job

[Dr. Awktagon]

"Right tool for the job" doesn't mean you ignore the licensing, though. The license is as important as the feature set. A crappy screwdriver that you can use as much as you like is almost always a better tool than a nice one that costs $.05 per rotation to use.

Slightly overhyped; scary nonetheless

[joncarwash]

This story has obviously been overhyped, as it will not mean the end to free (as in free beer) mp3 players (and some encoders, most likely). It will, though, mean the end to mp3 encoders/decoders in GPL'd software, in other words the vast majority of open source software. It will also mean no default mp3 support in your favorite GNU/Linux distro, most likely.

This is unfortunate for the open source community, but it will help to promote newer open standards with no patent or licensing problems to worry about. It will most likely not affect the general public, who will still be able to download winamp [winamp.com] for free.

It suprises me that nobody in the open source community noticed this discrepancy before, as it has been listed on the licensing page [mp3licensing.com] for quite some time. As the Thomson lawyer said, it has been incompatible with the GPL [gnu.org] for some time now. I suppose from now on people will be more careful before building patented proprietary technology into open source software, despite the fact that this type of patent makes no sense and hurts innovation by creating a closed standard.

Would the LGPL have been a good model for mp3?

[bittmann]

OK, the licensing hasn't changed...that's all well and good, as far as that goes. Too bad that it's been "clarified" in such a manner, but that's life.

It doesn't surprise me that the mp3 format's patent-holders were initially supportive of allowing their decoding algorithm to be widely distributed in a royalty-unencumbered fashion...especially given that most users at the time didn't seem to believe that there was anything other than .wav available. You need to get mindshare and start moving product before you can generate enough traffic to make a decent profit. Still, the "clarification" that seems to no longer omit the license fee for non-commerical software created for personal use is alarming.

Let's turn this around, however, and suppose that, instead of merely patenting their algorithms, they also created a reference library for those algorighms, licensed under the LGPL. Anyone building a free (as in beer) application could use /adapt/modify their code...just follow the rules of the copyright, and you'll be OK. *Instant* mind-share! Any commercial firms who did NOT wish to distribute source code could talk to the patent-holders about royalties. Which, as I understand it, is pretty much what happened in mp3's case, anyway.

Seems like a win:win:win (patent holders get mind share, companies get a proven product with a large user base, and end-users can't ever get screwed by delayed patent enforcement).

What am I missing here?

And...isn't this sort of what Ogg is trying to do?

Re:Free softare is compatible with business?

[ivan256]

So what you're saying is that you've "simply decided" to make sweeping generalizations based on the vocal, sensationalized opinions of the few.

You are incorrect. The people you are basing your generalization on aren't people who truly believe in "open source" as a concept. These people are simply looking for free "As in beer" as people like to say. The don't care about what "open source" means or what "free software" is, they just don't want to spend any money. Just because these people spout on about "open source" doesn't mean that they have anything to do with it other then having downloaded and run some programs, either for kicks or because they came with no charge.

There is a difference between "open source people" and people who just want something for nothing. One of those groups is interested in superior technology, and the other wants to "stick it to the man" or something similar. Please don't get us confused just because the second group thinks they represent the first.

--

This post made possible by ASCII character 0x22

Why does everything have to be gpl?

[Richard_at_work]

if Thomson's terms are not compatible with the GPL today, then they never were.

Why does it have to be compatable with the GPL? I am hereing this to often today "Its not compatable with the gpl, its not licensed under the gpl" and usually with no good reason. If people dont want to give you rights to their src code, then that is entirely up to them.

If anyone has a problem with that, they go write or help develop a alternative, in this case Ogg, instead of wasting your energy. Thats what the GPL is about, learning and helping each other! People should learn that the GPL is a single license, and other people may not feel so highly of it (I myself dislike licensing my code under the GPL, i much prefere the BSD license as i dont see why i should impose the restriction of public code for people using code i let them use freely).

Again it comes down to perceived rights, and a lot of people see a non gpl license as wrong, again with no good reason other than they cant get to use the code, they have to figure it out for themselves, or spend time coding a alternative to that point, but again this isa desicion made by the origional code or group, and i dont see why this should be a negative.

same as they never were

[Citizen of Earth]

"that Thomson laid down its licensing terms long ago, and that if Thomson's terms are not compatible with the GPL today, then they never were."

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Frauenhofer IS bad, MP3 advocates Short Sighted

[FreeUser]

3. Hence, the patent license for free (as in beer) MP3 decoders is not compatible with the GPL;

The GPL has a specific clause that deals with patents, which basically says the GPL makes no warranty with respect to patents and it is up to the user to know and adhere to any patents valid within the jurisdiction where they are using or distributing the code. If the code is in violation of a patent and cannot be distributed within the terms of the GPL, then you cannot distribute the code within the jurisdicition where the patent is granted.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

In the case of a software, or mathetmatical, patent like mp3, the GPL is likely to hold, and be valid, for all of the code including the mp3 algorithm itself throughout most of the world.

Only in the United States, and perhaps some portions of Europe, will commercial use of the code that would otherwise be within the limits set by the GPL be incompatible, so most of the world is free to use the code within the constraints of the GPL.

OTOH the GPL doesn't require one to charge for the software, so I'm not certain it is incompatible even in those less fortunate parts of the world where software and business-method patents have insinuated themselves into the law, though I agree it certainly might be.

It's hard to see Thomson as the bad guys here. Rather, the fault lies with those who slapped a GPL on top of their MP3 player-programs, without considering the legal restrictions

The fault lies with Frauenhofer for changing the licensing terms, in effect, changing the rules of the game midstream. It is a sleazy thing for them to do, no matter how anyone spins it.

However, I agree with you that a large portion of the blame falls squarely on those who promote and use MP3 instead of unencumbered alternatives like OggVorbis. We knew from the history of GIF and others that this is the sort of behavior one can expect from the kind of people who would seek to patent and restrict knowledge to begin with, so it should really come as no surprise that they have remained true to their nature and done this, and anyone who was surprised, or caught flat-footed by it, has demonstrated an incredible lack of vision and foresight (not to mention understanding of recent historical events a la' the GIF LZW patent).

Low volume + minimum royalties = ouch

[yerricde]

This is an open standard. It's just patented. Patents expire.

Not if Thomson Multimedia and the major pharmaceutical companies get together and lobby Congress for a Cherilyn Lapierre Patent Term Extension Act like Hollywood did back in 1998 [pineight.com].

they just want to get paid for (I hope) work that they did in developing the technology

Then why does Thomson Multimedia require an annual minimum royalty of $15,000? That keeps the XMMS people from being able to distribute their product because they cannot charge for every copy that is passed around under the terms of the GPL.

The royalty is quite reasonable. If you had to pay $0.75 for your copy of WinAMP, would that really seem unfair to you?

AOL Time Warner, the parent company of Nullsoft, can afford to pay the minimum royalties that Thomson Multimedia asks for. If I wrote and published an MP3 player, on the other hand, and only 1,000 copies were downloaded in a given year, I would have to pay $15.00 per copy.

I have a large library of audio files that need to get published on the net. They're free, noncommercial, non-revenue-generating.

If your site's space and bandwidth are paid for with advertisements, then it is not non-revenue-generating. If they are demos for potential employers to look at when evaluating your fitness for employment, then they are not non-revenue-generating. You may want to argue differently, but Thomson Multimedia most likely has more money to spend on legal representation than you have.

I'll publish them at least in MP3 format, and maybe Ogg if I can get a good encoder

I have a feeling that the parent comment is a repost from the previous article about MP3 patent licensing. In response, I recommended OggDropXPd and noted that users of Winamp 2.80 and later could play Ogg files.

Non-free distros are evil, not Thompson

[Animats]

This is funny. Because what's happening here is that the people who take free software, box it up, and sell it for money are getting hit by a patent license.

Thompson's license is stronger on freedom than the GPL. The software that uses it has to stay free; it can't be imprisoned in a box with a pricetag.

Yes, this impacts Red Hat's "revenue model" of taking the work of others and reselling it. Tough.

Just In Case

[Herkum01]

After a major posting in regards to a change in MP3 licensing terms and everyone freaked out about it, it turns out to not be true.

However, it seems to me to still be a possibility, really what is the chance that they may change their mind next year? Are we going to go back to the hysteria of the previous post or are people going to seriously look at other options and do something RIGHT NOW!

Do we always got to wait until there is an emergency situation before someone actually does something?

Re:All right...

[krmt]

It's by the Talking Heads, and the song is called "Once in a Lifetime", on the "Remain in Light" album. And it's not from the 70's, it's from the 80's.

And somehow, I get the feeling, that they were deliberately referencing it. I know I've seen the editors use the phrase before.

Oh, and I don't have an MP3 of the song either, but I did rip the whole album to ogg when I first got it ;-)

Re:stop blaming Thomson

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should it spell the end for XMMS, even if Thompson did make a fuss about MP3 payments. XMMS is a module based system... it plays sound loaded via modules (ok, so MP3 is basically built in but that's not hard to rectify).

Thompson is probably realistic about this

[scharkalvin]

Any of the desktop player software written for Linux and licensed under the GPL or other free license were never intented for sale, they were given away. Just because Red Hat shoveled them onto a CD and charges for that CD doesn't mean that they are selling the software. Redhat is selling their support of the software on the CD, more specificly they are selling support for the system they have created using GPL'ed software. Since the software is distributed under the GPL it is still free, Thompson can consider that Redhat isn't selling the free player, they are selling the CD, the buyer is paying Redhat for the distribution of the software, the service of downloading and copying to the CD and the support of installation and use of the software.

So Redhat isn't under the gun. But anyone who wants to sell a hardware device containing the software (car mp3 players) probably IS running afowl of the patent.

IANAL, but the above is my common sense opinion.
Since Thompson hasn't "said boo" in so many years they may have even lost the right to do so.

no GPL incompatibility

[g4dget]

I don't see a GPL incompatibility. The author of the GPL'ed software gives you certain rights to the software. There may be lots of other restrictions on uses or distribution of GPL'ed software--you may, for example, not print it out and hit somebody over the head with it, or you may not export it because of export restrictions. Ultimately, you have to know what is legal and contractually permitted, and that depends on who you are, where you live, and where you got the software.

In any case, Thompson isn't even giving you a license to use the MP3 patents, they merely state their intentions. And their patents are valid in only a few countries anyway so that even if there were a conflict in the US and the GPL self-terminated in that case, there can still be lots of GPL'ed MP3 players (just like there are MP3 encoders available over the Internet from countries where the MP3 patents aren't valid). So, I really don't see what possible connection there could be between a software author putting a GPL on a piece of code and some statement of intent by Thompson on their web site.