using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations [Archive]

View Full Version : using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

lucky

03-14-2005, 06:57 PM

Hello,
I am interested in using mp3 with dbPowerAMP Music Converter 11, but I understand that the mp3 encoder requires a license fee to use it. Since I have no desire to spend money on software (especially when there are other programs that will do mp3 for free) are there any free options to get mp3 support back in version 11? I have an earlier version. Is there any way to splice the mp3 encoder from the earlier version into the newer version? Or perhaps some other good codec I could use to make my mp3? I hate whan companies take perfectly good free software and make people pay for it (that is why I like open source best!)

Thanks

LtData

03-14-2005, 07:24 PM

Is there any reason why are you so adverse to paying for software? I'd think dMC is worth the $14 that is asked for registration. You always have the 30-day trial to decide if it is worth your money or not.

And yes, there are ways to bypass the restriction. Whether they should be discussed here is beyond my authority.

adaywayne

03-14-2005, 07:48 PM

ChristinaS

03-14-2005, 07:55 PM

mp3 codecs may be free software but the right to use them to create mp3 files is subject to a license fee payable to the patent holders. If you think there are any out there that are both free and legal, help yourself.

lucky

03-14-2005, 08:06 PM

actually the reason I want to overcome the mp3 limitations is that I need the line in recorder and I cannot find it anymore. I would be perfectly happy using an old -free- version if I could get the line in capability.

ChristinaS

03-14-2005, 08:14 PM

Record to .wav and the use other mp3 conversion programs if that's what you want.

lucky

03-14-2005, 08:25 PM

I got what I needed off the web archive (great free site and service, they often even have downlaods from websites)

neilthecellist

03-14-2005, 10:58 PM

wow a wasted thread where you insulted us just because the software costs money.

iTunesIsEvil

03-14-2005, 11:38 PM

I hate whan companies take perfectly good free software and make people pay for it (that is why I like open source best!)
If you are such an open-source advocate, then perhaps you would be willing to search for and compile open-source code for yourself then. The issue is not really with open-source or not, it's more with FhG and them wanting money for a file-format they created. Whether or not we find that to be fair is really a moot point.

Perhaps if you would like, you should try some open source codecs.

Can someone tell me why some people around here can't figure out how to use Google?

wow a wasted thread where you insulted us just because the software costs money.
Not quite wasted, we now know that it's possible to work around the PowerPack license restriction somehow (everything has a workaround in life, you just have to be sneaky to find it sometimes). And I'm surprised anyone would be really offended by that guy... ;)

neilthecellist

03-14-2005, 11:51 PM

If you are such an open-source advocate, then perhaps you would be willing to search for and compile open-source code for yourself then. The issue is not really with open-source or not, it's more with FhG and them wanting money for a file-format they created. Whether or not we find that to be fair is really a moot point.

Perhaps if you would like, you should try some open source codecs.

Yeah I prefer open source stuff sometimes , or just Microsoft's WMA codec or the mp4 .

Can someone tell me why some people around here can't figure out how to use Google?

Because it hasn't crossed their minds that "Google is your best friend"

Not quite wasted, we now know that it's possible to work around the PowerPack license restriction somehow (everything has a workaround in life, you just have to be sneaky to find it sometimes). And I'm surprised anyone would be really offended by that guy... ;)

Whoa, we shouldn't talk about breaking the PowerPack licence. Ppl might not pay then....

ChristinaS

03-15-2005, 12:20 AM

Can someone tell me why some people around here can't figure out how to use Google?

Why can't they do a forum search or just look above or below the forum thread for other related tehread?

LtData

03-15-2005, 12:54 AM

Whoa, we shouldn't talk about breaking the PowerPack licence. Ppl might not pay then....
There are workarounds to everything. Its just a matter of the drive they have to pursue it. Now, do we need to talk about methods to do this? No.

ferris209

03-15-2005, 02:26 AM

I hate whan companies take perfectly good free software and make people pay for it (that is why I like open source best!)

I think he believes Illustrate and DMC to be a huge conglomerate corporation with 20 suits sitting around a solid wood table making six figures a year. I'd pay my $14 again if I had to. I'm about to non-hesitantly pay the $25 for the Sveta, never needed it until now that I got my Ipod. But anything put out by Spoon is worth every red cent IMO.

neilthecellist

03-15-2005, 10:19 AM

god lucky you're so stupid. I use dMC AND Audicity, and every other open source audio program you can think of........These programs all have different features and everything, but dMC puts EVERYTHING together, that's why it's called the Swiss Knife of Audio or whatever. :)

ferris209

03-15-2005, 12:00 PM

god lucky you're so stupid.

Well, I'd say that Lucky is misguided.

Lucky, here is the deal, Dbpoweramp products by Illustrate is developed and made by one man, Spoon. There is no company who is out to make it out of your reach on a money scale. Understand that many people here on the forum work hand in hand with Spoon on a daily basis and we can get touchy when someone seemingly makes assumptions about Spoon and the products he develops. So please excuse some of our reactions.

I will now ask that you consider registering the product for DMC Release 11 and here is why. It is only a ONE TIME fee for a LIFETIME of great service. It will be the best money you've ever spent. The current release is only better than the one you downloaded from the web archive, and will always get better with each passing day. I have been using Dbpoweramp for well over four years now, so if you figure that, I've spent $4 a year for service, by the time I will have finished using Dbpoweramp (when I die) I'm sure it will be only pennies or less a year in usage. Not only will you have your questions answered about the product by the actual developer, but there are many people on here like Razgo, ChristinaS, Xoas, Ltdata, Neilthecellist, I could go on and on.

I'm sure that my fellow Dbpowerampers can list many other reasons.

But, to the point, Dbpoweramp IS NOT Microsoft, so don't be afraid to pay a little to the piper on this one.

Just so you'll know.

iTunesIsEvil

03-15-2005, 02:39 PM

<rant>

god lucky you're so stupid.
And apparently you're >< Neil.

Just because someone doesn't want to pay for software that was previously (from my understanding) free of cost, doesn't make them "so stupid." I'd say that's pretty unfair.

Honestly, if I didn't have the job I have, I probably wouldn't have paid the $14. I could have hacked something together using the lame executable (though not lame_enc.dll as dll's are not my forte). So it wouldn't be as pretty, or as quick as db is, but it would have worked.

I paid because this is a good product, and if you want the convenience then paying is a great idea, if you would rather be for the open-source thing, then don't pay and find something OS or build something yourself.

But I don't really think that it's fair to say that Lucky is stupid. Perhaps a bit rash or foolish for just running in here and going "pay?? me?? for software?? nooooo... thats just not right! why, I shouldn't have to pay for things! this is the world of computers! open-source software exists! that means that all software should be free!" in an astonished and hurt tone. (hehheh that made me chuckle...)

Anyway, point is people dont always think the same way we ourselves do. And no matter how much I would like to personally hold that against eveyone that isnt me, I can't do it! :)

</rant>
Edited. For posterity's sake.

ChristinaS

03-15-2005, 02:47 PM

Errr.... can we just cool it with the epithets now?

neilthecellist

03-15-2005, 08:21 PM

<rant>

And apparently you're >< Neil.

Just because someone doesn't want to pay for software that was previously (from my understanding) free of cost, doesn't make them "so stupid." I'd say that's pretty unfair.

Honestly, if I didn't have the job I have, I probably wouldn't have paid the $14. I could have hacked something together using the lame executable (though not lame_enc.dll as dll's are not my forte). So it wouldn't be as pretty, or as quick as db is, but it would have worked.

I paid because this is a good product, and if you want the convenience then paying is a great idea, if you would rather be for the open-source thing, then don't pay and find something OS or build something yourself.

But I don't really think that it's fair to say that Lucky is stupid. Perhaps a bit rash or foolish for just running in here and going "pay?? me?? for software?? nooooo... thats just not right! why, I shouldn't have to pay for things! this is the world of computers! open-source software exists! that means that all software should be free!" in an astonished and hurt tone. (hehheh that made me chuckle...)

Anyway, point is people dont always think the same way we ourselves do. And no matter how much I would like to personally hold that against eveyone that isnt me, I can't do it! :)

</rant>
Edited. For posterity's sake.

BLAH !! Forgive the 15 year old cellist for his stupid assumptions!!! :)

Spoon

03-16-2005, 05:27 PM

I am still on the look out for some free as in Beer - Beer, all the pubs around here want money for the stuff ;)

neilthecellist

03-16-2005, 09:27 PM

er.....what?

Speaking of mp3 and its licencing cost, can someone explain to me why Microsoft lets people use WMA codecs for free?

LtData

03-16-2005, 11:07 PM

Why not? They just make their money off of the OS. Besides, charging for a codec is a receipe for disaster. I see mp3 heading on a downward slope now that FhG/Thompson are trying to charge. But.. this isn't the place for a rant.

Basically, Microsoft has it free so that people will use it.

neilthecellist

03-16-2005, 11:45 PM

Why not? They just make their money off of the OS.
Good point. I forgot about that.
Besides, charging for a codec is a receipe for disaster.
That's what FhG/Thompson are doing.[/quote] I see mp3 heading on a downward slope once FhG/Thompson start trying to charge one.
Not really. Isn't it true that whatever's popular, regardless of whether the product sucks or not (e.g. WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM) will always be the kind of whatever it's competing against?[/quote] But.. this isn't the place for a rant.
Hm........it's not a rant....it's just expressing your thoughts toward this matter.

Basically, Microsoft has it free so that people will use it.

Then why can't FhG/Thompson?

LtData

03-16-2005, 11:51 PM

Then why can't FhG/Thompson?
Cause Thompson just bought the patents from FhG and they want to recoup their investment.

iTunesIsEvil

03-17-2005, 08:32 AM

They just make their money off of the OS.
<sigh>

And poor schmucks who bought Office 2003 and Visual Studio .NET 2003. Those are $424.99 & $1,138.85 respectively (compusa website 03/17/05). That'd make my bank account have a fit!! Actually, thank goodness for most Univ/Colleges being nice like they are. I got both for $10 a piece! I just had to pay tuition! D'OH again... Oh well, at least I'm getting an "edjamacation" out of it. But yeah, I'm guessing their OS side is probably a good 75% of their business if not a bit more.

I see mp3 heading on a downward slope once FhG/Thompson start trying to charge one.
One can only hope (for multiple reasons), but that means that another "standard" will come along and if it's not already patented, then someone will try to buy the rights so they can patent it. Id be thrilled to see AAC become the standard (though FhG developed it too, so that'd only end up in the mess MP3 is on its way toward). What I would really not like to see is the WMA format become a standard. :thumbdown
I just dont like it, and to be honest, part of that is simply that it is a Microsoft product. I understand it's of good quality, and I understand that it'd be very convienient for Win users, but to me that'd be MS getting one more foothold that I dont think they really need. :smile2:

adaywayne

03-17-2005, 11:15 AM

<sigh>

One can only hope (for multiple reasons), but that means that another "standard" will come along and if it's not already patented, then someone will try to buy the rights so they can patent it. :
~~~~~~~~~~~
Once something is out and being used, it's is already "in the public domain" and can no longer be patented. However, "significant improvements" could be patented.

iTunesIsEvil

03-17-2005, 01:31 PM

However, "significant improvements" could be patented.
I didn't realize that... thanks for the info!

The only thing I would worry about in that case is that FhG (or a buyer) would go "Yes, we made significant changes to the code regarding information pertaining to the creation of the compressed audio stream." But all they did is add their initials or company name to the header, and any minor changes that were made to the code. I dont know how tech-savy the patent/law industries are towards code, but something makes me want to say they dont employ many developers.

ChristinaS

03-17-2005, 01:46 PM

I didn't realize that... thanks for the info!

The only thing I would worry about in that case is that FhG (or a buyer) would go "Yes, we made significant changes to the code regarding information pertaining to the creation of the compressed audio stream." But all they did is add their initials or company name to the header, and any minor changes that were made to the code. I dont know how tech-savy the patent/law industries are towards code, but something makes me want to say they dont employ many developers.
The patent/copyright/law industries don't have to be tech savvy. The lawyers and the judges who get to deal with the legal suits have to be or have to have good reliable expert witnesses.

A patent or copyright registration is there just for reference - they don't guard anything, it's just a depository. If you are the patent/copyright holder of something and you think somebody has ripped you off you have to sue and prove they have ripped you off. Then you refer to the patent or copyright registration and bring in expert witnesses to say, yep, Joe Blow has used the same without paying dues or getting permission or, worse, passed it as his own invention or creation. Ultimately it's a game of who has the best expert witnesses to support their side of the story.

Pharmaceutical companies routinely take out new patents for old products they have for which the original patent would soon expire, when the only change they made may be simply going from a little yellow tablet to a little yellow capsule, or other minor unimportant changes. Or so I've been told. All that in order to thwart some laws that allow generic drug manufacturers to start making the same product when the original patent expires (which is for a fixed number of years, non-renewable, by law, at least here, in Canada).

adaywayne

03-17-2005, 03:04 PM