[Foundation-l] MP3 and OGG

[Jimmy Wales]

So, based on all this, I think it is safe to say that our existing ban
on MP3s should stand.

--Jimbo


Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 20:03 +0200, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> I am willing to defer on this issue to Debian.  Can anyone report on
>>> whether or not MP3s can be created and played with software that Debian
>>> has in their 'free' category?
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Fraunhofer, the owners of the mp3 patents, claim $0.75 royalties per
>> decoder sold; they explicitly say that this fee is waived for "free
>> software distributed over the Internet", but that does mean that Linux
>> distributions on CD or sold by other means cannot include MP3 decoders
>> without triggering the fee, but they can point users to where free
>> decoders can be downloaded.
>>
>> Whether their claim has any legal validity is another issue entirely.
>>
>>  
>>
> While I would grant that many software patent issues are dubious at best
> (notably the LZW GIF issue from back elsewhen), this one is quite
> legitamate, and well known by at least those who are quite familiar with
> the development of multimedia software.  The compression algorithm was
> specifically designed by Fraunhofer for the MPEG  Audio (ISO/IEC
> 11172-2) specification, and credit for that effort is published in the
> appendex of that specification, with a specific warning that it needed
> to be contacted in order to resolve any patent issues.  And the
> algorithm employed by Fraunhofer really is unique enough that I don't
> have as much of a problem with them claiming patent status as opposed to
> the incredibly silly patents that have been issues (like the one-click
> patent by Amazon.com).  Their "legal" website is:
> 
> http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html
> 
> I've been involved with multimedia data formats for some time, and I
> would have to say that the "non-free" status of MP3s is indeed a huge
> issue for an organization like the Wikimedia Foundation.  This is not
> something to be lightly swept under the rug.  While you can have "free
> software" that implements the specification, the legal issues are hardly
> clear.  Another website I would strongly recommend to look at is:
> 
> http://www.mpegla.com/
> 
> This is the "licensing authority" for most MPEG products, and will give
> you at least somewhat of a legal whitewash if you license stuff through
> them.  It doesn't, however, cover MP3s, which is why you need to license
> directly through Fraunhofer.  By legal whitewash, I mean that people
> known to the MPEG committee to have patent issues with the standards
> have been contacted and negotiated with to set the fees.  They still
> don't guarentee that you will be safe from patent violation, but you
> have been covered from the major players who open insist on royalties
> for those patents that are covered by the specs.
> 
> Ugly, and it does get worse.
> 
> Where it comes down to what the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, there
> would be interest in selling copies of Wikimedia content (on CDs, in
> books, etc.) even if it is just as a fundraiser to pay for the server
> farm.  Fraunhofer is insisting on a royalty for even distributing MP3s,
> so some of the money raised from the sale of a Wikipedia CD (for
> example), would have to be sent to the MP3 licensing authority.  I don't
> know the legality of this in Europe, but I wouldn't avoid paying this
> fee there either without a lawyer on retainer to deal with potential
> lawsuits.
> 
> The "free" aspect is more a recognition that one of the major reasons
> why MP3s are popular is because they are widely traded over the
> internet, and they don't want to hassle all of the free MP3 download
> sites, unlike the RIAA.  This still violates the terms of the GPL,
> notably clause seven:
> 
> "7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
> excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
> so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
> any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
> distribute the Program at all."
> 
> While this clause is not in the GFDL (I am surprised here on this
> point), I would expect a similar legal argument if it were brought up.
> 
> While I am not a lawyer, I do have experience in this issue from a
> professional standpoint, and it is my strong recommendation that the
> Wikimedia Foundation avoid MP3s on any of the Wikimedia sites, as it
> violates at least in nature free media, and could produce headaches for
> the Foundation that would be better left alone.  When the Fraunhofer
> patent expires, that may be another issue, and I do expect that the
> Wikipedia will outlive this patent, but that is several years in the
> future.
>