Quoting Gabriel Bouvigne [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1 step forward for Lame, but 1 step backward for freedom:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8225543.html?tag=hot
http://www.musichelponline.com/legal/
They don't give reasons why they use LAME. But I'm really curious to know.
I'm not sure if
Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:
1 step forward for Lame, but 1 step backward for freedom:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8225543.html?tag=hot
http://www.musichelponline.com/legal/
It's first CD in USA with this ?(cactus data shield protection) I'm
wondering. Here in europe (Czech Republick) it
They don't give reasons why they use LAME. But I'm really curious to know.
I'm not sure if it's really legal to use LAME for commercial selling of
the
encoded files (because of the patents on MP3).
They're probably using Lame because it's saving money compared to FhG.
For sure it's legal to
On 20 Dez, Steve Lhomme wrote:
They don't give reasons why they use LAME. But I'm really curious to know.
Perhaps because they just provide encrypted mp3s?
I'm not sure if it's really legal to use LAME for commercial selling of the
encoded files (because of the patents on MP3).
They can
On 20 Dez, Steve Lhomme wrote:
They don't give reasons why they use LAME. But I'm really curious to know.
I'm not sure if it's really legal to use LAME for commercial selling of the
encoded files (because of the patents on MP3).
More interesting:
---snip---
* INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
On 20 Dez, Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:
1 step forward for Lame, but 1 step backward for freedom:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8225543.html?tag=hot
---snip---
The digital files are contained in a single CDS file format, which is
not explained. But in the license agreement for the
