Talk:MediaCoder

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MediaCoder article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Stanleyhuang (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Author of MediaCoder

I'm the author of MediaCoder and the maintainer of the MediaCoder web site. I hereby license all the texts on MediaCoder web site to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.170.128.66 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the permission, but Wikipedia isn't about copying other websites, even if you originally created them. It goes against the policies and guidelines, and it reads a bit like an advertisement. I've cleaned it up a bit, but I'd really appreciate it if you could not copy other works in the future. Thank you. Ppk01 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have got a question. Once I write something for Wikipedia, then I cannot use the same texts on my own web site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stanleyhuang (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Under the GNU Free Documentation License, you may freely use text from Wikipedia, under the following conditions:

your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL,
you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B), and
you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material (section 4J).

The above points were taken from Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations, an official policy of Wikipedia. --Ppk01 16:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's talking about the text that he himself wrote, then he owns the copyright to it, so he can do what he wants with it. The license terms are for people who do not own the copyright. (I know, this "reply" is a few years late.) --Keith111 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MPEG2 mode for LAME 3.97

When I do ABR at 64 kbps the mode is in MPEG1, and therefore sucks quality wise, but in MPEG2 it sounds a lot better. Where do i change it to MPEG2 or MPEG2.5 mode? Renegadeviking

Adware

This program uses RSS feed Ads. --Voidvector 21:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version (0.7.1) also includes the Open Candy adware. 78.54.141.253 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this information re adware is long out of date. the extent of adware is as follows-

Open candy offers to install a tool bar or similar. it doesn't obfuscate this, it's very clear.
There is no browser opened on launch unless there is an update available.
There are no ads in the UI.
When batch converting after a random number of conversions (around 5,) there is a window that asks you to do a simple sum such as 5 + 11 or buy a licence.
The first time you close it in any given day it opens your default browser to either amazon or one of the developer's other projects Flagpolewiki (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License?

The article says this is GPL, the summary says MPL. 137.99.115.237 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source code available as of version 0.6 and the current version shows a restrictive EULA at installation time, so I guess it is no longer open source at all. 78.54.141.253 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"MediaCoder used to be open source". And there is even a link to page where mediacoder was hosted on SF. But that link is broken. How could that be, that they even removed old (GPL'ed) version from SF? i thought that FOSS project can never be bought and closed... i mean - is it possible that Linus Torvalds sells Linux kernel to some corporation which puts "you have no rights" licence? so my questions are: 1. why do SF allowed to remove modiacoder project. 2. if someone still has downloaded and stored old GPL'ed version of mediacoder in his computer, could he continue development GLP'ed version of mediacoder? Raigedas (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Knowledge

Hmm Google download mirror asks to install Relevant Knowledge spyware and won't install unless you say yes.Geni 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violates several copyrights

This software violates several copyrights by including the Nero AAC+ Encoder, RealMedia Codecs and several other proprietary codecs without permission from their respective owners. The author knows about this, but doesn't care (see http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=59967 for a discussion with the author about the Nero AAC+ Encoder).

In my opinion, this behaviour is hurting other Open Source transcoder projects and the reputation of Open Source software as a whole.80.85.196.21 (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does not violate copyright, it violates US patents on codecs ... these are not applicable outside the US, Software Patents are hurting the OpenSource community far more, with the US Patent system there is no way to legally implement many codecs for use in the US ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 13:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just undid a recent edit in article regarding this issue because it didn't have any source, employed weasel words (i.e. didn't specified which codec) and as a consequence of these two issues, it was libelous. Please exercise caution in the future as such edits can inflict severe damage upon the author's reputation without reason. Also, please no POV contents.

And by the way, this software is no longer Open Source. Fleet Command (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

From the EULA of version 0.7:

End-User License Agreement (EULA) for Broad Intelligence Software.
SOFTWARE PRODUCT: MediaCoder
LICENSES: MPL
...
This Broad Intelligence EULA is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Broad Intelligence for the Broad Intelligence SOFTWARE PRODUCT identified above. ...

While Stanley Huang may be identified as the "maintainer", it appears to actually belong to some outfit called Broad Intelligence Software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.234.3 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Intelligence Software is founded by Stanley Huang. Refer to its blog for the founding notification. Fleet Command (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License should be updated

Recent versions of Mediacoder are now virtually cripped when it comes to batch encodes; after a set period I'm approximating to be around a couple of hours, a nag screen pops up that halts all running jobs until it is manually closed. This basically cripples batch encoding, since it requires the user to constantly check the program. The nag screen can only be eliminated if the user "donates" a minimum of $20. In the past the program simply had a cap on the amount of jobs allowed, around 100 at a time, which was fairly reasonable. I suggest updating the license to reflect this program's status as semi-crippleware/nagware. The most irritating part of this is that the program is built entirely upon other people's software (and violates several licenses), the only thing the author's really done is creating a GUI, which although useful, does not justify $20. LiamSP (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there is a license violation, since free software is all about letting other use the original authors work without any obligation. Passing over the price tag, I think you are right about the license. Fixing now. Fleet Command (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BSD-like licenses let others use the software without (mostly) any obligation. Software licenses like the GPL (and the LGPL) place many obligations on people who choose to distribute derivatives of the software. (Such software is usually still called free). Stanley Huang, the author of MediaCoder is known to have violated basically all said obligations including proper reference and source code.--Regression Tester (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that he is accused to have violated FFMPEG license. But he says what they call "derivative work" is actually his own work from the scratch. As for any other license violation, I have not heard anything – reliable source or not.

Oh, and I have checked GPL; it does not sound restrictive to me at all! But I guess we have a difference of opinion. Fleet Command (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember Stanley Huang ever claiming MediaCoder would be his own work from the scratch. I do have a source (himself) that claims it contains code from FFmpeg and several other projects, some of them GPL-only: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.issues/5719/focus=6229

I do not claim the GPL is restrictive, but it puts some obligations on people who distribute binaries of derivatives of GPL'd software, for example offering source code. Stanley Huang does not follow this obligation, this makes him a copyright violator.--Regression Tester (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Sourceforge Link within the page.

The Link contained within the References section of this page actually points to a project page created by a sourceforge user by the name of 'meglepett' (mantra) who registered on sourceforge the same day the project page that is linked was created (6th February 2010), after the author of MediaCoder declared the software was no longer open source, this user is listed as an Admin of the project page in question and the page is also the only thing this user is connected with on sourceforge. The project page that is linked was last updated on the 2nd of December 2010 and contains only one file, an html document containing just 5 characters 'Hello'.

The original MediaCoder project page on sourceforge no longer exists, and from what I understand hasn't since before the creation of the linked project page.

The project page & user have been reported to sourceforge, as they clearly have no real connection to MediaCoder or its original sourceforge project page. It was speculated to myself at the time that having a project page for 'mediacoder' would deceive people, which was why they reported it to sourceforge, it had been brought to the reporter's attention because of the Softpedia page that is linked in the References section, which says on it that MediaCoder is "open source".

Most of the above I mention just for your information.

I suggest the link to the sourceforge project (that is not the real MediaCoder) page be removed as soon as possible to restrict further deceiving or confusion of other people as to whether it is open or closed source.

I would make the edit myself but I wanted to mention the above here for others to see before the change, that and the fact I rarely even get on these days and have no credited edits (though I have been here a while & spoke with many) I thought it best to do it this way.

Beyond Saving (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The http://www.softpedia.com/get/PORTABLE-SOFTWARE/Multimedia/Video/Windows-Portable-Applications-Portable-MediaCoder.shtml to the Version 0.6.2, one of the latest open source versions, points to a version with a OpenCandy dll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear1952 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MediaCoder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]