Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality
post Nov 25 2001, 02:38
Post #1

Group: Banned
Posts: 529
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 37

Bearing in mind that both MPC and PsyTEL AAC are 'closed' codecs, at least from the encoder standpoint, and that PsyTEL, unless I am mistaken is not even meant to be in 'free' circulation, wouldn't there be some mileage in some of the brains involved in the tuning of Lame diverting the attention to FAAC?

I realise that binary distribution of FAAC is 'verboten' in the patent context, but the source is freely available and compiles very readily with MinGW32 and other free compilers.

Are there any points I am missing here other than the lack of binary distrubtions? Although, that does not seem to preclude other patent/copyright bound codecs finding there way into distribution through the back door!!

Anybody any views on this? I applaud all the efforts in relation to Lame improvements, it would just be nice to see similar efforts being put into emerging technologies. Before anyone asks, I don't have either the degree of programming skills required, nor the knowledge of audio compression techniques, otherwise I'd be there.
I have wondered this as well. Why does NOBODY seem interested in working on tuning FAAC? Even Ivan, for that matter? Obviously, he could lend a GREAT DEAL of expertise in this matter. He relies on FAAD a great deal, perhaps he could contribute something back to Menno's encoder. I've never really been clear on PsyTEL's business plan, but surely FAAC, even if it's well tuned, wouldn't pose a real threat to steal any corporate customers since they would have to scrounge around for binaries and wouldn't really have ANY tech support.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
post Nov 25 2001, 11:35
Post #2


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1

Originally posted by layer3maniac
There are several websites that have been around for a VERY long time with aac binaries. Audiogalaxy, a commercial website has hosted one faac implementation for YEARS. It is JUST as illegal to post and use Lame as it is to post and use aac. If you don't think FhG cares about mp3 binaries being distributed, just write them and ask...

You are missing something here. Yes, technically it may be just as illegal, but if nobody is doing anything about it then it is a very different story.

Fhg KNOWS about LAME binaries, and they have done nothing. Dolby has. Really its not so hard to understand -- AAC will never take off as a viable free format as long as it is so heavily restricted. Thats all there is to it.

What??? Operating systems and mp3 encoders are NOT commercial by nature? I suppose Bill Gates got filthy rich by giving away Windows and DOS.

First of all, I was not discussing operating systems. However, if you were to trace Linux back to its origins, it was [b]not
started as a commercial product. One could even argue that it's not a commercial product now. Companies like Redhat can make it commercial, but that isn't necessarily related to the core project itself.

This argument makes NO sense.

The only reason it makes no sense is because you are willfully ignoring the points and twisting the meaning out of context. Looking at your statements immediately before this emphasizes that fact.

FAAC isn't "concerned with companies utilizing their technology" either. That's exactly my point.

Yes but Ivan and PsyTEL are, which is what should have been your point since you were originally discussing his role in all of this.

The threat of legal action is there. It has already been made. It's NO less eminent for aac development than it is for Lame and Vorbis development. Do you really think a lawsuit from Thompson or FhG would be any easier to defend than a lawsuit from Dolby? Why would it?

You don't seem to understand something here. Fhg and Thompson have chosen not to do anything about LAME in all the time it has been out. Dolby already took action once in regards to FAAC, and many other times in regards to posted binaries. Therefore it is already established that Dolby is actively enforcing their patents. Fhg and Thompson are not.

And with Vorbis, it hasn't even been established that any company has grounds for legal action against the project in relation to patent rights. In fact, it is more likely than not that they are safe since they have actively researched all of what they have implemented in the format to make sure this doesn't happen.

The exact same thing Lame and Vorbis offers the end user. Hopefully, a better encoder.

A freeware AAC will never offer the same thing as LAME and Vorbis do. It will never be incorporated into easy to use products that are mass distributed such as the others will be or are already. AAC for the end user is illegal, it can never take off to any great extent. At the most it will remain a niche codec and nothing more, and whats worse, it will be hard to obtain and totally illegal.

There is no practical reason to use or develop a freeware AAC over a format such as Vorbis. Vorbis has it beat on every single count so far. The only possible advantage I could see is that it may be possible if both codecs were taken to the absolute max that the AAC implementation could maybe edge out Vorbis, but this is still highly unlikely and would probably never happen unless you'd have someone like Fhg actively developing it. And for that matter, by the time the this theoretical and unlikely AAC encoder were developed, Vorbis would likely have support for Wavelets, making the whole argument moot again.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- layer3maniac   FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality   Nov 25 2001, 02:38
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac I have w...   Nov 25 2001, 04:07
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Considering the fact that AAC is so encumber...   Nov 25 2001, 04:33
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac What leg...   Nov 25 2001, 05:03
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE If you have followed the history of FAAC som...   Nov 25 2001, 05:28
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE If you have followed the history of FAAC som...   Nov 25 2001, 05:35
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac So what?...   Nov 25 2001, 05:51
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by Dibrom If you have fol...   Nov 25 2001, 05:54
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Hardly, but if you would like to show me the...   Nov 25 2001, 06:09
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Furthermo...   Nov 25 2001, 06:32
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE I hardly think that people who disagree with...   Nov 25 2001, 07:34
- - Dibrom   layer3maniac: I'm not going to continue bother ar...   Nov 25 2001, 07:50
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac I think e...   Nov 25 2001, 08:46
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Regarding optimized free opensource AAC enco...   Nov 25 2001, 10:23
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac It's not...   Nov 25 2001, 10:44
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE   For one, the binaries of AAC are cert...   Nov 25 2001, 11:18
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac There ar...   Nov 25 2001, 11:35
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE You are missing something here.  Yes, t...   Nov 25 2001, 16:36
- - Ivan Dimkovic   No one here wants to put LAME binaries because it ...   Nov 25 2001, 16:57
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac I'm star...   Nov 25 2001, 17:21
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Ok people - there are three legal (more or less) d...   Nov 25 2001, 17:34
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE LOL!  Ok, you're telling me that I need...   Nov 25 2001, 17:40
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Freeware AAC is doomed from the start as far...   Nov 25 2001, 17:44
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Study the...   Nov 25 2001, 17:50
- - Dibrom   Geez... do you even read what people post before...   Nov 25 2001, 17:59
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE At this time, it seems there are no patent i...   Nov 25 2001, 17:59
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac How many...   Nov 25 2001, 18:01
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Ivan suggested that it is a waste to work on...   Nov 25 2001, 18:04
- - layer3maniac   See Dibrom, unlike you I didn't NEED Ivan to tell...   Nov 25 2001, 18:20
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Imagine you work on something that nobody is...   Nov 25 2001, 18:26
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Small clarification - FhG DID MP3 >E N C O D E ...   Nov 25 2001, 18:29
- - JohnV   QUOTE Dibrom wrote: A freeware ISO AAC implementat...   Nov 25 2001, 18:35
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE - FhG never hunted free decoders Tell that t...   Nov 25 2001, 18:36
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac As I star...   Nov 25 2001, 18:37
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Dolby isn't fighting free ISO aac implementa...   Nov 25 2001, 18:39
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Dolby is...   Nov 25 2001, 18:49
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Dolby is...   Nov 25 2001, 18:49
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Oh please.. that's about the most pathetic e...   Nov 25 2001, 18:49
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Gee Dibr...   Nov 25 2001, 18:58
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Gee Dibr...   Nov 25 2001, 18:59
- - Ivan Dimkovic   I advise everyone to take a look at the 1998 snaps...   Nov 25 2001, 19:04
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Ok, layer3maniac, this is going totally off-...   Nov 25 2001, 19:04
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Also, for you and Tord regarding MP3 DECODERS: ht...   Nov 25 2001, 19:14
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE We have been talking about free ISO AAC. Tha...   Nov 25 2001, 19:17
- - JohnV   Ok, messages containg Off-Topic or personal things...   Nov 25 2001, 19:20
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Conclusion: From the very beginning of AAC c...   Nov 25 2001, 19:22
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Opensour...   Nov 25 2001, 19:26
- - Dibrom   layer3maniac: Enough of this. You are not longer...   Nov 25 2001, 19:28
- - Ivan Dimkovic   You know what I mean: A LEGAL free decoder, and th...   Nov 25 2001, 19:28
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Impossib...   Nov 25 2001, 19:32
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Lame and free ISO AAC are not treated the sa...   Nov 25 2001, 19:36
- - Dibrom   Thread locked.   Nov 25 2001, 20:00

Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 20:45