Klarinet Archive - Posting 000100.txt from 2010/07

From: Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] iTunes and mp3
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:56:12 -0400

On 07/07/2010 08:39 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
> But that is NOT what Apple has done by using AAC/MPEG4.

I don't object to Apple using AAC/MPEG4 on their devices. I object to
them not supporting patent-free alternatives, which any device or
software can support.

> 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.

The patent licensing of MPEG4 and the relation to the web situation is
not down to Apple, there are loads of patent holders involved. I was
just giving an example of how software patents have affected the end user.

The problem is that the licensing is not "reasonable" from the point of
view of a web standard -- one of the criteria the W3C operates is that
its standards should be implementable royalty-free, and that requirement
has had a big impact on the extent of innovation and interoperability on
the web.

> 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.

Well, the situation is simply that until a standard codec can be agreed
on for HTML5, it is likely that Flash will continue to have a dominant
position in the market. Everyone acknowledges h264's technical
superiority, but unless there can be a patent pledge made, it's a
non-starter. On the other hand, Apple and Google didn't want to use the
main alternative -- Ogg Theora -- because it was technically inferior
(necessarily so, as the more advanced techniques are all covered by
patents), and because although it is apparently patent-free, they were
concerned that this had been inadequately tested.

Things have got interesting now that Google has obtained a rival codec
-- V8 -- and released it under a suitable patent licence, so we'll see
what will happen. But there's no question that software patents played
a major role in delaying the availability of a standard for web video.

>> 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.

I wouldn't hold up Apple as a particular example of badness in this
respect -- I think they're evil for completely different reasons :-)

> I have yet to hear about the MPEG people going around enforcing onerous licensing upon people.

Did you hear about how Microsoft, who thought they had taken out
appropriate licensing for MP3, got hit for a huge sum of money on the
grounds of a patent that hadn't previously been enforced?

Or about how Microsoft themselves have issued threats to end users --
not just distributors or developers -- of Linux distributions,
threatening them with lawsuits unless they pay licensing fees for
patents which may not even be valid?

But more generally, the main issue is that it's widely perceived by a
great many developers that software patents have a negative impact on
innovation in the industry, and that in particular they harm small and
medium enterprises who are some of the key drivers of innovation.

>> 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.

The two things -- software patents and sheet music copyright -- are
different things, applied in different contexts, with different effects.
We're not talking about geese and ganders here -- this kind of blanket
assumption that creative works should automatically be propertized,
instead of thinking carefully about the benefits and consequences in
different use cases, is the real thing I'm arguing against.

I would caution you against making big assumptions about the incentives
and protections that developers need -- they're not the same as
performing musicians or composers or authors. In any case, where
protection of software developers is concerned, copyright already
applies and is widely considered to be sufficient.

I can give you plenty more info if you're interested, but where software
patents are concerned this is maybe something we should move off list. :-)

I'll leave this as a "take-home message" for the whole discussion --
don't just make assumptions about creative works being "property", or
that granting property-like rights is the best way to ensure future
creativity. Think carefully about the diversity of incentives that
people can have, about the diversity of ways that people can be
supported financially, and about the benefits and costs -- to the public
as well as creators -- of different ways of controlling the use of
creative works.

It may be that creativity and the well-being of creative artists is
better supported by different means than we have been taught to think.
_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com