dbmusic
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1150
- Joined: 2005/07/04 12:52:46
- Location: Illinois
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 22:23:15
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: CJaysMusic
These threads come and go and there started by users who just dont know what they dont know. Instead of thinking you got riped, you should maybe investigate this more and youll relaize its due to licensing and youll relize that you can get over 20 MP3 encoders for free. Im mean..WTF
We've all been down the "don't know what we don't know" route...and know how frustrating learning the ins and outs of a DAW can be. Early on it's often easy to project those frustrations, overreact, and blame everyone but your own inexperience. Usually these new users will appreciate a level headed, helpful response. But I do take issue with some of the more seasoned users that appear hell bent on unnecessary ridicule. Regards, DB
|
CJaysMusic
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 30423
- Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
- Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale - Davie
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 22:35:00
(permalink)
??? I take issue with you taking issue with me. Oh, wait a sec, I was mistaken that i actually cared for a sec. I am not seasoned in any way. How dare you. Oh yea, that was not over reacting. I was reacting to his post. Theres a big difference. Pass the pie, it looks good Cj "don't know what we don't know" route.. I found out what i dont know, before saying something is a RIP. Thats just insane to make a judgement without knowing what you dont know
post edited by CJaysMusic - 2009/01/12 22:38:47
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:02:57
(permalink)
But I do take issue with some of the more seasoned users that appear hell bent on unnecessary ridicule.
Well is it not within the idea that even the "seasoned poster" might need a break here too? For most people we tend to give a little slack except it seems when they are here often. If one looks at this thread fairly the title alone is rather provocative. Is it then fair to jump on a response that is in keeping with the nature of the first post? Yes its somewhat in the form of a rant that is meant to be a little off putting? Webseed has a total of 9 posts and this is the one that is getting the play. In looking at this from newbie versus a long time member are we not doing to the old hand exactly what is being so clearly bashed? Why is a newbie given all manner of the benefit of the doubt and the long time forum member not? Often newbies are welcomed here with really nice posts welcoming them. But are they not due to the basic good manners of the newbie's post? Sometimes its good to question the motives of a responding post. However looking at this with no prejudice for either side it does seem to me to be a bit too much of piling on against Dave. I wonder how many of you have read Dave and used his advice in the past? Besides all forums need at least one resident curmudgeon.
|
pjl
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 796
- Joined: 2006/02/28 00:36:53
- Location: the land of Oz
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:19:02
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: syrath
For the record, neither Cubase Essentials, nor Cubase Studio 4 come with mp3 encoding installed either. The license for MP3 encoders must be bought by the selling company for every disk sold that includes the encoder.
I might be wrong but I think it's actually worse than that. I suspect they have to pay a licence not for every disk sold but for every disk manufactured.
Celebrate reason, sleep in on Sundays
|
mixmkr
Max Output Level: -43.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3169
- Joined: 2007/03/05 22:23:43
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:20:03
(permalink)
ok...recess bell rang...it's over...back into class 
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:23:54
(permalink)
OK how many here believe that CW is ripping us off in this, class, raise your hands? That was the tenor of the OP's post after all.
|
daveny5
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16934
- Joined: 2003/11/06 09:54:36
- Location: North Carolina
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:34:19
(permalink)
Beaten to death from your perspective........not from mine.
Not attacking you, daveny, but....... Perhaps the message should have been to recommend that the OP search the forum and read past discussions of this topic before raising it again. That might keep us from going in endless circles on this subject. I know this is the LAST TIME I will say anything about this.
Dave Computer: Intel i7, ASROCK H170M, 16GB/5TB+, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, Sonar Platinum, TASCAM US-16x08, Cakewalk UM-3G MIDI I/F Instruments: SL-880 Keyboard controller, Korg 05R/W, Korg N1R, KORG Wavestation EX Axes: Fender Stratocaster, Line6 Variax 300, Ovation Acoustic, Takamine Nylon Acoustic, Behringer GX212 amp, Shure SM-58 mic, Rode NT1 condenser mic. Outboard: Mackie 1402-VLZ mixer, TC Helicon VoiceLive 2, Digitech Vocalist WS EX, PODXTLive, various stompboxes and stuff. Controllers: Korg nanoKONTROL, Wacom Bamboo Touchpad
|
Dave King
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2862
- Joined: 2005/11/13 14:19:48
- Location: Connecticut, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:36:36
(permalink)
I don't think it's a rip-off. If I understand the situation correctly, I believe it has something to do with licensing and Cakewalk CANNOT include the encoder in their software. I understand the feeling of frustration after having spent a chunk of money for Sonar and then finding out that it does not include MP3 encoding software. But that's just the way it is. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there are many options out there, so it is certainly not a deal killer.
Dave King www.davekingmusic.com SONAR X2 Producer 64-Bit
StudioCat PC
Windows 7 Home Premium, Service Pack 1
Intel Corel i5 3450 CPU @3.10 GHz
RAM 8 GB
M-Audio Delta 44 M-Audio MidiSport 2x2
|
OldGeezer
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 686
- Joined: 2005/07/17 11:51:44
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:43:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
But I do take issue with some of the more seasoned users that appear hell bent on unnecessary ridicule.
Well is it not within the idea that even the "seasoned poster" might need a break here too? For most people we tend to give a little slack except it seems when they are here often. If one looks at this thread fairly the title alone is rather provocative. Is it then fair to jump on a response that is in keeping with the nature of the first post? Yes its somewhat in the form of a rant that is meant to be a little off putting? Webseed has a total of 9 posts and this is the one that is getting the play. In looking at this from newbie versus a long time member are we not doing to the old hand exactly what is being so clearly bashed?
Why is a newbie given all manner of the benefit of the doubt and the long time forum member not? Often newbies are welcomed here with really nice posts welcoming them. But are they not due to the basic good manners of the newbie's post?
Sometimes its good to question the motives of a responding post. However looking at this with no prejudice for either side it does seem to me to be a bit too much of piling on against Dave.
I wonder how many of you have read Dave and used his advice in the past? Besides all forums need at least one resident curmudgeon.
If you look at the thread today, and take it at face value, then yeah, maybe it does look that way. The thing is, Dave wrote his initial post (the second reply in this thread), and then changed it the following day. The post now reads: "There's free MP3 converters available so this is a totally moot point. Just pay the 20 bucks and get on with your life. This topic is soooooooooooo old." He's trying order the guy around, sure, and he's got no business doing so, but it's still not as bad as his initial knee-jerk reaction. His real post, before editing it the next day, read: " OK, so stop whining and move on. There's free MP3 converters available so this is a totally moot point. We're really sick of this topic". (I had him quoted before he changed his post the next day). He ordered the new guy to stop whining and move on, and then presumed to speak for the entire forum and stated that WE're really sick of this topic. No, WE're not sick of the topic, SOME are. Others clearly agree with the new guy's opinion. This isn't the first time Dave has acted like center of the universe when newbies have posted their opinions/questions/complaints in a manner not to his liking...not by a long shot. And he's not the only one. -There is a handful of incredibly arrogant and self-important "seasoned" (ie. have made a gazillion posts) users in this forum who suffer from delusions of grandeur and seem to think it is their job and obvious right to tell newcomers what to do or how to act when they themselves are guests in this forum and have no business whatsoever dictating to anyone about anything. If a "seasoned" user doesn't like the way a new user voices his or her Sonar-related complaints, then the seasoned with a life/clue/grip on reality would normally ignore the post rather than get bossy and start barking orders like they own the joint. There are people from all walks of life with all kinds of different attitudes and mannerisms in here (you know...musicians), and nobody's got any business telling them how to behave except the staff who manage this forum if they find their behavior to be vile or detrimental to other members. Fortunately, the folks at Cakewalk seem pretty cool and are quite lenient and tolerant with regards to how people act, probably because they know that musicians are quite a diverse bunch, not to mention their bread and butter. And it's not fair to say that the newbies are given the benifit of the doubt and not the long time forum member not. The bossy ones are the minority, and there are plenty of totally cool and tolerant senior members. It's just not very common for the cool ones to be congratulated for their tolerance which is why it seems that way. There are Gold/Platinum members in here that I totally respect...and maybe a half a dozen that I find disgustingly bossy, even if they are masters of their trade, and being the obnoxious a-hole that I am, I for one have no problem telling them so (only when it seems par for the course). Edit: And I apologize to Dave if it seems like I'm singling him out...like I said, there are numerous senior members who can get very bossy.
post edited by OldGeezer - 2009/01/12 23:49:17
|
Paul Russell
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3892
- Joined: 2003/11/06 23:52:18
- Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:46:37
(permalink)
For what SONAR costs and for what you get in it, my vote goes for great value.
How many other 64bit audio DAWs are out there right now?
|
OldGeezer
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 686
- Joined: 2005/07/17 11:51:44
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:49:15
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Paul Russell
For what SONAR costs and for what you get in it, my vote goes for great value.
How many other 64bit audio DAWs are out there right now?
Agreed 100%. That's why I told the original poster that Sonar 8 rocked and he wouldn't regret it despite the lack of full MP3 export by default. Of all the things I've seen wrong with other DAW hosts, Sonar's lack of full MP3 encoder is hardly a deal-breaker, even if it does seem cheesy. I almost feel bad echoing the OP's sentiment considering I've been quite vocal in my opinion that the upgrade price was an incredibly good deal.
|
Dave King
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2862
- Joined: 2005/11/13 14:19:48
- Location: Connecticut, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/12 23:59:16
(permalink)
My last post on this subject...
In defense of Dave, the tone of the OP's original post was rather arrogant especially considering he is apparently a newbie. So Dave's response (although a bit harsh) is understandable.
Dave King www.davekingmusic.com SONAR X2 Producer 64-Bit
StudioCat PC
Windows 7 Home Premium, Service Pack 1
Intel Corel i5 3450 CPU @3.10 GHz
RAM 8 GB
M-Audio Delta 44 M-Audio MidiSport 2x2
|
mixmkr
Max Output Level: -43.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3169
- Joined: 2007/03/05 22:23:43
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 00:01:14
(permalink)
Ok....I came back in from recess, and need to learn something.
I've got Lame setup as the mp3 encoder in Sonar. But, how can you go to some "options" window in Lame and adjust the bitrate, etc? Seems you have to go all the way back to the "shared utilities" folder and make a "permanant setting" (until you change it again). Sometimes I don't always want to encode at the same rates, and going thru all this to lower or raise a bitrate seems like a lot of steps.
I must be missing something. Gimme a Lame "options" window that can pop up when I'm exporting and selecting "lame mp3..... eh?.
|
OldGeezer
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 686
- Joined: 2005/07/17 11:51:44
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 00:04:47
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dave King
My last post on this subject...
In defense of Dave, the tone of the OP's original post was rather arrogant especially considering he is apparently a newbie. So Dave's response (although a bit harsh) is understandable.
You're absolutely right about the OP being arrogant. I thought so too. But I had absolutely no business telling him to act differently. He had a point, with which others agreed, and whether or not I liked the way he made his point was irellevant. I think the bandmembers from The Who were complete a-holes for throwing TV sets out of their hotel-room windows, but do you think I'd knock on their door and tell them to behave differently? No, that's the hotel staff's job.
|
Glennbo 
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1840
- Joined: 2003/11/10 22:38:37
- Location: Planet Earth
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 00:16:22
(permalink)
I don't think it's a rip-off. If I understand the situation correctly, I believe it has something to do with licensing and Cakewalk CANNOT include the encoder in their software. I'll only post this link, and let the wranglers, wrangle. ;) http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/
|
RockStringBender
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 416
- Joined: 2006/10/06 02:06:38
- Location: Orlando
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 00:27:33
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
OK how many here believe that CW is ripping us off in this, class, raise your hands? That was the tenor of the OP's post after all.
Not me. It seems like crying because your ice cream is cold. It is searchable, it is a rather recurring gripe, and it is easy to understand that the business model of CW and Lame do not make the auto-inclusion of the converter a practical reality. Lets face it, if the tenured members had not explored this subject, at length, for the past several years, those of us who were newbies when we discovered this condition would not have been able to research it here and understand why it is the way it is and have links to all the options available. This thread started off as a rant. Kid at the checkout isle throwing a fit because mommy will not buy him a candy bar. The same rant that many people have posted about. The same misunderstanding that they are getting ripped off somehow. The same entitlement issues that were being discussed in the piracy thread. The facts on the converter, and many other topics, have been here for anyone who is reasonable to search them out and get educated before dumping a load on the forum. This place does this conditioning for newbies in an ongoing fashion, it has been happening for years, and I learned this by coming in and stomping around myself. It helps us to understand to get with the program and to get our stuff together and understand what the place is about before you come in here and start swinging fists around. It is what it is and stomping your feet around and grumbling will not change it, and for good reason.
I wish my lawn was emo..... then it would cut itself.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 00:29:54
(permalink)
There is a handful of incredibly arrogant and self-important "seasoned" (ie. have made a gazillion posts) users in this forum who suffer from delusions of grandeur and seem to think it is their job and obvious right to tell newcomers what to do or how to act when they themselves are guests in this forum and have no business whatsoever dictating to anyone about anything. If a "seasoned" user doesn't like the way a new user voices his or her Sonar-related complaints, then the seasoned with a life/clue/grip on reality would normally ignore the post rather than get bossy and start barking orders like they own the joint. You may have a point there. It does seem as if that were the case sometimes. I am only saying that we need to approach each of us with the same level of slack we give others. Heck, I have been in a bad mood and let it show here. Not often but I have. Any rate if we were as forgiving to each other as we are to ourselves this place might be a little better for it.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 00:32:03
(permalink)
Not me. It seems like crying because your ice cream is cold. It is searchable, it is a rather recurring gripe, and it is easy to understand that the business model of CW and Lame do not make the auto-inclusion of the converter a practical reality.
Lets face it, if the tenured members had not explored this subject, at length, for the past several years, those of us who were newbies when we discovered this condition would not have been able to research it here and understand why it is the way it is and have links to all the options available.
This thread started off as a rant. Kid at the checkout isle throwing a fit because mommy will not buy him a candy bar. The same rant that many people have posted about. The same misunderstanding that they are getting ripped off somehow. The same entitlement issues that were being discussed in the piracy thread. The facts on the converter, and many other topics, have been here for anyone who is reasonable to search them out and get educated before dumping a load on the forum. This place does this conditioning for newbies in an ongoing fashion, it has been happening for years, and I learned this by coming in and stomping around myself. It helps us to understand to get with the program and to get our stuff together and understand what the place is about before you come in here and start swinging fists around.
It is what it is and stomping your feet around and grumbling will not change it, and for good reason. Nice post. You seem to have come a long way. I am rather glad you are here.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 00:35:47
(permalink)
|
OldGeezer
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 686
- Joined: 2005/07/17 11:51:44
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 00:36:52
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
There is a handful of incredibly arrogant and self-important "seasoned" (ie. have made a gazillion posts) users in this forum who suffer from delusions of grandeur and seem to think it is their job and obvious right to tell newcomers what to do or how to act when they themselves are guests in this forum and have no business whatsoever dictating to anyone about anything. If a "seasoned" user doesn't like the way a new user voices his or her Sonar-related complaints, then the seasoned with a life/clue/grip on reality would normally ignore the post rather than get bossy and start barking orders like they own the joint.
You may have a point there. It does seem as if that were the case sometimes. I am only saying that we need to approach each of us with the same level of slack we give others. Heck, I have been in a bad mood and let it show here. Not often but I have. Any rate if we were as forgiving to each other as we are to ourselves this place might be a little better for it.
Jeeze, you're being quite...what's the term... pragmatic? ...ok, point taken.
|
RockStringBender
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 416
- Joined: 2006/10/06 02:06:38
- Location: Orlando
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 00:38:33
(permalink)
I wish my lawn was emo..... then it would cut itself.
|
kwgm
Max Output Level: -52.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2271
- Joined: 2006/10/12 00:14:20
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 01:13:16
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: corvetteguitarman
I find these forums very interesting and informative. I myself bought the mp3 encoder for cakewalk back in 2005 when I bought cakewalk. I was not aware that there were free mp3 encoders back then either. But if I am not mistaken, mp3 is for compressing the file to send it over the net faster, but it certainly decreases the quality of the file, is this true?
I hope this can be answered without getting my head bitten off....but just in case, "AARRGGHH!!" lol 
Yes, this is true.
|
OldGeezer
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 686
- Joined: 2005/07/17 11:51:44
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 01:57:31
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Glennbo
I don't think it's a rip-off. If I understand the situation correctly, I believe it has something to do with licensing and Cakewalk CANNOT include the encoder in their software.
I'll only post this link, and let the wranglers, wrangle. ;)
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/
Two things about the above link have me scratching my head. 1- According to that site, under "Royalty Rates", the cost of licensing a "PC Software Application" to use the full MP3 codec is $5.00 per unit. That means five bucks for every copy of Sonar, if I'm reading this correctly. 2- In their list of licensed companies, I couldn't help but notice that Cakewalk is listed. The obvious question is, if it costs $5.00 to license each copy of Sonar to use the full MP3 codec, then why does it cost 20 bucks to activate an MP3 encoder demo for Sonar? They stipulate a minimum royalty of $15000 per year, which means CW would need to sell 3000 copies of Sonar per year in order to keep the cost of licensing at five bucks per copy. Does Cakewalk sell 3000 copies of Sonar per year? Even if they only sold 1000 copies of each new version, that'd mean 15 bucks per copy of Sonar to license each to use the full MP3 codec. How big a deal would it be to include this by default, whether adding the cost to the customer or not? Surely I must be missing something...? Are the full-codec and the actual Encoder two different things that need to be licenced or are they one and the same? Edit: Hmm...Also odd is that FL Studio (by Imageline) comes with support for MP3 export, and yet I don't see them listed as a licensed company. Maybe Imageline is a subsidiary of a larger corporation?
post edited by OldGeezer - 2009/01/13 02:23:13
|
daveny5
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16934
- Joined: 2003/11/06 09:54:36
- Location: North Carolina
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 09:08:36
(permalink)
I wonder how many of you have read Dave and used his advice in the past? Besides all forums need at least one resident curmudgeon.
Thanks, but hey wait a minute... I've read some stinging posts from CJ and a lot of others so don't pigeonhole me as the only curmudgeon. I think a few of us who have been around for a long time have some pet peeves. Why doesn't someone ask CJ about how to setup his SoundBlaster Live and see what happens?  One last point (and I mean it)... Cakewalk has said it would have to add the cost of the MP3 encoder license and the reason they don't include it is because they don't want to have to charge everyone for something not everyone may want (although given the growth in popularity of MP3s due to the popularity of MP3 players that argument has weakened). However, making the MP3 player part of Sonar would mean that they would have to factor in that cost to every Sonar license purchase because the upgrades are really full versions. Therefore, if the MP3 encoder were included in Sonar, then you would have to pay for it every time you purchased the product including your initial purchase and all subsequent upgrades. By letting you purchase it separately, you only ever have to pay for it once.
post edited by daveny5 - 2009/01/13 09:11:10
Dave Computer: Intel i7, ASROCK H170M, 16GB/5TB+, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, Sonar Platinum, TASCAM US-16x08, Cakewalk UM-3G MIDI I/F Instruments: SL-880 Keyboard controller, Korg 05R/W, Korg N1R, KORG Wavestation EX Axes: Fender Stratocaster, Line6 Variax 300, Ovation Acoustic, Takamine Nylon Acoustic, Behringer GX212 amp, Shure SM-58 mic, Rode NT1 condenser mic. Outboard: Mackie 1402-VLZ mixer, TC Helicon VoiceLive 2, Digitech Vocalist WS EX, PODXTLive, various stompboxes and stuff. Controllers: Korg nanoKONTROL, Wacom Bamboo Touchpad
|
Saintom
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1749
- Joined: 2005/12/17 14:09:34
- Location: Portland Oregon
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 09:28:56
(permalink)
I guess the real question is: If CJ had a sounblaster and made a mp3, would it make any sound in the woods if the pope wore a funny hat with a bear and a rabbit who's fur is not sticky? or would he need a dongle to turn on what you hear? Tom
Sometimes we see the light, Sometimes we stare at the light, and wonder why it is so bright...
|
R!Soc
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 660
- Joined: 2006/03/08 15:32:29
- Location: Calgary, Alberta
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 09:43:13
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: OldGeezer
1- According to that site, under "Royalty Rates", the cost of licensing a "PC Software Application" to use the full MP3 codec is $5.00 per unit. That means five bucks for every copy of Sonar, if I'm reading this correctly.
2- In their list of licensed companies, I couldn't help but notice that Cakewalk is listed.
The obvious question is, if it costs $5.00 to license each copy of Sonar to use the full MP3 codec, then why does it cost 20 bucks to activate an MP3 encoder demo for Sonar? Probably because that $5 is only for a license to use a technology and does not cover the development costs associated with incorporating the technology into the application or the profit the company wishes to make from selling their software.
|
Glennbo
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1840
- Joined: 2003/11/10 22:38:37
- Location: Planet Earth
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 09:57:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: R!Soc
ORIGINAL: OldGeezer
1- According to that site, under "Royalty Rates", the cost of licensing a "PC Software Application" to use the full MP3 codec is $5.00 per unit. That means five bucks for every copy of Sonar, if I'm reading this correctly.
2- In their list of licensed companies, I couldn't help but notice that Cakewalk is listed.
The obvious question is, if it costs $5.00 to license each copy of Sonar to use the full MP3 codec, then why does it cost 20 bucks to activate an MP3 encoder demo for Sonar?
Probably because that $5 is only for a license to use a technology and does not cover the development costs associated with incorporating the technology into the application or the profit the company wishes to make from selling their software.
Programmers need about fifteen bucks to issue a command like this to the OS for you. <g> lame -v -V 2 -b 128 input.wav output.mp3 CBR
|
corvetteguitarman
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 71
- Joined: 2005/12/05 09:00:01
- Location: Illinois/U.S.A.
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 10:28:03
(permalink)
I will address this directly to, "webseed"....January 24, 2005......I bought the CW MP3 encoder for $29.00. So if they are offering to sell it now for $19.00, jump on it. Or maybe, if we are lucky, according to my calculations, wait until the Year 2013 and you can save $10.00 and buy it then for $9.00. Cheers!
|
strikinglyhandsome1
Max Output Level: -3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7224
- Joined: 2006/11/15 09:21:12
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 10:35:40
(permalink)
|
Jonbouy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 22562
- Joined: 2008/04/14 13:47:39
- Location: England's Sunshine South Coast
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk charging for MP3 encoder activation - what a rip!
2009/01/13 11:36:37
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Saintom
I guess the real question is: If CJ had a sounblaster and made a mp3, would it make any sound in the woods if the pope wore a funny hat with a bear and a rabbit who's fur is not sticky? or would he need a dongle to turn on what you hear?
Tom
I would have thought that was obvious...
"We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves" - Banksy
|