<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0.">
  <channel>
    <title>Advogato blog for havardk</title>
    <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/havardk/</link>
    <description>Advogato blog for havardk</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <generator>mod_virgule</generator>
    <pubDate>Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:02:21 GMT</pubDate>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:31:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>28 Aug 2002</title>
      <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/havardk/diary.html?start=0</link>
      <guid>http://www.advogato.org/person/havardk/diary.html?start=0</guid>
      <description>&lt;b&gt;MP3 patent fees&lt;/b&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I'm a bit surprised about the recent fuzz about licensing fees for mp3 decoders.  The relevant &lt;a href="http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html" &gt;page&lt;/a&gt; at mp3licensing.com has not had any relevant changes for more than a year, so this is not news.  There has been no other indication that the patent holders &lt;a href="http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3-licensing.html" &gt;original&lt;/a&gt; attitude against "freeware" decoders has changed, as far as I can tell.  In my opinion, the only thing they would accomplish by trying to enforce fees on free decoders would be a PR disaster.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
