FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality Options

[layer3maniac]

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.

[layer3maniac]

Oh please.. that's about the most pathetic excuse one could think of.  "Doing Andree's work for him".. lol.  The fact of the matter is that you fell for the "me too" trap, and you couldn't deliver what you said you could.  You and I both know it.  And you behaved there in the same manner you behaved here, you simply couldn't stand the fact that people questioned what you said.. so you became exceedingly defensive.

Gee Dibrom, I didn't realize that you could read minds too. I guess when you know everything that includes mind reading. Can you guess what I'm thinking right now? Let me save you the trouble. I'm thinking I'm sorry I ever CAME to your site and subjected myself to your arrogance.

Yes, I willingly admit Ivan knows more about it than me.  He WORKS with Fhg and Dolby, he has been in contact with them, he knows the licensing policies and he has intimate exposure to their technologies.  He knows far more about it than I do, and I also know that he has a much greater knowledge of it than you do as well.  If you think otherwise, that's also pretty ignorant.  When have you ever been involved in any psychoacoustic audio development, let alone AAC?

We're not discussing psychoacoustic developement Dibrom. We're discussing PATENT ENFORCEMENT and LEGALITY. I have been in contact with Dolby and FhG for YEARS on these subjects. What you seem to be missing is that USING Lame is ALSO illegal. You actively promote and discuss your use of Lame on this site. Where's your fear of legal ramifications there?