using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

[iTunesIsEvil]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

<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]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

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

[neilthecellist]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

<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]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

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]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

er.....what?

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

[LtData]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

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]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

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]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

Then why can't FhG/Thompson?

Cause Thompson just bought the patents from FhG and they want to recoup their investment.

[iTunesIsEvil]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

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]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

<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]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

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]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

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]

Re: using mp3 despite the mp3 limitations

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.

You are quite right. Improvement patents are not too
difficult to obtain, unless competitors or potential
users challenge them with some expert witnesses. Most
countries allow time (usually 12 months) for this
after the patent is published but before it goes into
effect.