So this means I can install codecs?

[TechSonic]

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

Apparently this means I can install the codecs sense I'm in the Unitied States, I just can't encode and distribute anything with a price tag using the format, but I can download free music encoded with MPEG/MP3 and listen to it legally.

*Downloads codecs in Automatix* :)

[xequence]

All it is is just people making a mountain out of an ant hill.

Noone will ever be prosicuted or sued for installing MP3 codecs on their linux system.

I mean... Isnt LAME gpl? And there has to be a GPL mp3 decoder.

[mstlyevil]

Codecs are a touchy issue because under current US law it is technicaly unlawful to even download and install the codecs without paying a license fee. Of course the patent holders including Microsoft have not made that a issue for people using them to just play content. I think it is a CYA (cover your boodie) reaction from Distros and media players as to why they do not include them and even warn of the potential illegality of their use. Until these patents expire or the law changes you are putting yourself at risk albiet a slight risk at the moment.

[TechSonic]

Even if it changed to a more stable situation where the use of the CODECS were paid for just to listen to even free music encoded with MP3/MPEG, it wouldn't matter later on. The codecs have been installed under the current stand of the project, as is and thus the date of my codecs are bound to the rules of the installed date.

I looked it up, it's all legal says my lawyer.

[briancurtin]

i installed the codecs and i absolutely do not give a **** about their legal standing.

[Sirin]

i installed the codecs and i absolutely do not give a **** about their legal standing.

Go ahead. You just might make yourself famous... on Court TV. ;)

[TechSonic]

i installed the codecs and i absolutely do not give a **** about their legal standing.


Hooah!

[raublekick]

i installed the codecs and i absolutely do not give a **** about their legal standing.

ditto

I've also heard that the patent holders of the mp3 codec have said that they will not even try to prosecute for basic home use, etc... including using and distributing it in free distros.

This still leaves out all the other codecs...

[aysiu]

I've also heard that the patent holders of the mp3 codec have said that they will not even try to prosecute for basic home use, etc... including using and distributing it in free distros. Of course they won't. They start prosecuting and more people will move to other formats like Ogg.

[Malphas]

Go ahead. You just might make yourself famous... on Court TV. ;)
I know you're joking but I'll still point out that this is absolute crap in case anyone takes it seriously. Patent holders aren't even going after the developers of LAME or XviD and will never sue an individual for downloading proprietary codecs without paying a licensing fee. It's not even particularly clear-cut as to whether or not it's actually illegal to do so anyway, which is why we have Techsonic and mstlyevil both spouting completely opposite opinions.

[TechSonic]

I know you're joking but I'll still point out that this is absolute crap in case anyone takes it seriously. Patent holders aren't even going after the developers of LAME or XviD and will never sue an individual for downloading proprietary codecs without paying a licensing fee. It's not even particularly clear-cut as to whether or not it's actually illegal to do so anyway, which is why we have Techsonic and mstlyevil both spouting completely opposite opinions.


Yes. Different opinions.

Althought it's not really opinion now. See here, I got my family lawyer to check into the whole sort first. I told him everything from the Ubunt as my OS to the legal standing of MP3 codecs. He understood my sistuation and looked up all the information he could find and drew an outline for me.

This is how it currently stands.

End Users: Free to use codecs to listen to paid or free music.
End Users: Cannot encode and distribute MP3 of copyrighted material with or without a price.

This tells me that distribution is legal, if the end user has composed the music contained with in the file and has also paid the fee to sell it. If not selling, making it free of charge for the music, no codec fees are applied.

[Malphas]

Although I'm inclined to agree, that is still your lawyers opinion, therefore an opinion, albeit a better-informed and more relable one.

[mstlyevil]

I know you're joking but I'll still point out that this is absolute crap in case anyone takes it seriously. Patent holders aren't even going after the developers of LAME or XviD and will never sue an individual for downloading proprietary codecs without paying a licensing fee. It's not even particularly clear-cut as to whether or not it's actually illegal to do so anyway, which is why we have Techsonic and mstlyevil both spouting completely opposite opinions.

In the case of Win32 codecs it is obviously clear it is illegal to do so. But on the other hand I have never heard of MSFT actually suing or prosecuting some one for downloading them or using them for playback. I believe MSFT will never sue for the same reasons that LAME or Xvid will not sue and that is because it is counter productive. Also I said in my previous post it was technically illegal but that has never been proved one way or another in a court of law. I download them and use them for playback because I believe that there is no real risk of doing so but you never know about a company like MSFT or Apple and what they might do.

[Malphas]

LAME and XviD obviously won't sue because they're open-source implementations and the developers have no claim to the rights on those particular codecs/standards (MP3 and MPEG-4 Part 2 ASP, respectively). So technically no, there's completely different reasons why they wouldn't sue. You're most likely confusing LAME with Fraunhofer and XviD with MPEG (although I'm not even sure as to how much control MPEG have/exert over their standards).

[mstlyevil]

LAME and XviD obviously won't sue because they're open-source implementations and the developers have no claim to the rights on those particular codecs/standards (MP3 and MPEG-4 Part 2 ASP, respectively). So technically no, there's completely different reasons why they wouldn't sue. You're most likely confusing LAME with Fraunhofer and XviD with MPEG (although I'm not even sure as to how much control MPEG have/exert over their standards).

You are probally right on this.