Klarinet Archive - Posting 000096.txt from 2010/07

From: Eric Dannewitz <ericdano@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] iTunes and mp3
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:39:45 -0400


On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>
> To cite only one example, the reason that everyone is still using that
> buggy, horrible piece of rubbish called Adobe Flash to watch online
> video is because the process of agreeing an international standard for
> streaming web video has been held up -- for years -- because of major
> concerns over software patents.
>
> Think that pushing virtually every internet user into the hands of a
> single supplier isn't a big effect?

But that is NOT what Apple has done by using AAC/MPEG4. That did you READ the license? This is totally different than what you are citing with Flash. AAC is supported by a wide range of players, including the Zune (if anyone has one).

Flash is a totally closed system. But AAC/MPEG4 is not. It is an open standard that has a reasonable licensing for it. Heck, even YouTube uses it now. And CNN.

And I don't think that is why everyone is using Flash to watch Video. It was one of the first things to have video streaming and Adobe has the funds to push it. Heck, REAL was the king of streaming before Flash. And if you can remember that time, you can remember all the confusing formats that would work with something and not others. You had formats pushed by Microsoft, Real, Vivo, Adobe and Apple. The ones that seem to have "won" now are Adobe's Flash, which is closed, and Apple which supports MPEG4 (video) and AAC (audio). Apple is supporting an Open Standard. Adobe isn't.

> No; let's stop using all software for which the patent holders enforce
> onerous licensing schemes. There are plenty of companies who have
> chosen to license their patents in an ethical fashion, permitting other
> developers to innovate and invoking the patents only as a defence
> mechanism against patent lawsuits that they themselves fall victim to.

Ok.....but this applies to AAC/MPEG4 iTunes and Apple how? As far as I see they have very ethical licensing. And can you cite a specific case? Lawsuit? The only ones I hear about are these Texas ones where some "company" filed for a vague "patent" and got it, and then 4 years later decides to sue some company for infringing on it. I have yet to hear about the MPEG people going around enforcing onerous licensing upon people.

>
> More generally, let's get rid of software patents. They're a textbook
> case of where the intended purpose of patent law (to spur innovation) is
> actually having the opposite effect.

Bad idea. Like getting rid of sheet music copyright. I have a ton of stuff on my own website that I give away for free. And the amount of money I have made.....nothing. So, the effort to transcribe an arrangement, or to compile II/V/I patterns. Or compile exercises. Why would I want to seriously develop or continue to do these things, spending my own time, effort, and money to creating these things and then not having any way to ensure that I get compensated for it. This is why we have Copyright and Software Patents. I don't see how anyone would want to go play a gig for free. Or a theater show. Or write out a new song. Or a symphony. Or a piece of software if they were not going to be compensated for it. Or that they had a way to protect their creations.

_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org