Audio format patent

[hypercube]

is there any restriction to publish

- MP3 tracks
- DTS tracks
- AAC tracks
- AC3 tracks

in case of homemade tunes ?

[mod]

Do you mean: "I make my own songs, do I have to pay to publish in one of those formats" ?

[hypercube]

exactly

[mod]

Well.. I really hope not, because I make my own songs and distribute to friends as mp3.. :p
Also if I use lame it's an interesting question, I'll make some search..

[GodofaGap]

It depends on if you charge for your service and the scale of it. I think you are really better of reading information on relevant sites than asking here.

www.mp3licensing.com
www.vialicensing.com (for aac)

[mod]

It depends on if you charge for your service and the scale of it.
Just a few files, only for friends, free..
BTW, really thanks for the useful links!

[sysKin]

Encoders used to create those files had their licenses paid (or at least should have). I don't think further distribution of such files needs any more license fees.

[hypercube]

is there any official source to know this ?
To be more precise, I want to sell somes tracks, and
offer some samples.

[*.mp4 guy]

Then you should use Vorbis or FLAC, both are opensource formats and have no licensing fees.

[hypercube]

I'm in special case: I produce 5.1 tunes, and my final target should be Standalone player with AC3 or DTS support
5.1 AAC should be fine for PC and MAC users.

[hellgauss]

It depends also where you live. I think in america you cannot use mp3 or aac without paying patent license, even if you use open source lame. In Europe you should do it as long as you use free software, like lame.

[Latexxx]

You can distribute your AAC files freely. See http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4audio/MPEG-4_Audio_FAQ.html#Q6 though I'd recommend to be on the safe side and use a proper licensed encoder such as the freely available Nero commandline tool or iTunes's AAC encoder instead of FAAC or some other encoder the legality of which is questionable.

[hypercube]

that's good news for AAC. I send mail to DTS and Dolby to know more about licence fees

[GodofaGap]

I don't think it is ok to use the Nero encoder for commercial activities. The EULA strongly suggests so.

Wouldn't make sense either, they pay license fees for you and you make money of their product.

[hypercube]

I don't care how I build my AAC files, nobody will come to ask me how I build them... and if someone ask me I will say
"by myself with Visual Studio Express, wanna see my code ?" :D

this is another question with DTS and dolby.

For DTS, It seems that every artist producing DTS tracks have to be registered on their site.

For Dolby, someone who did it,said to me:
you have to pay nothing but you have to register before selling your tracks.
So for dolby, it seems to be simple and free.

For DTS, I don"t have any information for instance.

still waiting a response to my mail from Dolby and DTS...

[GodofaGap]

I don't care how I build my AAC files, nobody will come to ask me how I build them... and if someone ask me I will say
"by myself with Visual Studio Express, wanna see my code ?" :D
If you don't care about license agreements, why did you start this topic?

[hypercube]

I care about license related to the selling of my tunes, no
to the tools I use.

[GodofaGap]

I can't say I understand this. The license that forbids you to sell the songs IS Nero's. And I am sure they would care.

[hypercube]

>And I am sure they would care
How ! There is no system to detect how you made an AAC with Nero or FAAC or whatever... right ? so....

[hypercube]

I send an email to Minetonka. They told me that their software license allow me to sell the DTS or AC3 song
made with their tools.
And, I can contact DTS or Dolby to use their logo on my "products".

[shevegen]

You dont have to pay for music you created, and decided to store it
in mp3. (But then again I am only using free software anyway, i left the nero world
long ago by now ;> )

I'd still use .ogg though over mp3.

[foxyshadis]

Yes, all mp3 licensing is taken care of on the encoder and decoder. If you're using a free encoder and absolutely need to know you're legal, you should probably pay the $2.50 licensing fee to fraunhofer for a single instance of codec license. (If they'd even take it, it's funny thinking of some german guys wondering what to do with an American check for $2.50 showing up in the mail. It's like getting a rebate check for 15 cents. =D)

[Mug Funky]

...or you could use a program that incorporated the free encoder and paid it's own licensing fees. i believe several programs include LAME in some form.

although it'd make it hard to upgrade to the latest/greatest LAME build - the license is per-unit after all, but that could be interpreted as per encoding computer, or per CPU, etc.

licensing gives me a headache.

though interestingly, while looking through the licensee list on MPEG-LA's mpeg-2 page, i noticed no DVD authoring companies but quite a few replication plants. i guess that makes sense what with the per-disc DVD licensing fee.

[hypercube]

in fact I beleive that every free encoder (AAC,MP3 AC3...)
is legal if you don't plan to sell the files. if you plan to sell the
files, you have to pay the license fees.
If you buy an encoder, you buy also (may be ?) the license fees. so , in this case it is legal to sell the files.

[hypercube]

I received some news from dolby:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the use of AC-3 files on the
internet in relation to your album. We do not have any restrictions as
to posting the files on the web for yourself. However, if you do plan
on using any trademarks or logos related to Dolby in connection with
your work, there are restrictions and you should contact me. In short,
posting the files you mention (without any Dolby trademarks) will not
infringe on Dolby's intellectual property.


it sounds pretty cool. :D