Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft (Read 14887 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

I'm working on a music player designed for musicians, which is a bit similar to foobar, but adds features such as tempo detection, time shifting, loops, markers, etc.

I'm using the FMOD audio library, which does not include a license for using MP3 files.

I contacted Technicolor to arrange a license for my free software but the guy told me that free software must also pay the $15k royalty per year (0.75$ per decoder). See the rates here: http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html

I asked him if Foobar, LAME and the other free audio solutions have paid royalties but he answered me by saying it's impossible for them to guarantee that everyone pays a license. However, they are exposed to legal action.

There is a free license for games with less than 5000 copies distributed, but somehow my player doesn't fit in this category since it's not a game.

I searched around the net and it seems that this fee started back in 2002. It's already been 9 years.

Has anyone been harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free software? Can they sue you for damage even though we're not making a single buck developing our free, open-source softwares? I don't want to end up paying thousands of dollars in damage for something I didn't make a penny on.

By the way, I live in Canada, if that changes something.

Thanks.

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #1 –
Yes! There is a patent for MP3.  People have been sued.  (I don't know what the Canadian situation is, but beware!)

I think the patent is nearing expiration... 

If you look at the LAME website it says it's "for educational purposes" and you cannot download a functioning CODEC from the LAME website, only the source code.  If you compile & distribute it, you are supposed to pay a royality.

Winamp and dbPoweramp charge extra for versions that include MP3 encoding... Guess why...

Some software distributers seem to get around it by making their software work with LAME, but they don't host LAME on their website...  They either provide a link to another server or they tell you to find it yourself.

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #2 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
Yes! There is a patent for MP3.  People have been sued.  (I don't know what the Canadian situation is, but beware!)

I think the patent is nearing expiration... 

If you look at the LAME website it says it's "for educational purposes" and you cannot download a functioning CODEC from the LAME website, only the source code.  If you compile & distribute it, you are supposed to pay a royality.

Winamp and dbPoweramp charge extra for versions that include MP3 encoding... Guess why...

Some software distributers seem to get around it by making their software work with LAME, but they don't host LAME on their website...  They either provide a link to another server or they tell you to find it yourself.


Thanks for the information. I didn't realize that LAME was only distributed in source code, at least on the official site. Maybe I could release my software without MP3 support in binary form, but make it easy to add MP3 support with the source code version. My software is using FMOD so that is pretty much a matter of filtering file extensions.

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #3 –
Quote from: iancast on
Quote from: DVDdoug on
Yes! There is a patent for MP3.  People have been sued.  (I don't know what the Canadian situation is, but beware!)

I think the patent is nearing expiration... 

If you look at the LAME website it says it's "for educational purposes" and you cannot download a functioning CODEC from the LAME website, only the source code.  If you compile & distribute it, you are supposed to pay a royality.

Winamp and dbPoweramp charge extra for versions that include MP3 encoding... Guess why...

Some software distributers seem to get around it by making their software work with LAME, but they don't host LAME on their website...  They either provide a link to another server or they tell you to find it yourself.


Thanks for the information. I didn't realize that LAME was only distributed in source code, at least on the official site. Maybe I could release my software without MP3 support in binary form, but make it easy to add MP3 support with the source code version. My software is using FMOD so that is pretty much a matter of filtering file extensions.


As far as I know they usually don't care if you include an mp3 decoder in free software.  On Windows at least the OS already has an mp3 decoder thats properly licensed, so its not like they're not getting paid.  Its the encoder they tend to care more about, which is why almost nothing free includes the encoder (instead you have to download your own lame.exe).

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #4 –
Quote from: saratoga on
As far as I know they usually don't care if you include an mp3 decoder in free software.  On Windows at least the OS already has an mp3 decoder thats properly licensed, so its not like they're not getting paid.  Its the encoder they tend to care more about, which is why almost nothing free includes the encoder (instead you have to download your own lame.exe).


Maybe that's why the guy from Technicolor was evasive when I asked if the other free software solutions paid licenses. Officially there is a $0.75 fee per decoder and minimum of $15k per year license. But what money can be made over free software that only decodes MP3 files? Foobar has ads on their site but I doubt they make much money out of it. I won't put ads on my site, just to make sure my product is totally free.

Did anyone get sued after releasing a free software that decodes MP3 files, without ads or any form of income? This fee exists since 2002, I'm guessing Foobar and other free audio players would have been shut down by now?

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #5 –
From Wikipedia:

Quote
The various MP3-related patents expire on dates ranging from 2007 to 2017 in the U.S. The initial near-complete MPEG-1 standard (parts 1, 2 and 3) was publicly available on December 6, 1991 as ISO CD 11172. In the United States, patents cannot claim inventions that were already publicly disclosed more than a year prior to the filing date, but for patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, submarine patents made it possible to extend the effective lifetime of a patent through application extensions. Patents filed for anything disclosed in ISO CD 11172 a year or more after its publication are questionable; if only the known MP3 patents filed by December 1992 are considered, then MP3 decoding may be patent free in the US by December 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #6 –
Quote from: saratoga on
As far as I know they usually don't care if you include an mp3 decoder in free software.  On Windows at least the OS already has an mp3 decoder thats properly licensed, so its not like they're not getting paid.


That's why Fedora won't include an mp3 decoder.  At least so far, all my PC's are also licensed for Windows.

Another revenue stream for mp3 is the licence fee for content distribution (internet radio etc.) 



Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #7 –
spoon's dBpoweramp was originally a free application, but when he was forced to start paying a fee, that also forced him to start charging.

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #8 –
AFAIK, Un4Seen provides a BASS version without built-in MP3 support, but which relies on the Windows decoder. Is it too late to switch the library?

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #9 –
Which patent(s) are they asserting at this point?
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
AFAIK, Un4Seen provides a BASS version without built-in MP3 support, but which relies on the Windows decoder. Is it too late to switch the library?
Microsoft provides a licensed decoder, but no encoder. 

Quote
By the way, I live in Canada...

Have you ever considered relocating to Brazil? 

RareWares.org[/color][/u] is registered in Brazil.

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #12 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
Microsoft provides a licensed decoder, but no encoder.


Right, but does he need an encoder? I am confused as he mentions FMOD in his first post (a decoding library similar to BASS) and royalty fees for decoders. He also uses the term "player".

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #13 –
   Good point, Sebastian.  I'm reading "loops & time-shifting", and...  Depending on how he wants to use his application, I guess there's no reason you can't do that stuff in real-time during playback.

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #14 –
Quote from: pdq on
spoon's dBpoweramp was originally a free application, but when he was forced to start paying a fee, that also forced him to start charging.


That's normal since they go after encoders, which are more expensive. I can understand that. I was talking about decoding only.

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
AFAIK, Un4Seen provides a BASS version without built-in MP3 support, but which relies on the Windows decoder. Is it too late to switch the library?


I don't have to switch libraries. I can actually simply remove the MP3 support from my application just by filtering the extension. Someone can take my source code and remove the file extension filter and the application will support MP3. It becomes their licensing problem.

The application only decodes files. It doesn't encode anything. It relies on the FMOD MP3 decoder (might be licensed from another company, I don't know).

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #16 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
AFAIK, Un4Seen provides a BASS version without built-in MP3 support, but which relies on the Windows decoder. Is it too late to switch the library?
Microsoft provides a licensed decoder, but no encoder. 

I've heard it sounds like sh*t too.

Quote
By the way, I live in Canada...

Have you ever considered relocating to Brazil? 

RareWares.org[/color][/u] is registered in Brazil.


Hahaha, I like Brazilian women, but I've heard they rape your bank account once you're married and then they leave with all your money...

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Quote from: DVDdoug on
Microsoft provides a licensed decoder, but no encoder.


Right, but does he need an encoder? I am confused as he mentions FMOD in his first post (a decoding library similar to BASS) and royalty fees for decoders. He also uses the term "player".


I'm sorry if I was not clear.

My application only decodes MP3. It does not encode audio files at all.

MP3 support can be easily removed from the application using a file extension filter.

It is using the FMOD audio library, which is very similar to BASS except it's more popular amongst game programmers.

I'm calling it an "audio player" because it plays audio files. To me, Foobar2k, Winamp, iTunes, etc. are "audio players". It might be confusing because French is my native language, and I'm not using the right words, I don't know.

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #18 –
Could Rarewares.org host the binary version of my application including MP3 support? Would that be a workaround since the server is in Brazil, or it doesn't change anything since I live in Canada?

Did anyone get harassed by Technicolor for MP3 licensing for free soft

Reply #19 –
Quote from: iancast on
Could Rarewares.org host the binary version of my application including MP3 support? Would that be a workaround since the server is in Brazil, or it doesn't change anything since I live in Canada?
Since you don't need to encode, if this is a Windows application, you can use the Windows-supplied MP3 decoder.  You don't need to distribute a decoder, since a fully-licensed one is already loaded on the user's computer.    I assume OS X has a decoder too.  (Linux does not come with a licensed decoder, since nobody is paying royalties.)