IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 02:38
Post #1





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



QUOTE
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
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 04:07
Post #2


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
I have wondered this as well. Why does NOBODY seem interested in working on tuning FAAC?


JohnV already pretty much covered this, and I agree with him.

Considering the fact that AAC is so encumbered with legal issues, I can't really see the point behind furthering the development of a non-commercial AAC encoder, when there is an alternative out there such as Vorbis. Vorbis is already higher quality than FAAC, for the most part higher quality than LAME, and is nearing PsyTEL and MPC in quality. Furthermore, it is absolutely free, and totally patent free. Why would you want to spend so much time and effort developing FAAC with the constant legal threat in the background when you could be working on something already higher quality and with a much more hopeful future?

This is just the way I see it. No disrespect to the FAAC project or Menno is intended.

QUOTE
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.


I don't really think this is the problem. The problem is that FAAC is open source, and if Ivan were to bring FAAC up to the level of quality PsyTEL was at, he would have to use basically the same technology present in PsyTEL. This would compromise his product from a technological point of view and would give other commercial AAC encoders a competitive edge over PsyTEL. Given that AAC is such a restricted technology from the start, I think this pretty much makes sense.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 04:33
Post #3





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



QUOTE
Considering the fact that AAC is so encumbered with legal issues, I can't really see the point behind furthering the development of a non-commercial AAC encoder, when there is an alternative out there such as Vorbis.  Vorbis is already higher quality than FAAC, for the most part higher quality than LAME, and is nearing PsyTEL and MPC in quality.  Furthermore, it is absolutely free, and totally patent free.  Why would you want to spend so much time and effort developing FAAC with the constant legal threat in the background when you could be working on something already higher quality and with a much more hopeful future?
What legal threat? Dolby ALLOWS Menno to post the source code. Furthermore, I have a feeling that Monty may very well eventually find himself in court one day. Patent free is in the eye of the lawyer.
QUOTE
The problem is that FAAC is open source, and if Ivan were to bring FAAC up to the level of quality PsyTEL was at, he would have to use basically the same technology present in PsyTEL.  This would compromise his product from a technological point of view and would give other commercial AAC encoders a competitive edge over PsyTEL.  Given that AAC is such a restricted technology from the start, I think this pretty much makes sense. 
First, Ivan wouldn't have to share ALL his secrets, just a little guidance would be nice. Second, I think even Ivan will agree that commercial aac encoders are ALREADY superior to PsyTEL's. In fact, if a community effort were to bring improvements that Ivan himself hasn't thought of, he could use them in his encoder and have a BETTER chance of competing with other commercial encoders. I don't really think it's an issue anyway... Ivan really CAN'T market an ISO compliant non-secure encoder anyway, can he? Surely Dolby or their new patent watchdogs wouldn't ever allow it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 05:03
Post #4


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
What legal threat? Dolby ALLOWS Menno to post the source code.


If you have followed the history of FAAC some, it has not always been so easy with Dolby. They threaten people who even post source code. Furthermore, you cannot post binaries ever... they will go after you for that. I think that is a pretty big issue.

QUOTE
Furthermore, I have a feeling that Monty may very well eventually find himself in court one day. Patent free is in the eye of the lawyer.


I think this is totally unsubstantiated FUD. I've seen all of this before, but I'd have to say I disagree. The Vorbis team has spent quite a bit of effort researching patents and the technology behind what they use. That doesn't mean that some company couldn't try to take them to court, but I wouldn't be so certain of this outcome at all. In fact, I'd say at this point that it would be unlikely. With the publicity that Vorbis has been getting, and the fact that Thompson (I believe it was them) stated a long time ago that they believed Vorbis likely infringed on their patents (more FUD), but that no legal action has been taken at all so far, all of this seems to emphasize that fact.

QUOTE
First, Ivan wouldn't have to share ALL his secrets, just a little guidance would be nice.


And do you know for a fact that Ivan isn't already doing this?

QUOTE
Second, I think even Ivan will agree that commercial aac encoders are ALREADY superior to PsyTEL's.


False. If you look at the results from Ivan's listening test, PsyTEL pretty much outperformed everything except for Fhg AAC. For that matter, I also have some samples where PsyTEL does outperform Fhg (as in LQT). Granted LQT doesn't feature the most advanced Fhg implementation, but it is surely the most widely used.

QUOTE
In fact, if a community effort were to bring improvements that Ivan himself hasn't thought of, he could use them in his encoder and have a BETTER chance of competing with other commercial encoders.


Now this has nothing to do with open source here, but I'm becoming skeptical of the "community effort" and it's advantages in audio encoding. 2 of the best quality encoders, MPC and PsyTEL AAC were developed mostly by a single person (and PsyTEL used some ideas from MPC as I understand, or at least Buschel helped discuss some things with Ivan). Furthermore, Monty is really the only person working on Vorbis from the psymodel point of view as I understand it.

Compare that to LAME and FAAC. Again no offense to these projects or their members, but it's fairly clear to me at least that a community effort does not guarentee quality at all.

QUOTE
I don't really think it's an issue anyway... Ivan really CAN'T market an ISO compliant non-secure encoder anyway, can he? Surely Dolby or their new patent watchdogs wouldn't ever allow it.


With these comments I'd have to assume you aren't really up on the current happenings with PsyTEL. I'd suggest you go read his page some, he very much plans to market PsyTEL and in fact I believe he already is. His AACEnc being completely ISO compatible in it's current form doesn't mean he can't encapsulate the output in a secure manner, assuming that he wouldn't be able to would be a mistake.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 05:28
Post #5





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



QUOTE
If you have followed the history of FAAC some, it has not always been so easy with Dolby.  They threaten people who even post source code.  Furthermore, you cannot post binaries ever... they will go after you for that.  I think that is a pretty big issue. 
So what? FhG Will go after people posting Lame binaries too. And Menno started posting the sourcecode with Dolby's FULL knowledge, and it has always been at soueceforge.
QUOTE
I think this is totally unsubstantiated FUD.  I've seen all of this before, but I'd have to say I disagree.  The Vorbis team has spent quite a bit of effort researching patents and the technology behind what they use.  That doesn't mean that some company couldn't try to take them to court, but I wouldn't be so certain of this outcome at all.  In fact, I'd say at this point that it would be unlikely.  With the publicity that Vorbis has been getting, and the fact that Thompson (I believe it was them) stated a long time ago that they believed Vorbis likely infringed on their patents (more FUD), but that no legal action has been taken at all so far, all of this seems to emphasize that fact. 
Whatever you disagree with is unsubstantiated FUD, isn't it?
QUOTE
And do you know for a fact that Ivan isn't already doing this?
I'm sure he'll be able to answer for himself.
QUOTE
False.  If you look at the results from Ivan's listening test, PsyTEL pretty much outperformed everything except for Fhg AAC.  For that matter, I also have some samples where PsyTEL does outperform Fhg (as in LQT).  Granted LQT doesn't feature the most advanced Fhg implementation, but it is surely the most widely used.
Oh really? And what other commercial aac implementations were used in his test?
QUOTE
Now this has nothing to do with open source here, but I'm becoming skeptical of the "community effort" and it's advantages in audio encoding.  2 of the best quality encoders, MPC and PsyTEL AAC were developed mostly by a single person (and PsyTEL used some ideas from MPC as I understand, or at least Buschel helped discuss some things with Ivan).  Furthermore, Monty is really the only person working on Vorbis from the psymodel point of view as I understand it.
I can see that you and I disagree on the value of opensource community effort. I take it you don't use Linux?
QUOTE
  With these comments I'd have to assume you aren't really up on the current happenings with PsyTEL.  I'd suggest you go read his page some, he very much plans to market PsyTEL and in fact I believe he already is.  His AACEnc being completely ISO compatible in it's current form doesn't mean he can't encapsulate the output in a secure manner, assuming that he wouldn't be able to would be a mistake.
A secure encoder is really of NO use to us, is it?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 05:35
Post #6





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



QUOTE
If you have followed the history of FAAC some, it has not always been so easy with Dolby.  They threaten people who even post source code. 
Sounds to me like you're spreading a little fear, uncertainty, and doubt yourself there.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 05:51
Post #7


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
So what? FhG Will go after people posting Lame binaries too. And Menno started posting the sourcecode with Dolby's FULL knowledge, and it has always been at soueceforge.


So what? There was a big hassle with Dolby, and legal threats. That's what. If you don't believe me, ask around. Also Gabriel has had some experience with Dolby threatening him with legal action just for posting AAC source code. There very much is an issue here whether you like it or not.

QUOTE
Whatever you disagree with is unsubstantiated FUD, isn't it?


Hardly, but if you would like to show me the factual basis for your statements about Vorbis likely having legal troubles in the future, I'd be very interested. Otherwise it's pure speculation, and in the vein of FUD such as that seen elsewhere. Nothing new really.

QUOTE
I'm sure he'll be able to answer for himself.


He's already stated that he works with Menno some, and he has even talked to me about ways in which LAME could possibly be improved. Assuming that he's keeping everything to himself is a little bit unfair, especially when you hardly know anything about the situation.

QUOTE
Oh really? And what other commercial aac implementations were used in his test?


The information is in the threads in the AAC forum. Feel free to read them at your pleasure. If that's not good enough I'm sure you could ask Ivan directly.

QUOTE
I can see that you and I disagree on the value of opensource community effort.


Since this is such a misinformed comment, I won't bother typing up another response. Instead I'll just post the original part again which you apparently missed:

QUOTE
Now this has nothing to do with open source here, but I'm becoming skeptical of the "community effort" and it's advantages in audio encoding. 2 of the best quality encoders, MPC and PsyTEL AAC were developed mostly by a single person (and PsyTEL used some ideas from MPC as I understand, or at least Buschel helped discuss some things with Ivan). Furthermore, Monty is really the only person working on Vorbis from the psymodel point of view as I understand it.


QUOTE
I take it you don't use Linux?


Not that it is related to [b]ANY
of this, but yes I do use and have used Linux quite often. I also use OpenBSD some, and many other pieces of open source software. You took my comment completely out of context. I prefaced it with that particular sentence above so that people wouldn't jump to conclusions like you just did. Guess I'll make it in bold from the start next time smile.gif

QUOTE
A secure encoder is really of NO use to us, is it?


What does this statement have to do at all with the original one you made? You said Ivan couldn't market his encoder (which you were very much mistaken about) and I gave you some information showing otherwise. Where does this last part come in?

Let me turn the tables a bit. If you believe in open source software, then why are you interested in using such a restricted format as AAC especially when no high quality implementation exists absolutely for free, but when Vorbis is out there, it works, and it's patent free? I'd certainly like to know.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 05:54
Post #8


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom
If you have followed the history of FAAC some, it has not always been so easy with Dolby. They threaten people who even post source code.


QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Sounds to me like you're spreading a little fear, uncertainty, and doubt yourself there.


LOL! biggrin.gif As they say... ignorance is bliss..

Perhaps you should check up on your facts some layer3maniac.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 06:09
Post #9





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



QUOTE
Hardly, but if you would like to show me the factual basis for your statements about Vorbis likely having legal troubles in the future, I'd be very interested.  Otherwise it's pure speculation, and in the vein of FUD such as that seen elsewhere.  Nothing new really.
You really enjoy putting words in people's mouth, don't you Dibrom? What I said is this:
QUOTE
 
I have a feeling that Monty may very well eventually find himself in court one day. Patent free is in the eye of the lawyer.

You DO understand what the words: "I have a feeling" mean, don't you? Furthermore, I have been following compressed music since 1996 and I would appreciate it if you could step down off your high horse and stop acting like people who's opinions differ from yours are just uninformed idiots. But hey, this is your site. You have every right to act like a big anus if you wish. Just don't expect other people to put up with it...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 06:32
Post #10


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Furthermore, I have been following compressed music since 1996 and I would appreciate it if you could step down off your high horse and stop acting like people who's opinions differ from yours are just uninformed idiots. But hey, this is your site. You have every right to act like a big anus if you wish. Just don't expect other people to put up with it...


LOL smile.gif

I hardly think that people who disagree with me are idiots. However I've noticed that often times when you post something as fact or you make a statement about what other people are should be doing, you don't check your facts first and often times you don't even read what has already been stated in a thread. Furthermore, you take offense at anyone that questions something that you say. Evidence of this can be seen in the thread you commented on about MPC ( http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/oldthread/showthread.php )-- when we asked for simple abx results (and we were exceedingly nice about it) you blew up at all of us and became very offensive (and in the end you never provided the clip).

So perhaps before you point the finger here, you should check yourself.

The only thing I go after is statements which are made which have no factual basis at all, or which are wrong given the facts. My statement about Dolby holds true, if you would have checked up on this some first before going off on me like you did, you would have realized this.

The same goes for my statement about community efforts and audio coding. I don't know how the hell you related my comment to open source with the explanation that I gave beforehand, or even what that had to do at all with the point I was making.

As for me stating the issue about legal problems and Vorbis as being FUD, it quite simply, is just that. The same argument has been used over and over again by people to try and show why Vorbis has no advantage over other encoders in the legal arena, and it's simply not true. Not only is it unlikely that what you mentioned would happen, there is nothing at all to back a single bit of it up. Therefore it is no reason to not use vorbis or to not try and further the progress of this encoder. And given that, one can only assume it was a statement made in the typical FUD fashion.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 07:34
Post #11





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



QUOTE
I hardly think that people who disagree with me are idiots.  However I've noticed that often times when you post something as fact or you make a statement about what other people are should be doing, you don't check your facts first and often times you don't even read what has already been stated in a thread.
What have I stated as a fact? My opinion? It is a fact that my opinion is that Vorbis will face legal trouble sooner or later. What have I said other people SHOULD do? I said that I wish Ivan would lend some of his aac tuning expertise to the opensource FAAC encoder project. If you think he has, I think maybe YOU need to check YOUR facts.
QUOTE
Furthermore, you take offense at anyone that questions something that you say.  Evidence of this can be seen in the thread you commented on about MPC -- when we asked for simple abx results (and we were exceedingly nice about it) you blew up at all of us and became very offensive (and in the end you never provided the clip).
How long ago was that? How far back does someone have to go to find evidence of your arrogance? One or two posts at the MOST. As for the clip, I decided not to help someone tune an encoder that I would ultimately have to pay for. That's MY right, MY choice, but I just KNOW that you're going to throw around the FUD word again. Rest assured that I will never have the audacity to comment on problems with Andree's encoder again. In fact, I promise not to make the mistake of encoding anything with it ever again. There, are you happy now?
QUOTE
The only thing I go after is statements which are made which have no factual basis at all, or which are wrong given the facts.  My statement about Dolby holds true, if you would have checked up on this some first before going off on me like you did, you would have realized this.
The only thing you go after is statements you don't personally happen to agree with. Because, after all, you know EVERYTHING, don't you. Your statement about Dolby holds true? Then why has the source for ISO aac and FAAC ALWAYS been available? Where's the truth in your statements to the contrary?
QUOTE
As for me stating the issue about legal problems and Vorbis as being FUD, it quite simply, is just that. 
The problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between someone expressing an opinion you disagree with and a corporate effort to prevent people from doing something (FUD). Your opinion about the danger people will be wasting their time by working on an opensource aac project are JUST AS SPECULATIVE, just as much FUD, as my opinion about the danger of Vorbis facing or ultimately winning a legal battle.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 07:50
Post #12


Founder


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



layer3maniac:

I'm not going to continue bother arguing with you on this matter. I have no desire to waste my time on crap like this anymore. If you want to get informed and have some sort of useful discussion here, then that is fine, but I'm not going to perpetuate this nonsense. As it is I'm already getting fed up enough with crap like this continuing to make its way into the forum.

Further posts from you in this thread on the matter you are discussing will go directly to the off topic forum and I will not waste my time responding to them. Make note of that.

As it is, much of the later posts should already be split out somewhere else, but since they were originally somewhat on topic (before you decided to get so defensive) I will keep them here for the time being.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post Nov 25 2001, 08:46
Post #13


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
I think even Ivan will agree that commercial aac encoders are ALREADY superior to PsyTEL's. In fact, if a community effort were to bring improvements that Ivan himself hasn't thought of, he could use them in his encoder and have a BETTER chance of competing with other commercial encoders. I don't really think it's an issue anyway... Ivan really CAN'T market an ISO compliant non-secure encoder anyway, can he? Surely Dolby or their new patent watchdogs wouldn't ever allow it.


I can't agree smile.gif Only commercial encoder I've tested that was statistically better my AAC encoder was FhG/Dolby AAC, but they are out of competition anyway - and they are clearly better for low bitrates only and hard-to-encode clips! As someone mentioned, on some clips PsyTEL is better than FhG's codec used in liquidaudio (probably AAC 3.0, not 2.2 which is their 'slow' 'mp3enc-like' implementation)

I've tested several third-party commercial AAC encoders (unfortunately I can't disclose their identities since their vendors required NDA binding) and none of them was superior, most of them were very similar but without many features of PsyTEL AAC (VBR, for example - or ATH tweaking, or presets...) and some of them were clearly inferior for all critical items (one of the commercial encoders was mentioned in the AAC vs. MP3 @128 and this codec was worse than AACEnc for castanet clip, and I can certify that it behaved pretty much the similar for other critical clips with lots of pre-echo smearing).

My business plan is out of end-user industry anyway. Fortunately, I will probably release full-featured MPEG-4 Audio+Video authoring tool next June when MPEG-4 patent portfolio is finished (MPEG-LA LLC will be in charge for patent licensing). But this will be a commercial product, hopefully the patent agreement price would be fair enough to allow me to make good pricing plans for the end-user product.

Regarding optimized free opensource AAC encoder - I agree with Dibrom, the point of releasing best psychoacoustic model and other tools is useless in case of AAC - no one could legally use it, Dolby would hunt binary copies of the encoders (unlike FhG policy for MP3 - Dolby is very strict when we talk about their intellectual property) - and ALL companies would be able to use that code in their products because they have DRM, Encryption layers and patent agreements with Dolby. That is not fair at all to Open Source community.

And, something about lending my expertise to Menno - I am in contact with Menno every day through ICQ - I also helped him fix some bugs that made FAAC incapable of encoding low-sampling-rate wave files. We also talked on ways how to improve FAAC quality many many times. Perhaps it is not my business to speak about this - (Menno should join this discussion but he is busy this week with his exams) - And finally, despite my believeing regarding optimized AAC algorithms, I am very short on free time to work on FAAC (Menno is out of free time, too). However, I did some work on FAAD, mostly on speed optimization and the results are clearly visible.

-- Ivan
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 10:23
Post #14





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



QUOTE
Regarding optimized free opensource AAC encoder - I agree with Dibrom, the point of releasing best psychoacoustic model and other tools is useless in case of AAC - no one could legally use it, Dolby would hunt binary copies of the encoders (unlike FhG policy for MP3 - Dolby is very strict when we talk about their intellectual property) - and ALL companies would be able to use that code in their products because they have DRM, Encryption layers and patent agreements with Dolby. That is not fair at all to Open Source community.
It's not any harder to get binaries of aac encoders than it is mp3 encoders like Lame and Blade. And couldn't the exact same arguments about fairness to the opensource community be made against improving Lame, Vorbis, Linux or ANY opensource project for that matter? When Monty incorperates wavelets into Vorbis, couldn't commercial developers just study the code and utilize the technology?

When Menno said:
QUOTE
FAAC is not really optimized for quality. It's merely a reference implementation for an AAC encoder. It can of course be optimized, big time, but we need some more developers for that.
I believed him. I accept the fact that you don't think it's in your best interest to help improve the quality, even though I don't fully understand it. But what about all the opensource Lame people? I also think that software patents in general, and especially those based on ISO standards, are due for a big court battle someday. That is - if they don't expire first... smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 10:44
Post #15


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
It's not any harder to get binaries of aac encoders than it is mp3 encoders like Lame and Blade.


This most certainly is not the case. It is much easier to get binaries of LAME than it is to get binaries of AAC encoders. For one, the binaries of AAC are certainly illegal and will be taken down immediately if they are found out. With LAME there have been websites established for a long time, well known, which have everything necessary. As Ivan said, Fhg doesn't really care about LAME binaries. Dolby does care about AAC binaries.

QUOTE
And couldn't the exact same arguments about fairness to the opensource community be made against improving Lame, Vorbis, Linux or ANY opensource project for that matter? When Monty incorperates wavelets into Vorbis, couldn't commercial developers just study the code and utilize the technology?


No to the first question. Because these projects are not commercial by nature. AAC is commercial by nature and so is PsyTEL. It is a much more competitive market and it is not meant for the end user. LAME and Vorbis were never started for the purpose of being marketed commercially, so the situation is totally irrelevant in those cases.

In the case of at least Vorbis, they are not concerned with companies utilizing their technology, this is why it ships with a BSD license instead of a GPL license.

Two totally different situations you have there that cannot be directly related to eachother.

QUOTE
When Menno said:

[...]

I believed him. I accept the fact that you don't think it's in your best interest to help improve the quality, even though I don't fully understand it. But what about all the opensource Lame people? I also think that software patents in general, and especially those based on ISO standards, are due for a big court battle someday. That is - if they don't expire first...  smile.gif


For the record I can't see myself working on AAC as it currently exists. If I ever stop working on LAME (which with all things considered will likely happen sooner rather than later) I'll move directly to working on Vorbis. This would be the wisest choice for nearly anyone IMO.

I cannot see a valid argument for extensively working on a "free" AAC encoder and I'm not sure I can see anyone coming up with one. The technology is heavily restricted and a free implementation is under constant legal threat [b]now
. Vorbis, while you may still believe that it will someday have legal issues (without basis), does not suffer from this currently. Furthermore, binaries are easily accessible, as is the code, and the quality is MUCH higher than that of FAAC already. Add to that the fact that Vorbis is being incorporated into many end user programs and that it will likely be gaining hardware support soon.

So really.. what advantage at all does a free open source AAC project offer to the end user (research aside)? I'd really like to see some convincing arguments for this because I can't think of any.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 11:18
Post #16





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



QUOTE
  For one, the binaries of AAC are certainly illegal and will be taken down immediately if they are found out.  With LAME there have been websites established for a long time, well known, which have everything necessary.  As Ivan said, Fhg doesn't really care about LAME binaries.  Dolby does care about AAC binaries.
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...
QUOTE
Because these projects are not commercial by nature.  AAC is commercial by nature and so is PsyTEL.  It is a much more competitive market and it is not meant for the end user.  LAME and Vorbis were never started for the purpose of being marketed commercially, so the situation is totally irrelevant in those cases.
What??? Operating systems and mp3 encoders are NOT commercial by nature? I suppose Bill Gates got filthy rich by giving away Windows and DOS. This argument makes NO sense.
QUOTE
In the case of at least Vorbis, they are not concerned with companies utilizing their technology, this is why it ships with a BSD license instead of a GPL license. Two totally different situations you have there that cannot be directly related to each other.
FAAC isn't "concerned with companies utilizing their technology" either. That's exactly my point.
QUOTE
I cannot see a valid argument for working on a "free" AAC encoder and I'm not sure I can see anyone coming up with one. 
Tell that to Menno. smile.gif
QUOTE
Vorbis, while you may still believe that it will someday have legal issues (without basis), does not suffer from this currently.  Furthermore, binaries are easily accessible, as is the code, and the quality is MUCH higher than that of FAAC already.  Add to that the fact that Vorbis is being incorporated into many end user programs and that it will likely be gaining hardware support soon.
The threat of legal action is there. It has already been made. It's NO less eminent for aac developement than it is for Lame and Vorbis developement. Do you really think a lawsuit from Thompson or FhG would be any easier to defend than a lawsuit from Dolby? Why would it?
QUOTE
So really.. what advantage at all does a free open source AAC project offer to the end user (research aside)?  I'd really like to see some convincing arguments for this because I can't think of any.
The exact same thing Lame and Vorbis offers the end user. Hopefully, a better encoder.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 11:35
Post #17


Founder


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



QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 16:36
Post #18





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



QUOTE
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.
I'm starting to wonder just how long you've been involved in audio compression. You need to study a little history before you make such ludicrous statemenrs. If you think FhG has no proplem with distributing Lame binaries then why aren't they available for download here? Why aren't they available on r3mix? Whay aren't they available on Lame's site? Whay aren't they available at SourceForge? If you don't think FhG HAS gone after people distributing mp3 binaries, ask Tord about it. You are mistaken here, whether you can admit it or not.
QUOTE
First of all, I was not discussing operating systems.  However, if you were to trace Linux back to its origins, it was 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. 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.
Please DO look at my statements immediately before this. I brought up Linux because Ivan suggested that contributing to an opensource project is a waste of time since commercial companies will "borrow" the technology.
I see NO difference between commercial companies using the work done on Linux or Vorbis versus FAAC.
QUOTE
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.
If you really believe this, why don't you host Lame binaries here? Once again, I think you need to study the history before you make such ridiculous claims. FhG has gone after PLENTY of people.
QUOTE
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.
Study the patents. See if any of the patented technologies like MS stereo exist in Vorbis.
QUOTE
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.
Products like CDEX and WinLame? You are aware that they support FAAC aren't you?
QUOTE
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.
A freeware aac encoder isn't theoretical at ALL. FAAC exists. It just needs to be tuned. Don't get me wrong. I love Vorbis. I am cheering for it's success as hard as ANYONE. But I believe that aac is a superior format to Vorbis. Look at how inferior an untuned Vorbis encoder's outupt is compared to an untuned aac encoder's. If you want, I'll provide hundreds of clips encoded by the original untuned Vorbis encoder and the untuned FAAC encoder at similar bitrates and let YOU decide which format is better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post Nov 25 2001, 16:57
Post #19


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



No one here wants to put LAME binaries because it >might< lead to problems with FhG - but, so far, FhG has done 'codec crackdown' only once, in 1999 - with 8Hz, Blade, etc... Dolby and AT&T actively scan for mass-download link for AAC (sometimes I get their IP addresses and URL referal from big MP3 software sites, which means that they do day-by-day scan).

One more thing - while AACEnc was in development phase I had long technical discussions with people from FhG and they NEVER complained about existance of free AAC encoder link on my site! On the contrary, guys from Dolby were very strict and they stated that they won't talk with me about any matter before I remove the binaries from the web.

In addition, Karlheinz Brandenburg (owner of many MP3 and AAC patents and one of the most important people in audio comrpession) stated implicitly in one of interviews that FhG won't hunt free decoders and I think that it is more than enough to see that FhG/Thomson are less concerned about free stuff. Dolby, on the other hand, does not allow free decoder binaries making entire stuff pointless from the mass-usage point of view sad.gif

Also, I am quite sure that AAC is currently the best algorithm in terms of quality vs. size. I can certify that because biggest names and companies in audio industry were involved in AAC development, and it would be very hard to match this, not to mention outperforming.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 17:21
Post #20


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
I'm starting to wonder just how long you've been involved in audio compression. You need to study a little history before you make such ludicrous statemenrs. If you think FhG has no proplem with distributing Lame binaries then why aren't they available for download here? Why aren't they available on r3mix? Whay aren't they available on Lame's site? Whay aren't they available at SourceForge? If you don't think FhG HAS gone after people distributing mp3 binaries, ask Tord about it.


LOL! Ok, you're telling me that I need to check up on my facts with all of the completely uninformed statements you've been making lately? That's a little funny. smile.gif

As for why people are not posting LAME binaries everywhere, some people choose not to participate in illegal activities as much as is possible. It's fairly simple.

And as I stated, many of the sites that host LAME have been the same for a very long time, they are linked to prominently on the LAME webpage, and they are still up. I have not seen Fhg take any sort of drastic action against any of them, however I have seen Dolby take action many times.

QUOTE
You are mistaken here, whether you can admit it or not.


Haha... just like you admitted you were wrong about your "MPC problem" right? biggrin.gif Or, I forgot... you just tucked tail and disappeared instead of taking it like a man and admitting you were just perpetuating some BS claims which you knew you couldn't prove (explains why you got so defensive..). Guess you didn't want to lose face..

QUOTE
Please DO look at my statements immediately before this. I brought up Linux because Ivan suggested that contributing to an opensource project is a waste of time since commercial companies will "borrow" the technology.


As usual, you take the meaning of what someone is saying totally out of context to fit into your twisted view of things. Ivan didn't say anything of the sort, he was specifically discussing AAC. I think you need to read what people are saying a little bit more carefully before you jump to such flawed conclusions about their statements.

QUOTE
I see NO difference between commercial companies using the work done on Linux or Vorbis versus FAAC.


Again... twisted out of context. You discussed Ivan taking part in the development of FAAC to make it better. Both he and I already explained the issues behind this, yet you continue to ignore them.

QUOTE
If you really believe this, why don't you host Lame binaries here? Once again, I think you need to study the history before you make such ridiculous claims. FhG has gone after PLENTY of people.


I explained this in my above response. And telling me I need to study my history some is just hilarious coming from you. As for Fhg going after people hosting LAME binaries, I'd like some details. AFAIC the major sites hosting LAME have remained unchanged for a very long time. Furthermore Fhg has really done nothing to try and stop the LAME project.

QUOTE
Study the patents. See if any of the patented technologies like MS stereo exist in Vorbis.


This is about the uninformed comment I've seen. First of all Monty has discussed this MANY times on the mailing list. Joint Stereo in and of itself is not patented, certain methods of implementation are, but there are many that aren't. Vorbis does not use any of the patented methods. Looking for a patent on "MS stereo" and then saying "gee, Vorbis must be violating patents" would simply be foolish. The Vorbis team has already done their homework here and any of the people understanding the technology behind their stereo coding systems (maybe you should go read the page which discusses some of it) would realize there is no problem here, or at the very least it isn't nearly as black and white as you try to make it out to be.

QUOTE
Products like CDEX and WinLame? You are aware that they support FAAC aren't you?


"Incorporated into" means built in. A freeware ISO AAC implementation will never be shipped in one easy to use bundle of program. If it is, it will instantly be a prime target for Dolby and shut down faster than you can imagine.

QUOTE
A freeware aac encoder isn't theoretical at ALL. FAAC exists.


Again taken out of context. Reread the paragraph. The "theoretical aac encoder" was the one that would already be tuned to the maximum level possible. I was NOT talking about FAAC, I was talking about a highly tuned freeware encoder that does not exist.

QUOTE
Don't get me wrong. I love Vorbis. I am cheering for it's success as hard as ANYONE. But I believe that aac is a superior format to Vorbis. Look at how inferior an untuned Vorbis encoder's outupt is compared to an untuned aac encoder's.


I think you are seriously jumping the gun here. Vorbis isn't even really "done" yet, it hasn't reached a release state in any form.

You do realize that Vorbis is nearing PsyTEL and MPC quality and is FAR ahead of FAAC don't you?

QUOTE
If you want, I'll provide hundreds of clips encoded by the original untuned Vorbis encoder and the untuned FAAC encoder at similar bitrates and let YOU decide which format is better.


Untuned is absolute irrelevant. I don't even know how you could possibly try and judge two codecs side by side with "untuned" modes and then somehow come to the conclusion that one format is better than the other.

Also you have to realize that at the very least FAAC was based on an already existing ISO implementation. Vorbis was built entirely from scratch. Now Vorbis has far exceeded FAAC.

And as for the untuned bit, what release are you even talking about? I'd be inclined to believe that even beta4 was probably higher quality than FAAC. Most people feel that even LAME (based on a totally inferior format) is higher quality... so what does that tell you?

This discussion has spiraled WAY off topic and out of it's original context. You originally asked why more people didn't work on AAC, I gave you reasons for that (at which point you became very defensive). It does not make sense to work on a freeware AAC format from a mass usage (for the end user) point of view. I hope that many of the people working on LAME do not move in this direction because I honestly think that all things considered, it is not the most prudent decision to make. Freeware AAC is doomed from the start as far as ever attaining mass mainstream usage.

Also, I'm growing tired of the tone of this current discussion...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post Nov 25 2001, 17:34
Post #21


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



Ok people - there are three legal (more or less) distributions of the AAC technology:


1. ISO reference software
2. FAAC/FAAD sourceforge distribution
3. Cisco MPEG4IP project (http://mpeg4ip.sourceforge.net)


Cisco's lawyers claim that LGPL distribution is completely legal and that Dolby can't forbid such distribution - BUT, usage of the binaries is quite illegal.

Now, the ONLY difference between FAAC and LAME is: availability of FREE BINARY DECODERS. You have TONS of them for MP3, in the near future they will be integrated in everything. In this case it is easy to tolerate 'illegal' encoders because it is useless to control the format anyway - everybody is using it.

However, in case of AAC - Dolby/AT&T/FHG guys were using following reasoning: 'ok, if we allow free decoders and ISO format then we will CERTAINLY have tons of illegal encoder binaries and no one would be able to stop distribution - just like with MP3' - so they switched to plan B, and from the very beginning they are not allowing free decoder binaries. You can't bundle ISO AAC decoder in anything sad.gif

Now, there MIGHT be a solution, with upcoming .MP4 format. Because audio patent licensing will be under authority of different company - MPEG-LA LLC, and they might allow 'raw' format. We'll see what happens.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 17:40
Post #22





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



QUOTE
LOL!  Ok, you're telling me that I need to check up on my facts with all of the completely uninformed statements you've been making lately?  That's a little funny. smile.gif
Who said Vorbis is superior to aac? Who said that FhG doesn't go after mp3 binaries? What uninformed statements have I made?
QUOTE
As for why people are not posting LAME binaries everywhere, some people choose not to participate in illegal activities as much as is possible.  It's fairly simple. And as I stated, many of the sites that host LAME have been the same for a very long time, they are linked to prominently on the LAME webpage, and they are still up.  I have not seen Fhg take any sort of drastic action against any of them, however I have seen Dolby take action many times.
And as I have stated, many sites have had aac binaries available for a very long time. You talk about action. The action taken is the same whether it's FhG or Dolby. Threatening letters.
QUOTE
Haha... just like you admitted you were wrong about your "MPC problem" right? biggrin.gif Or, I forgot... you just tucked tail and disappeared instead of taking it like a man and admitting you were just perpetuating some BS claims which you knew you couldn't prove (explains why you got so defensive..).  Guess you didn't want to lose face..
Guess again. I didn't want to work on tuning an encoder so I could be charged for using it once it is tuned.
QUOTE
As usual, you take the meaning of what someone is saying totally out of context to fit into your twisted view of things.  Ivan didn't say anything of the sort, he was specifically discussing AAC.  I think you need to read what people are saying a little bit more carefully before you jump to such flawed conclusions about their statements.
Ivan suggested that it is a waste to work on an opensource project if commercial companies can steal the improvements. There is nothing twisted about that.
QUOTE
Again... twisted out of context.  You discussed Ivan taking part in the development of FAAC to make it better.  Both he and I already explained the issues behind this, yet you continue to ignore them.
I didn't ignore them. As I said, if Ivan doesn't want to contribute, fine. That's his perogative.
QUOTE
I explained this in my above response.  And telling me I need to study my history some is just hilarious coming from you.  As for Fhg going after people hosting LAME binaries, I'd like some details.  AFAIC the major sites hosting LAME have remained unchanged for a very long time.  Furthermore Fhg has really done nothing to try and stop the LAME project.
Dolby hasn't done anything to stop FAAC either. You DO need to study history. You seemed to be COMPLETELY ignorant of the FACT that FhG HAS gone after people who hosted mp3 binaries.
QUOTE
"Incorporated into" means built in.  A freeware ISO AAC implementation will never be shipped in one easy to use bundle of program.  If it is, it will instantly be a prime target for Dolby and shut down faster than you can imagine.
You don't even understand the dynamics of the industry. Dolby isn't the one fighting ISO aac implementations. It's the RECORD COMPANIES. The SAME record companies which will urge their partners to go after Vorbis. It cracks me up to have someone SO uninformed accuse me of being uninformed. But hey, Dibrom. You know EVERYTHING. Even when you don't...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 17:44
Post #23





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



QUOTE
Freeware AAC is doomed from the start as far as ever attaining mass mainstream usage.
How many people have downloaded the FREEWARE Liquid Auido AAC encoder? Doomed, huh?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Nov 25 2001, 17:50
Post #24





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Study the patents. See if any of the patented technologies like MS stereo exist in Vorbis.
At this time, it seems there are no patent infringements. Vorbis doesn't use MS stereo. Vorbis has two channel coupling modes. The first is channel interleaving via residue backend #2, and the second is square polar mapping. http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/doc/stereo.html


QUOTE
But I believe that aac is a superior format to Vorbis. Look at how inferior an untuned Vorbis encoder's outupt is compared to an untuned aac encoder's. 
If you want, I'll provide hundreds of clips encoded by the original untuned Vorbis encoder and the untuned FAAC encoder at similar bitrates and let YOU decide which format is better.
LOL smile.gif smile.gif. Well, firstable, I can't see how could you possible compare untuned version by any means and make conclusions, Vorbis didn't even have channel coupling implemented before RC2. And lacked many basic functions, before RC-releases, even the bitstream was not set.
FAAC is at least based on working ISO AAC source code. And although available ISO AAC source is no quality at all, at least it was proven that AAC can actually achieve high quality (FhG's AAC implementation).
Vorbis had to be created "from a scratch".


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 17:59
Post #25


Founder


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



[quote]Originally posted by layer3maniac
Who said Vorbis is superior to aac?[/quote]

Geez... do you even read what people post before responding to it? Where did I say Vorbis was superior to AAC? I said Vorbis was superior to FAAC.

[quote]Who said that FhG doesn't go after mp3 binaries?[/quote]

Ivan explained this quite well about 3 times already. Please refer to his posts for details.

[quote]What uninformed statements have I made?[/quote]

I pointed them out quite specifically. Refer to previous posts for details.

[quote]And as I have stated, many sites have had aac binaries available for a very long time.[/quote]

Not nearly as many sites which host LAME, and the sites which host AAC are not prominently linked to from all sorts of places. Also I can assure you that if these sites have been discovered by Dolby and they are in any country which respects patent laws, they'd be taken down immediately.

[quote]Guess again. I didn't want to work on tuning an encoder so I could be charged for using it once it is tuned.[/quote]

Nice excuse. First you throw a fit when someone asks you to prove your claims. Then you mysteriously apologize and decide you want to work together, probably thinking it wouldn't make you look so bad. Then when someone sets up an ftp and it came time to deliver (after you already agreed to), you simply vanished. No word or anything... and you didn't come back to the site and post for quite awhile after that. A tad suspicious wouldn't you say?

[quote]Ivan suggested that it is a waste to work on an opensource project if commercial companies can steal the improvements. There is nothing twisted about that.[/quote]

You must have not read that paragraph fully. Ivan was specifically talking about AAC, yet you somehow twist that into implying that is his stance on all open source projects. That's totally ignorant.

[quote]I didn't ignore them. As I said, if Ivan doesn't want to contribute, fine. That's his perogative.[/quote]

I beg to differ, you keep posting the same things in response, as if you haven't even read what people are posting. It's almost like talking to a brick wall..

[quote]Dolby hasn't done anything to stop FAAC either.[/quote]

Oh really? How bout that Dolby enforced their patent rights and disallowed FAAC to post encoders or decoders in binary format, at all, and actively seeking out and shutting down sites that host them. You don't consider that action against FAAC? I certainly do.

[quote]You DO need to study history. You seemed to be COMPLETELY ignorant of the FACT that FhG HAS gone after people who hosted mp3 binaries.[/quote]

As Ivan already stated (and he knows a hell of a lot more about this than you), Fhg isn't actively seeking out and shutting down sites which host binaries. An isolated incident or two may have occurred in the past but that is not representative of current behavior. Dolby is actively enforcing their patents on the other hand.

[quote]You don't even understand the dynamics of the industry. Dolby isn't the one fighting ISO aac implementations. It's the RECORD COMPANIES. The SAME record companies which will urge their partners to go after Vorbis.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even READ what Ivan just posted AT ALL? Jesus..

[quote]It cracks me up to have someone SO uninformed accuse me of being uninformed. But hey, Dibrom. You know EVERYTHING. Even when you don't... [/quote]

You know, I don't think I've ever seen you post anything useful anywhere layer3maniac, and yet when someone disagrees with you on the slightest detail or responds to your posts in a manner contrary to what you'd prefer, you have to make such a big deal about it. Even if you know you are wrong, you simply can't stand that fact so you post the same thing over and over, no matter who says what or who shows you to be wrong. If that doesn't work, you drag the discussion all over hell to try and take it off topic or twist it out of proportion to where it has no meaning anymore... Why don't you just let it go already?

So far, looking from the posts from people who KNOW wtf they are talking about on these matters (Ivan for one), they seem to be agreeing with my statements here. So you can think all you like but for the most part you are alone in your beliefs.. take a look around, that's a sure sign that you are wrong.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: 17th April 2014 - 15:28