Turbolinux Licenses Windows Media 9

Getting rid of DRM? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Will it strip out DRM so we can listen to our own music on our own machines without hassle?

Re:Getting rid of DRM? by JPriest · 2004-04-27 14:57 · Score: 2, Funny

I am sure it will strip out DRM, I heard it comes with DeCSS, is open source, and comes with a free 1000 song membership to iTunes and ./ subscription also.

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by BigBuckHunter · 2004-04-27 15:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, you simply have to de-select the DRM features when ripping/encoding your DVD's. Or did you want to remove DRM from other peoples media?

Sorry to play devils advocate there

The main argument sould be that it is not free software, not open source, and not based on a free /open standard. Not, "can I remove DRM?".

Thank you for your time,
BBH
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Curtman · 2004-04-27 16:15 · Score: 1

Damnit, my mod points expired. Well said. VERY well said.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by DebianRcksLindowsLie · 2004-04-27 16:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

DRM - removing your rights everywhere!

--
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by W2k · 2004-04-27 19:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, you simply have to de-select the DRM features when ripping/encoding your DVD's. Or did you want to remove DRM from other peoples media?

I believe what the parent poster wanted was to remove DRM from his own media, but not from media that he had himself created. The concept that you only "own" media you've created yourself is ridicilous; If I have bought a DVD in a store, it's mine. I don't own the copyright, but the physical product belongs to me, so if I want to remove DRM from it, that's my business and my right. By any sane definition of the word, that does not infringe copyright. Making copies for my personal use is Fair Use.

Obviously, I don't live in the US. Where I live, when you've bought something, you own it.

--
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by redshift520 · 2004-04-27 19:57 · Score: 0, Troll

Riiiiiiiggggghhhhht... that's what we do... make numerous copies of our own music and movie files.

Lord all mighty... this got old many moons ago. "I make copies of music/movies i've purchased outright". Alright... maybe you do mr/mrs oneinamillion. Dance around the bush all you want, there really is an issue of PIRATING out there. One which you are defending no matter how eliquently you word it. Blind extremes to either side of an argument are never good.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by McNally · 2004-04-27 20:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Obviously, I don't live in the US. Where I live, when you've bought something, you own it.

Enjoy it while it lasts..
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Xaer0cool · 2004-04-27 20:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Pirating? one guy in his house? I live in south east asia. Pirating is going to the mall and seeing thousands upon thousands of pirated DVD's of all the movies ever made being sold for profit. A dude in his house wanting to wath a DVD on his linux box is not pirating. Go after the people that make money off it.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by gujo-odori · 2004-04-27 20:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

I used to live in SE Asia too, and yeah, you can walk into any video shop and buy a VCD for about a buck. But that's not piracy either; piracy is robbing ships by force of arms. What those shops are doing is copyright infringement.

What one guy in his house does (and there are many, many people who copy DVDs purely for fair use reasons, starting with all of us who have toddlers in the house :-) is not even copyright infringement, it really is fair use. Now, if you *distribute* a copy, that is infringement.
Backing up your Disney DVDs so your kids don't destroy them, then playing the backups while the originals are kept under lock and key, is not infringement.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 21:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Label this as Troll, but sadly, this is so typical of this community (in fact, being first post just makes for more proof..).

Like it or not, DRM is not all evil - to YOU it serves three purposes:

1. Give the producers of media a quasi-relaxed state of mind, allowing (quality?!) media to be commercially distributed. So unless you want only indipendant studios with nil budget online, shut up. I for one remember this community as one that had many discussions on The Matrix - you think that could have been produced without profit in mind???

2. It creates more jobs for the techies among you - by allowing new ventures in the digital media market place (think of the developers of iTunes, MovieLink and the likes)

3. It will break the middleman (Blockbuster and likes), which has no real purpose these days, unless it can innovate and get into the digital world (thus again serving point two)

So cut the "Got Root?" t-shirt BS attitude and grow the f*ck up.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by plj · 2004-04-27 22:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

I used to live in SE Asia too, and yeah, you can walk into any video shop and buy a VCD for about a buck. But that's not piracy either; piracy is robbing ships by force of arms. What those shops are doing is copyright infringement.

Bullshit. Meanings of words change over time. Let me quote an explanation for the word cache from Oxford English Dictionary, published at 1976:

Hiding-place for treasure, provisions, ammunition, etc.; what is hidden in a cache.

Surprisingly, it does not speak anything of semiconductor memory chips used in computers as a quickly-accessible intermediate memory meant to speed up actual memory operations, although, as a non-native English speaker that was the only meaning I knew for it until recently.

There sure are still pirates on open seas, too (at least Caribbean, Red Sea and South China Sea are quite likely places to get attacked, I think), but the word piracy has simply got another meaning, which means infringing of copyrights and/or trademarks - there are, for example, a loth of pirated clothes out there, too. That its trademark piracy, so it is not just copyright.

It is rather natural that the word "piracy" has came to mean copyright and trademark infringing, because "copyright infringment" probably sounds more like a legal jargon to Joe User.

--
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by myc_lykaon · 2004-04-27 22:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

I understand your sentiment and in some ways I agree, or at least I did until I found that one of my PC game CDs had degraded to unusability - it would work 1 in 8 times or thereabouts. Since the CD was needed in the drive to play the game, it would have been very useful to have made a copy of that CD so I could continue playing the game I bought. As it turned out it had some spiffy protection to prevent copying and now my feelings towards Appeal and Infogrames are somewhat low.
OK, so it isn't a big deal in the world plan of things, but because of this I can't play what I consider to be one of the best games ever - ever again unless I buy it again. Since now Appeal is dead and Infogrames is part of Atari I doubt they will ever re-release it.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 22:57 · Score: 0

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Piracy is robbing ships by force of arms, not copyright infringement. And bugs are crunchy things with six legs, not software errors. And a mouse is a soft fuzzy thing, not a HCI device. And And PPTP is what chicks use in the bathroom, not a busted-ass IPSec wannabe.

Old words have new meanings as time goes on. Launching an ad hominem attack on the argument that free software is about freedom, not about piracy is making you look like a whiney child. Get over it and make a decent argument.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by gujo-odori · 2004-04-27 22:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Cache" in the sense of "CPU cache" and "disk cache" is directly derived from the standard OED definition, and indeed, it fills the role in a computer that a cache of provisions filled for, for example, a miner in the Klondike. That meaning of the word cache is still alive and well in modern English, as any (educated, at least) native speaker could tell you. If you dig through a bunch of news articles about the war in Iraq, I am sure you will find it there.

In other words, the meaning hasn't been changed, merely extended to something that is conceptually the same but which did not exist at the time the word was borrowed into English from French.

In the case of using "piracy" to mean "copyright infringement," on the other hand, that is a complete break with the actual meaning, and was made up by RIAA and MPAA. It is not even an evolution; merely something they repeated and repeated until they got the press and politicians repeating it, but that doesn't make it true. Piracy remains the hijacking and robbery of vessels (and sometimes road vehicles; the meaning has been extended that far) by force of arms. And yes, pirates do exist today, in the places you mentioned, among others. I'm pretty sure they aren't copying DVDs.

Your claim that there are pirated clothes is as false as your claim regarding copyright infringement. Pirated CDs, DVDs, clothes, etc., are genuine articles which are stolen by pirates and subsequently resold (I haven't heard that pirates target that sort of thing much, so these are probably very rare, if not non-existent). A knock-off Rolex, on the other hand, is just what you properly named it as: a case of trademark infringement. If they copied the inside as well (not likely), then it would probably also be a case of patent infringement. None of copyright/trademark/patent infringement are acts of piracy. They are acts of infringement. That is the legal definition, and the only one that even RIAA can use in court. The legal system does not define "piracy" as the infringement of copyright, trademark, or patent. As one who hopes to take the bar exam in the future, I certainly hope it never does so and do not expect it will.

Piracy has not "evolved" to mean any kind of infringement. It is just a word stuck onto it by RIAA et al. That is the complete opposite of evolution, and something that is rejected by many people other than myself.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by pacman+on+prozac · 2004-04-27 23:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Aye me for one.

Quite disgusting in my opinion to compare someone infringing on copyright with a pirate who rapes, pillages and murders people on the high seas.

Most actual acts of piracy at sea are completely savage affairs with the victims lucky to escape alive.

Obviously this is about the same level as some kid copying a CD instead of paying $4 for it.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Xugumad · 2004-04-27 23:12 · Score: 1

Which reminds me. Occaisionally I buy region 1 DVDs - things I can't get in this country, like MST3k. Now, I have a multi-region DVD player, but really would prefer to have a region 0 version. Ideally without those annoying bits where you can't fast forward.

So, here's the question. Is anyone aware of software that will take a DVD, and convert it to region 0 and without button blocking, ready for writing back to disk?
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Phekko · 2004-04-27 23:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't know why parent is modded funny. Probably because there is no "sad but true"-modifier. Even in Europe DRM has gained foothold all the time. There is no way Media Companies with yearly budgets as big as a small country's will give up on their income even if it means twisting the arms and greasing the palms of a few politicians.

It would take some doing, but what would be the ideal solution (in my opinion) is to stop buying stuff from them. Get independent books, independent records etc that have no such restrictions. If the milk bottle you grab in the grocery store tries to restrict the ways you can use the milk, you don't buy the milk (ok, so you ignore the label and buy it anyway, which is what happens with CDs and DVDs, too)

What this has to do with Turbolinux is that if you feel the decisions done with it are wrong, don't buy it. I won't.

--

Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Dot.Com.CEO · 2004-04-27 23:20 · Score: 1

DVDShrink does it admirably, and does more than that even. It is free and runs fine in Linux through Crossover, maybe even Wine.

--
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by tota · 2004-04-27 23:29 · Score: 1

DeDRM was posted to bugtraq a few days ago.

--
TODO: 753) write sig.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by gujo-odori · 2004-04-27 23:35 · Score: 1

I have in no way made an ad hominem attack. By saying so, you have established yourself as ignorant, a liar, or quite probably, both.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by PhilHibbs · 2004-04-27 23:36 · Score: 1

I've been using the trial version of DVDFab for a few weeks now, and it works like a dream. It will even allow you to select just the movie and a selection of sound and subtitle tracks, so a dual-layer movie can be written to a single disc (I did this with the Region 3 Spiderman special edition).
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by gujo-odori · 2004-04-27 23:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I want to add one note to this myself.

There were radio stations referred to as pirate radio in the 1960s and 1970s. It was not, however, their playing of music without paying royalties (I don't know if they did or not, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn the didn't) for which it was called pirate radio. Rather, it was because they were operating without FCC licenses, commonly from just across the Mexican border, and broadcasting into border states such as Texas. A secondary contributor to the "pirate radio" monicker might have been the fact that these stations weren't much interested in the American Top 40 chart. They were playing by their own rules and airing whatever music they liked. Like the pirates who flew the Jolly Roger, they were operating outside the law, flamboyantly, and according to their own rules.

Copyright infringers may be operating outside the law, and in accordance with their own rules of what they consider IP rights, but there's nothing particularly flamboyant or daring about it. They are just too far from even the stretched "pirate radio" definition of "pirate" to be called such.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Morosoph · 2004-04-27 23:51 · Score: 1

Lord all mighty... this got old many moons ago. "I make copies of music/movies i've purchased outright". Alright... maybe you do mr/mrs oneinamillion. Dance around the bush all you want, there really is an issue of PIRATING out there. One which you are defending no matter how eliquently you word it. Blind extremes to either side of an argument are never good.
I don't think that anyone doubts that pirating is prevalent; what is in doubt is the cost to the copyright owner. How do you defend such artifical scarcity? May I second your comment about blind extremes, though.

--
Wikileaks, no DNS
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Mikkeles · 2004-04-28 00:07 · Score: 1

'In the case of using "piracy" to mean "copyright infringement," on the other hand, that is a complete break with the actual meaning, and was made up by RIAA and MPAA.'

Not so; piracy was used for copyright infringement since at least the middle 1800s, as evidenced, e.g., here in a The Atlantic Monthly column from 1867 written about Harriet Beecher Stowe.

--
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 00:41 · Score: 0

A scary question: enjoy the liberal copyright law of his country while it lasts, or enjoy his country not being part of the US while it lasts?
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Yartrebo · 2004-04-28 01:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Generally, when you have words with multiple meanings, the multiple meanings typically reinforce each other (like a drive in football, to drive a car, and to drive a nail). The meanings typically come from someone using an existing word to describe a new action or thing, or because of chance (Sioux Indians and sue as in lawsuit).

In the case of piracy, it's using a loaded word to chance public perception. If planes were instead refered to as flying bombs, and the media constantly kept calling them flying bombs, people's perceptions of planes would be very different.

Piracy applied to copyrights might be an old term, but it's still a very biased term. It would be a very good thing to see the word restored to it's original meaning, so, even if it is in the dictionary, I'm not going to use it. Copyright infringement isn't that great a term either, so why not just call it copying or making copies. That term is not loaded and is descriptive.

BTW, cache is perfectly usable to mean a hidden stash.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 02:05 · Score: 0

Where did you get your lobotomy?
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Tim+C · 2004-04-28 02:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Backing up your Disney DVDs so your kids don't destroy them, then playing the backups while the originals are kept under lock and key, is not infringement.

Well, that really depends on where you live. Here in the UK, for example, it most certainly is infringement.

No, I don't suppose that anyone would ever get in trouble for it - but that doesn't make it legal, or make the law right.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 02:44 · Score: 0

Just a minor correction - Infogrames is Atari, they simply changed their name.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by cayenne8 · 2004-04-28 03:13 · Score: 1

Damn....if we could only get those pirate radio stations back today!! We might actually stand a chance of hearing a VARIETY of good music on the radio again...both old and new.
Rather than the homogenized swill pumped out by Clearchannel on most every station around the US.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by wfberg · 2004-04-28 03:25 · Score: 1

Bullshit. Meanings of words change over time.

But the definitions of criminal offences tend to remain the same until such time that the definition is changed.

Let me quote an explanation for the word cache from Oxford English Dictionary, published at 1976:

Hiding-place for treasure, provisions, ammunition, etc.; what is hidden in a cache.

Cache is never used to deride that particular sort of memory. Calling (contributory) copyright infringement is more along the lines of "meat is murder". Even if you wholeheartedly agree with that philosophy, good luck getting a butcher prosecuted for murder.

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by ch-chuck · 2004-04-28 03:34 · Score: 1

How do you defend such artifical scarcity?

The artificial scarcity, which is very true, is how you pay for the cost or production. This is mere rationalization of grubbing free stuph pure and simple. Look at the big picture for a change instead of just telling yourself it's ok to rip. A movie company has to break even. Nobody is going to sink $100 million into the production of a movie if they're just going to sell one lousy $25 copy and everybody else gets free copies of that one purchase distributed by the friends network.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Aidtopia · 2004-04-28 04:07 · Score: 1

[P]iracy is robbing ships by force of arms.

That's one definition. Mirriam-Webster has a couple of others:

1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

I'm tired of the "it's not piracy/theft" comments. Face it, the language has evolved. Copyright infringement is theft of the copyright holder's legal monopoly.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by OwnedByTwoCats · 2004-04-28 04:11 · Score: 1

Really? There's no notion of "Fair Use" in the UK?

In the USA, at least, you still have purchased a license to play the movie/songs. Doesn't mean you have to risk the original in playback. Of course, our ever so thoughtful congress has made it illegal to purchase devices to make those copies.
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Morosoph · 2004-04-28 04:34 · Score: 1

The artificial scarcity, which is very true, is how you pay for the cost or production. This is mere rationalization of grubbing free stuph pure and simple. Look at the big picture for a change instead of just telling yourself it's ok to rip. A movie company has to break even. Nobody is going to sink $100 million into the production of a movie if they're just going to sell one lousy $25 copy and everybody else gets free copies of that one purchase distributed by the friends network.
I understand the reasoning, only that the data do not back up this theory. You can't win economic arguments through moral feeling.
Yes this article does bolster file-sharers, but you're neglecting any data that doesn't support the conclusion that you've reached in advance. Worse, in fact, data that disaggrees with your conclusion is "rationalization of grubbing free stuph...". This is no way to filter truth from falsehood. If the argument holds, it's not only rationalisation, but a positive justification.
In terms of the argument that you put forth, you're neglecting the advertising benefits of propogated works, or else having your song played on radio would be really really bad. In truth, you're missing the big picture that economics is not just about maximising profit from each transaction, but also about maximising the number of those transactions.
For the record, I do think that it's okay to rip, but I also believe in spending as much money as ever buying complete works. In particular, I believe that some free downloads plus $25 spent four times over and greater exposure for art is better than $100 spent once, and only access to mass-marketted works.

--
Wikileaks, no DNS
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by ch-chuck · 2004-04-28 07:03 · Score: 1

You can't win economic arguments through moral feeling.

Moral feeling (or lack thereof) is precisely what I was responding to when the poster claimed there was no basis for creating an artificial scarcity. At the very least, it's the law, provided for in the US constitution, to guarentee exclusive rights to make copies.

It is really, really amazing to what length people will go thru - the paper you link to is yet another one - to rationalize the simple fact that they are breaking a law. Period. If someone could, as you point out, make even more $$$ by allowing free trading and publicity etc amongst friends, then they are free to publish it in that form. However they also have an option to protect it, and if that causes them, as per your paper, to loose cash, they have made a bad business decision. In the final analysis, it's the content owners choice whether to put DRM on it or set it free. It is not a consumers choice to circumvent the owners DRM against their wishes, no matter how much extra moolah it makes the owners, or what other self rationalization for violating those right you happen to cook up at the moment (and they come up with more every day).

In summary, wow - someone can make more profit if they allow free copying - that gives you the right to violate their rights doesn't it? Jeeezus, you people reach new lows every time you try.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Morosoph · 2004-04-28 22:05 · Score: 1

Moral feeling (or lack thereof) is precisely what I was responding to when the poster claimed there was no basis for creating an artificial scarcity. At the very least, it's the law, provided for in the US constitution, to guarentee exclusive rights to make copies.
Okay, I'll take that back: there is a basis, however, it appears that this basis turns out to be ill-founded in practice. Moral feeling isn't sufficient justification for either side.
It is really, really amazing to what length people will go thru - the paper you link to is yet another one - to rationalize the simple fact that they are breaking a law. Period.
I agree that breaking the law is, in general, wrong, and that really one should seek to change the law rather than breaking it, but that requires that one first argues against the law, and you're arguing that data that undermines the justification behind a law should be rejected/ignored because it encourages law-breaking. How do you suggest acting to change a law in such circumstances?
If someone could, as you point out, make even more $$$ by allowing free trading and publicity etc amongst friends, then they are free to publish it in that form. However they also have an option to protect it, and if that causes them, as per your paper, to loose cash, they have made a bad business decision.
I agree that that is the case, and indeed I do not believe that the economics of a different copyright regieme would be the same, but if as much money as ever is going to artists, and is indeed going to more of them (as the channels of advertising and information are no longer so restricted), is appears to me to be difficult to justify restricting the rights of the purchasers. There is more than one set of rights here, and the rights that we choose to recognise surely depends on our assessment of what will generate the greatest overall benefit.
We have already decided that the principle of copyright is not absolute when we have chosen to allow for fair use. That is: there are restrictions upon which rights that you can lose through contact, just as one cannot contract into slavery.
In the final analysis, it's the content owners choice whether to put DRM on it or set it free. It is not a consumers choice to circumvent the owners DRM against their wishes, no matter how much extra moolah it makes the owners, or what other self rationalization for violating those right you happen to cook up at the moment (and they come up with more every day)
I disagree. DRM should only be protected in law from reverse-engineering if it is beneficial to the population for it to be so. We don't protect against reverse-engineering in other contexts, so this is not a case of natural law.
Additionally, there are more rights involved than those of the content providers. The provider's right in law to have their DRM protected from reverse engineering is the restriction of the owner's right to reverse engineer.

--
Wikileaks, no DNS
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Progman3K · 2004-04-29 03:07 · Score: 1

You might find this funny.
Cache is from the french word "hide"

And at least in some places, cache-sexe is used to refer to something put over your genitals!

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Getting rid of DRM? by Tim+C · 2004-05-02 23:19 · Score: 1

Well, IANAL and all that, but as I understand our copyright laws, no, there's no notion of fair use. You're allowed to quote short excerpts of things, of course, but according to an official FAQ I once read, we do *not* have the automatic right to make a backup copy of a copyrighted work. That's a copy, and so needs the copyright holder's permission.

Fucked up, huh?

Like I said, though, I don't suppose anyone is ever going to get hauled through the courts for doing it. Hell, technically, by ripping my CDs to mp3/ogg for my PC and iRiver, or making mix tapes/CDs, etc I'm infringing copyright. Pretty-much *everyone* does it, though, and as the old saying goes, they can't sue all of us. Doesn't make it right, of course.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Linux is here! by schlagel_j · 2004-04-27 14:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Finally, when I use linux, I can bring along some of the windows stability issues, and reasons that I moved away from Windows. At least all of the fancy pages will work!

Re:Linux is here! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:22 · Score: 1, Funny

Finally, when I use linux, I can bring along some of the windows stability issues, and reasons that I moved away from Windows. At least all of the fancy pages will work!

The word is "porn", not "fancy."
Re:Linux is here! by MastrTek · 2004-04-27 15:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Did you even read the article? TurboLinux licenced the CODECS, not the player itself. The player is going to be an in-house developed product appropriately called "Turbo Media Player."
Re:Linux is here! by bonch · 2004-04-27 15:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

If this was a Windows article about some Linux software running for Windows, and you had made a sarcastic comment about bringing the instability of Linux to Windows, you'd have been modded down as Flamebait within the first five minutes.
Re:Linux is here! by Curtman · 2004-04-27 16:29 · Score: 1

But its not. It's Slashdot, where the articles make sense and your comment will be modded as flaimbait.
Re:Linux is here! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:54 · Score: 0

Sure he would, but he might easily wind up at +5 eventually. There's bias here of course, but it's a lot less than you might think. Hell, I've been modded down for saying good things about Linux in the past, and for saying bad things about windows98 - I was modded as a troll for saying the 9x series wasn't very stable! I guess what I'm saying is that the bias tends to, on average, weigh itself out in moderation at the end.
Re:Linux is here! by Trejkaz · 2004-04-27 17:07 · Score: 2, Funny

Quite a few people fancy porn though.

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:Linux is here! by Not+The+Real+Me · 2004-04-27 18:24 · Score: 0, Troll

Either way, WMV codecs stink.

Try skipping around in a video. WMV will hang 6/10 times -- especially on videos that use lower bitrates.

You can skip around in MPG just fine.
AVI's (i.e. DivX encoded for example), as long as you've got reasonable keyframes, you can skip around a movie/video all you want and it works great.

Even without DRM, WMV is a rotten codec.
Re:Linux is here! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:28 · Score: 0

I think this isnt a codec issue as much as fact as the WMV container format is designed for internet streaming and not playing from a hard drive. In terms of actual video quality for fast CPUs, WM9 is the best.
Re:Linux is here! by killjoe · 2004-04-27 18:38 · Score: 0, Flamebait

So? Why do you care so much. If you don't like it leave. Maybe you can hang out at one of those MS worship sites where everybody loves windows hates linux. Lots of those around too you know.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Linux is here! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 20:45 · Score: 0

So? Why do you care so much. If you don't like it leave. Maybe you can hang out at one of those MS worship sites where everybody loves windows hates linux. Lots of those around too you know.

Maybe he was hoping to find the mythical Land of Reasoned Discussion, where instead of flinging petty insults around people consider all ideas on their own merits and compare them rationally rather than religiously. In that land there are no Linux zealots or MS zealots, nor Apple zealots nor BSD zealots; everybody recognises the good and bad points of all those operating systems, yea, and are capable of talking about them without flamewars.

Okay, so kind of stupid to expect that on Slashdot, but that's no reason to accuse him of MS worship just for pointing out the moderators' bias.
Re:Linux is here! by stephanruby · 2004-04-28 00:18 · Score: 0

Did you even read the article? TurboLinux licenced the CODECS, not the player itself. The player is going to be an in-house developed product appropriately called "Turbo Media Player."
Yes, I think he read the article. Have you?
"Turbolinux engineers developed new software called Turbo Media Player that works with xine, a widely-used Linux media engine,"
In other words, the "The Turbo Media Player" is dependent on Xine. And in case you didn't know, Xine is based on Wine, a not-so-stable Windows-emulator for Linux. So what has TurboLinux done really? As far as I can tell, they licensed some codecs and renamed/rebranded an open source project that already had the capability to play Windows Media.
Re:Linux is here! by 13Echo · 2004-04-28 00:21 · Score: 1

I don't have these problems on Linux, with MPlayer. It plays just fine. The unfortunate fact is that the codecs are proprietary and closed, and future versions will probably not work with Linux without more reverse engineering, and without any help from Microsoft. Essentially, TurboLinux is just fueling the fire, but I guess that could be said of all of us that use the codecs on Linux to play our pr0n.
Re:Linux is here! by Donny+Smith · 2004-04-28 04:14 · Score: 1

>As far as I can tell, they licensed some codecs and renamed/rebranded an open source project that already had the capability to play Windows Media.

That's correct.
Now compare that with achievements of scum like Lindows guys who've been misusing both propietary ("Windows") and open source (ad artwork, see today's posting about that) stuff. Turbo Media Player is legal, it works and it's definitively going to help Linux adoption.
Re:Linux is here! by killjoe · 2004-04-28 10:34 · Score: 1

I didn't accuse him of MS worship even though a cursory examination of his posts make that pretty obvious. I simply told him to go hang out that the MS worship sites if he dislikes slashdot so much.

I was also wondering why he (or anybody) cares so much if somebody bashes MS. I mean do you get upset if I say that Maytag washers suck? Why would you get upset if I say windows sucks.

It's just another corporation making just another crappy product. More evil then most corporations but just another corporation nevertheless.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Linux is here! by stephanruby · 2004-04-28 13:48 · Score: 1

Can someone please correct me if I'm wrong instead of just modding me down to zero (-1 overrated).
According to this FAQ, Xine can *already* play Windows media and other formats. Here is the quote.
"Can I watch Windows Media (.asf/.wmv/.wma) files using xine?
While the container format (system layer) ASF (wmv is just an alias) is fully supported in xine, for newer windows media 9 based streams you'll need to install windows binary codecs (.DLLs). Possibly the most convenient way to get the windows DLLs is to download them from the mplayer website http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codecs/ . The package is called "Win32 Codecpack". Unpack it and move everything you find inside to /usr/lib/win32 (actually you can place them anywhere you want, e.g. someplace in your homedirectory, but then you'll have to set codec.win32_path in your xine config file accordingly). Restart xine then and you should be able to watch windows media streams. "
Then, according to this press release, the Turbo Media Player (which hasn't even been released yet) is actually dependent of Xine. Here is the quote.
"...Turbolinux engineers developed new software called Turbo Media Player that works with xine, a widely-used Linux media engine, to make it possible for customers to watch streaming video in Windows Media format."
What am I missing here? I expected my previous post to be modded up, not down.

Real Player? by geek4ever · 2004-04-27 14:17 · Score: 2, Funny

O wow...complete with Real Player? Why don't ya just boot windows?

--

Karma: Bad. Mostly because the only moderators that notice me are conservatives.

Re:Real Player? by SavedLinuXgeeK · 2004-04-27 14:19 · Score: 5, Informative

Well honestly this is a good step in the direction for linux adaptation. And linux has real player anyways, but the adoption of major programs can easily lead to a higher conversion to linux, especially for people tied closely to certain apps. Btw, even if it is not licsensed fully, xine does a good job of playing real streams and of playing streaming window media feeds.

--
je suis parce que j'aime
Re:Real Player? by Zorak+Man · 2004-04-27 14:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

O wow...complete with Real Player? Why don't ya just boot windows?

Sounds like your joking, but you are right in my view. I run two desktop systems, a Linux and a Windows PC. They are different OSs for different things.

--

404 .sig not found
Re:Real Player? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:38 · Score: 0

That's not the point. The point I forget, but that's not the point.

Also, did anyone else who read:

"The Windows Media codecs for Linux will be available for download for $64"

automatically remind themselves to check warez sites and Kazaa in a couple days? Nobody?
Re:Real Player? by 1Oman · 2004-04-27 17:32 · Score: 1

There has been real player for linux for a while. This used to come in handy sometimes, but I can't honestly remember the last time I needed real player.OTH, windows wmv format seems to be more and more popular on the porn sites.
Re:Real Player? by Billly+Gates · 2004-04-27 18:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Are you serious or have used Xine?

Under FreeBSD4.9 it constant crashes, can not play half the video formats, and it very choppy. I get signal 6 and signal 11 errors galore and core dumps.

In WIndows I just point and click. Yes, Unix is behind in some things and not ahead in everything.

First it was the gui, now its media.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Real Player? by AstroDrabb · 2004-04-27 19:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

It could just be the FreeBSD version? Under Fedora MPlayer and Xine work very well for me. There are also other front-ends to xine such as totem for GNome which is very nice as well.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:Real Player? by Ost99 · 2004-04-27 19:41 · Score: 1

Sounds like your joking, but you are right in my view. I run two desktop systems, a Linux and a Windows PC. They are different OSs for different things
Me too, but I use the Linux systems to play media files...

--
---- Sig. gone.
Re:Real Player? by negacao · 2004-04-27 22:19 · Score: 1, Funny

Under FreeBSD4.9 it

Well there's your problem..

*dons flameproof suit and runs away* :)
Re:Real Player? by BiggerIsBetter · 2004-04-27 23:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'll second that. I've used Xine on (Mandrake|SuSE|RedHat) Linux since my K6-500 days, because it was smoothest and fastest on my machine at the time. I still use it on my XP-2600 today. Only found one DVD it couldn't play (Ecks vs Severn, IIRC) and that bug's been fixed now too, I think.

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:Real Player? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 00:21 · Score: 1, Informative

Xine is flawless for me too on Gentoo Linux. I only find that Xine has problems when it is setup by a commercial distro which cripples it. Xine can play my DVDs better than any windows dvd player(I've tried quite a few of them) which better video quality. Xine will also play WMV streams with no problem for me. For some odd formats that Xine doesn't support, MPlayer has never failed to play.
Only under Linux have I ever seen such flawless playback as I get with Xine and MPlayer.
Re:Real Player? by dumeinst · 2004-04-28 01:32 · Score: 1

Xine works beautifully for me. compiled without a hitch, plugins work in mozilla through gxine, dvd decryption, all without any problems whatsoever. It beats the pants of any windows player for verstatility. IMO anyways.
Re:Real Player? by Zardus · 2004-04-28 02:55 · Score: 1

Hint: your OS may be terminally sick :-)

--
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
Re:Real Player? by Donny+Smith · 2004-04-28 04:07 · Score: 1

MPlayer (perhaps Xine too) may have legal problems because of that ability to play WMV streams :-)

So the idea is to:
a) get rid of any possible incompatibility (guaranteed to work)
b) get rid of any possible lawsuit
(hassle free for Turbolinux partners/customers)
Re:Real Player? by PacketKing · 2004-04-28 10:40 · Score: 1

In WIndows I just point and click. Yes, Unix is behind in some things and not ahead in everything.

First it was the gui, now its media.

I just *had* to respond to this. Unix is only behind in "some things" because of bastard companies that monopolize their media Codecs. It's light years ahead in open standards stuff. Check out Ogg Vorbis sometime. If those companies port their stuff to Linux/Unix then there wouldn't be as many problems. However, we have to suffer for a while, while coders reverse engineer the codecs. Or better yet, do without the stupid video that uses those bastard codecs in the first place.

There's my quarter-byte's worth.

--
Ignorance is lacking knowledge, stupidity is a choice of ignoring knowledge.

This isn't actually a bad thing... by terraformer · 2004-04-27 14:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

It shows that there is a real place for Linux in the commercial/proprietary software market. Using this, as a foot in the door, the more open standards can be intorduced and promoted to gain larger foothold.

--
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.

Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:24 · Score: 0

Yeah sure :)

You should be modded funny!

-
Die Versicherung
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by pla · 2004-04-27 14:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

It shows that there is a real place for Linux in the commercial/proprietary software market.

And you consider that a "good" thing?

I (and I think many of us) consider Linux as embodying freedom (in both the RMS and and the beer senses) in the IT world. Now, I certainly won't put down some of the great work the major distro companies have done for us, but this goes a little too far - The difference between "added value" to "basically un-free (in both senses).

Using this, as a foot in the door, the more open standards can be intorduced and promoted to gain larger foothold.

I hope you meant that as sarcastic.

Using this as a precedent, companies can feel safer about making totally closed standards, with the hope that if they become popular enough, even "those Linux nuts" will eventually license it from them.

Not good. I can see this from three main angles... First, while nice to have a legal way to do most of the things mentioned in the FP, I would point out that a legal way to do that already existed - Use Windows. Second, illegal (in some countries) ways to do all of those already existed, making this very unlikely to see adoption by any but the most picky of people and companies. And third, I do consider it nice to have native (rather than the hack MPlayer and the like use) support for a given format, but not at the expense of making Linux have the same stability as Windows.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by kfg · 2004-04-27 14:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well no, it doesn't actually. It only shows that TurboLinux is willing to take the risk that there is.

It will take actually selling it in quantity to show that there is a real place for Linux in the propriatary software market.

Red Hat/Mandrake, SuSE/et al have already shown there's a place for it in the commercial market.

Commercial != Propriatary

KFG
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by shiftless · 2004-04-27 14:51 · Score: 1

Assuming that it actually sells. At $150 a copy...
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:04 · Score: 0

I want my Debian.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by tepples · 2004-04-27 15:17 · Score: 5, Informative

I (and I think many of us) consider Linux as embodying freedom (in both the RMS and and the beer senses) in the IT world.

It depends on what you're putting before the slash in */Linux. Your view corresponds to "GNU" before the slash, just like the Debian contract. However, some Linux-based operating systems such as Lycoris and Linspire have different goals that they use the same kernel to meet.

And third, I do consider it nice to have native (rather than the hack MPlayer and the like use) support for a given format, but not at the expense of making Linux have the same stability as Windows.

Remember that thanks to Linux's memory protection and I/O abstraction, nothing affects system reliability unless it goes through the kernel, and as long as you haven't tainted your kernel with a "GPL\0which stands for Greedy Private License" driver, a few proprietary apps shouldn't break the increased reliability that the free software process brings to the rest of your system. Or what evidence can you provide against my assertion?
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-04-27 15:48 · Score: 1

as a foot in the door, the more open standards can be intorduced and promoted to gain larger foothold.

Beware your foothold doesn't become too large or else you will no longer be able to walk.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:53 · Score: 0

And I hope your entire post was sarcastic. No one's REALLY this stupid, are they?
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by pla · 2004-04-27 15:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

thanks to Linux's memory protection and I/O abstraction, nothing affects system reliability unless it goes through the kernel ... a few proprietary apps shouldn't break the increased reliability that the free software process brings to the rest of your system. Or what evidence can you provide against my assertion?

No, no, you have a fair point that I hadn't considered. I agree with you completely - No kernel mods, this should at worst crash the player in question, not the whole system.

I do, though, have to wonder if (at least) WMP9 support requires a (binary-only, of course) kernel module to enforce its DRM... If so, my earlier comment on stability would still apply. If not, will this allow playback of protected content, or have they glossed over that small omission from full compatibility?
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by _Sprocket_ · 2004-04-27 16:06 · Score: 1

It will take actually selling it in quantity to show that there is a real place for Linux in the propriatary software market.

I'm curious as to the sales for native Linux versions of first-run proprietary games. I know I've bought a few - and I'm not a big games buyer (I don't have much time). The odd thing is that as I buy games for my Linux desktop... I end up buying additional copies for members of my household who run Windows (mainly for games).
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by rolocroz · 2004-04-27 16:49 · Score: 1

Just one person has to buy it for it to be distributed to the entire world. I always joked to friends that I was downloading "Linux warez ISOs", but now it seems that that'll really be the case.

--
I meta-mod all positive moderation Unfair, because it's abuse of the system.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by westlake · 2004-04-27 16:53 · Score: 1

The reality is that home users want access to media from the major content providers and none of the majors will consent to digital distribution without DRM; a commercial media-oriented Linux distro is dead in the water unless it can provide the same out-of-the-box experience as Windows XP or the Mac.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by necro2607 · 2004-04-27 17:01 · Score: 0

Hmm, there's a real place in the commercial/proprietary market for an OS that was written to escape the limitations of a commercial/proprietary market... awesome.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by inode_buddha · 2004-04-27 17:29 · Score: 1

Er? your post is logical enough, but why would a media player codec need its own kernel module? Unless you are rendering WMP9 in hardware?

--
C|N>K
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:07 · Score: 4, Informative
Er? your post is logical enough, but why would a media player codec need its own kernel module? Unless you are rendering WMP9 in hardware?
Under Windows, the sound drivers participate in something called "Secure Audio Path", meaning that they have been inspected and signed by Microsoft to prove that they will not allow the user to save audio data to disk or otherwise defeat the DRM. Under GNU/Linux, there are any number of ways to capture the digital audio data before it passes through an analog conversion, including:
- An LD_PRELOAD library that captures accesses to /dev/dsp or another sound device
- A modified kernel sound module that saves the audio data
- Setting the recording source to the sound output
- Emulate the entire system and capture sound output (such as with UML, Bochs, Mac-On-Linux, etc)
Basically, it is impossible to enforce DRM unless every component all the way down to hardware is under the media providers' control. Which means it is impossible to enforce DRM in Free Software.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by Ancient+Devices+King · 2004-04-27 19:13 · Score: 1

I'm not sure why it would require a kernel module just to check for DRM. It could easily be part of the codec, and since that's being licensed directly and would need to be used as a binary in any program that wants to play WM9 stuff, the codec itself could just look at the file and determine if the player is authorized to use its DRM. Seems simple enough to me. I'm not intimately familiar with how codecs work though, so if someone knows more definetly about it than me, they should say something and get me modded into the ground.

--
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2004-04-27 19:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

I do consider it nice to have native (rather than the hack MPlayer and the like use) support for a given format, but not at the expense of making Linux have the same stability as Windows.

First off, who says bringing Windows Media Player to Linux will make Linux unstable? It MIGHT make for an unstable Media Player but then, a single application should never make an entire OS unstable, right?

Right? Well I assume that MUST be the case, since everybody gripes about how single errant applications can bring down Windows.

If it does turn out that bringing WMP to Linux makes Linux as a whole unstable, then maybe Linux doesn't have that superior stability that everyone has always claimed.

Truth be known I don't even use WMP on my Windows machines. I stick to MP3 if I can help it. Sure, it's not opened like Ogg, but it's not quite as evil as WMP and it's a whole lot more popular.

I really don't see the need for WMP on any platform, much less Linux, but if someone wants to pay for a codec, let 'em.

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by NewNole2001 · 2004-04-27 20:58 · Score: 1

I ran out of mod points a few hours ago, or I'd mod you up. If Linux can't handle WMP without becoming unstable then there really is something wrong.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by Luscious868 · 2004-04-27 23:14 · Score: 1

And you consider that a "good" thing?

I (and I think many of us) consider Linux as embodying freedom (in both the RMS and and the beer senses) in the IT world. Now, I certainly won't put down some of the great work the major distro companies have done for us, but this goes a little too far - The difference between "added value" to "basically un-free (in both senses).

Hell yes it's a good thing! If you're at all serious about Linux adoption then it's a very, very, very good thing. There are all kinds of applications that will never be written by the open source community because they are needed by to small a group of users. Case in point, I work for a company that sells construction job cost accounting software, estimating software, project management software, service management software, etc. Basically all kinds of software packages tailored specifically to various areas of the construction industry. If proprietary software never really catches on in the Linux world then all of our customers are going to be stuck using Windows forever.

I don't expect that the open source community will ever produce software that can do the kinds of things that these types of Windows based packages can do. It simply won't happen because the software is so specialized. Think of how many other businesses are in the same boat. There are plenty of Windows applications out there tailor made to do the kinds of things that millions of businesses need done. Linux will never, ever catch on on the desktop if applications like these aren't ported, or similar properietary applications aren't created.

Bascially, with a no propietary, open source only strategy Linux will remain a power in the back office but only a toy for geeks on the desktop. If that's the case then guess who remains on top? Microsoft. Remember where Microsoft's real power comes from. It's their stranglehold on the desktop. I for one would like to shee that stranglehold broken. It's better for everyone. If Linux remains open source only, non-proprietary kiss any kind of wide ranging adoption on the desktop good bye.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by stephanruby · 2004-04-28 00:54 · Score: 1

And third, I do consider it nice to have native (rather than the hack MPlayer and the like use) support for a given format, but not at the expense of making Linux have the same stability as Windows.
No, this solution is actually worst than MPlayer because it uses code from Wine, an unstable Windows emulator.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by mt_nixnut · 2004-04-28 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

While you make some good points. Freedom in the freedom sense is not exchanging what MS wants me to do with what RMS wants me to do. I think it is important that people do not forget how easy it is to exchange one tyrany for another in these conversations.
What if someone came along a wrote a beautiful proprietary home video package that runs on linux and costs $25. You would say bad thing, and I would buy it. Freedom is having that choice.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by martyros · 2004-04-28 02:06 · Score: 1
- A modified kernel sound module that saves the audio data
- Emulate the entire system and capture sound output (such as with UML, Bochs, Mac-On-Linux, etc)
These two could be done on Windows as well -- not sure how easily, but it can be done.
--
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by Dave2+Wickham · 2004-04-28 02:53 · Score: 1

...except mplayer uses Wine as well:
[dave@tc4 ~/mplayer-cvs/main/loader/wine]$ ls CVS basetsd.h driver.h heap.h mmreg.h msacm.h ntdef.h poppack.h pshpack2.h pshpack8.h winbase.h windows.h winestring.h winreg.h avifmt.h debugtools.h elfdll.h ldt.h module.h msacmdrv.h pe_image.h pshpack1.h pshpack4.h vfw.h windef.h winerror.h winnt.h winuser.h
Re:This isn't actually a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 14:14 · Score: 0

I didn't know that. Thanks.

$149 per copy by PaintyThePirate · 2004-04-27 14:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, the price is about the same as Windows Media Player 9 on Windows.

--
eclecti.cc

Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:24 · Score: 0

I thought WMP was free? What have you been smoking?
Re:$149 per copy by PaintyThePirate · 2004-04-27 14:27 · Score: 1

Windows Media Player is free, but Windows is required to run it. (not free... legally)

--
eclecti.cc
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:27 · Score: 0

You can't get WMP9 without Windows. Hence the quoted price. What are you smoking?
Re:$149 per copy by rogabean · 2004-04-27 14:28 · Score: 1

I think parent was talking about the 149 bucks you'd have to spend for an OS to run that windows media player.

that said, this is a[nother] start...I guess.

--
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
Re:$149 per copy by rogabean · 2004-04-27 14:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

On second thought, this is not a start. Appears to me more of a media (no pun intended) stunt of sorts. Seriously I honestly can not see a business model on this. Who is going to pay the tag price on this distro just to get these features that you could easily get for free with another distro and an apt-get/urpmi/etc? Hell for that matter I didn't even know TurboLinux was still alive and kicking...hmmm guess the media stunt worked... /shrug

--
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
Re:$149 per copy by AKnightCowboy · 2004-04-27 14:37 · Score: 2

You can't get WMP9 without Windows. Hence the quoted price. What are you smoking?
Windows comes for free on almost any new computer unless you go out of your way to buy one without it (which is next to impossible). Also my campus bookstore sells copies of Windows XP Pro for $20. When coupled with a $20 copy of Office 2003 Pro, there's not much reason for my to use Linux for my office computing needs. I admit that's a special case as most people would pay more than that for that software but we have campus-wide licensing deals with Microsoft so we benefit from that.
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:42 · Score: 2, Funny

The first hit's free, but the rest will cost ya!
Re:$149 per copy by kfg · 2004-04-27 14:47 · Score: 1

Well, the price is about the same as Windows Media Player 9 on Windows.

Gee. What an incredible coincidence.

KFG
Re:$149 per copy by gilrain · 2004-04-27 15:15 · Score: 1

On the contrary, you can also run it on Mac OS -- free. So, you're wrong.
Re:$149 per copy by krymsin01 · 2004-04-27 15:19 · Score: 1

Mac OS is not free either.

--
stuff
Re:$149 per copy by Goldfinger7400 · 2004-04-27 15:36 · Score: 1

But WMP for Mac is. There should be no reason for Microsoft to charge more for linux users to get the ability to play the latest windows media files.
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:40 · Score: 0

Yes only $20 if you don't count the extra fees you pay as part of your tuition to get access to the campus license.

My faculty gives out free Windows (2000, XP, 2003), VS.Net, Visio, etc but you don't see me using it. I've downloaded a lot of them just so I have them (you never know) but my PowerBook is doing just fine (with free QT AND WMP btw).
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:50 · Score: 0

Windows comes for free on almost any new computer unless you go out of your way to buy one without it (which is next to impossible).

Yep, they just throw Windows in for free with those puters. You're a salesperson's wet dream :)
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:52 · Score: 0

Price is usually a minor factor in deciding which OS to use. Use Linux because it's more stable, less virus-prone, and not made by Microsoft.
Re:$149 per copy by Brandybuck · 2004-04-27 16:15 · Score: 1

So why do you need to spend $20 for Windows XP when it comes with your computer. First you say you don't have to buy Windows, and then you tell me the price. WTF?

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:22 · Score: 0

There should be no reason for Microsoft to charge more for linux users to get the ability to play the latest windows media files.

Why? You freeloading Linux hippies get enough stuff free, its about time you started paying your way!
Re:$149 per copy by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2004-04-27 16:29 · Score: 1

I'm certain that the crack that they throw you to make you think this is a good idea takes up most of that...

Just insist on codecs that are worth a shit, like Divx ;) or the like

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:$149 per copy by Trelane · 2004-04-27 16:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Windows comes for free on almost any new computer unless you go out of your way to buy one without it (which is next to impossible).

Incorrect. The price of Windows is included with the computer. More accurately, you're claiming that the price of Windows comes bundled in with the cost of the computer, and you have to go out of your way to avoid paying for a copy of Windows with every new PC. This is what you may hear being referred to as the "Microsoft Tax".

Also my campus bookstore sells copies of Windows XP Pro for $20. When coupled with a $20 copy of Office 2003 Pro, there's not much reason for my to use Linux for my office computing needs.

While not impossible, this is highly unlikely. According to Pricewatch, XP Pro Academic Upgrade is currently running $68 ($80 for the boxed version).

More likely is that your university has joined Microsoft's Campus Software Programs (either willingly or because it was coerced by Microsoft; more details if you want). Essentially, the students all pay $30-$70 per semester and, in return, they can go to their local bookstore, show proof of ID, and get an upgrade version of Windows XP (read your license carefully!), and one copy of MS Office. Other software may also be included (at my uni, Publisher and Visual Studio are also included). You then go down to the bookstore and plunk down more money for software you probably don't need anyway on top of the per-semester payments!

Pretty sweet deal if you ask me. Well, for Microsoft anyway--universities shell out even more money for software they likey don't need (as you pointed out, Windows is gonna be installed anyway), and the school will find it even harder to switch away from Microsoft (since that'd require recalling (and auditing the recall of!) every piece of software given out under the programme).

What's worse is hearing people, being fleeced $150-$350 over 5 years,--not counting summer school-- for software they don't need anyway, and hearing them say it's such a great deal because they get Windows XP Pro for $7!

--

--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:43 · Score: 0

Don't forget the restrictions on academic versions of their software.
Re:$149 per copy by gilrain · 2004-04-27 16:49 · Score: 1

I was responding to someone who was implying that WMP is not free because Microsoft profits from it through sales of Windows. I pointed out that since it is also available for an OS which Microsoft does not profit from (unless you want to really stretch), they are in fact giving it away for free.

The fact that Mac OS costs some amount of money is irrelevent. You may as well say GNU/Linux is not free, because you need a computer to run it.
Re:$149 per copy by Trelane · 2004-04-27 16:52 · Score: 1

What's worse is hearing people, being fleeced $150-$350 over 5 years
Erm, sorry. Is late. :) At $30-$70/semester, this translates to $300-$700 over 5 years (2 semesters/year). Blah. Am tired.

--

--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:56 · Score: 0

There's one good reason I can think of - macs make microsoft money while linux does not. Some work on their part could change that, but at the moment that's the way the situation stands.
Re:$149 per copy by smack_attack · 2004-04-27 16:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

1) Divx doesn't do DRM.
2) Pron is moving to DRM (via DRMed WMV). Give it a year and free video trading will dry up substantially (but not go away, obviously).
3) If you can show them another DRM solution outside of MS that works, they'll jump on it.

Hint: the 4 major rules are double email optin (some of these guys email, but legitimately), single email optin (which is fucking pointless) and member/password, and popups (which is pretty fucked up considering it will ONLY pop an IE browser).

So there ya go... show me some DRM outside of MS that is any good, and I'll show you an industry that will pounce on it.

--

Hammer of Truth
Re:$149 per copy by krymsin01 · 2004-04-27 18:48 · Score: 1

Yes, but under the logic of poster, if WMP is not free because Microsoft is not free, then the same applies for OSes which are also not free but WMP runs on.

The fact that Microsoft doesn't profit from MacOS is irrelevent.

--
stuff
Re:$149 per copy by clymere · 2004-04-27 19:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've been buying MS products at my university for years. They have all been full, working, non-upgrade versions. I probably am paying for them out of my tuition...but I have no choice in that. They're also spending $12 million on a "student wellness center" this year...i don't get to take my share of that and spend it on a gym membership instead, do i?

For a college student on a budget, those cheap MS offers can be a godsend. Linux works great for me, but I'm a programmer. Its far superior for virtually everything I have to do for school. I'm sure an English major feels differently...and loves the $15 Windows they can get, even if its got no manual, or support. and that $10 Office is important when they are using Word in every class.

Hasn't it been proven enough times that Linux is only more cost effective than Windows when its support cost(i mean cost in time as well as money) is less than for Windows? Most college students don't have the time to spend learning a whole new OS when the one they've got works fine. For CompSci majors, Linux is essential. For everyone else...I don't blame them for wanting their Windows. It is going to cost them a great deal more to try to use Linux. And that goes for anyone else isn't a computer guru, or have easy access to one.

I think TurboLinux DOES have a good idea here as well. Eventually, if Linux has OpenOffice, and can play WM, and all the other things Windows does, along with being more stable, and not inflicting DRM on you, Linux may be able to make some serious inroads into the desktop market. I can say without a doubt that if they managed to build Windows so that you absolutely could not burn protected files(which they are attempting), then a LOT of college students would be switching to Linux overnight :)

--
once you go slack, you never go back
Re:$149 per copy by Ancient+Devices+King · 2004-04-27 19:21 · Score: 1

It was my understanding that any codec which conforms to the official MPEG4 standards is capable of doing DRM just fine. Is that incorrect?

--
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
Re:$149 per copy by the_womble · 2004-04-27 19:50 · Score: 1

When coupled with a $20 copy of Office 2003 Pro, there's not much reason for my to use Linux for my office computing needs.
That assumes that cost is the only or main reason for using Linux. Given the cost of software against the value of my time, I am willing to pay more for something better (hence I bought Opera for example) but I will use what ever is cheaper if it is as good, as good in the context of my needs (e.g. Gnumeric), or better in the context of my needs (e.g. Lyx). I also prefer to use open file formats for storing documents as I am less likely to be staranded with something that is unreadable later.
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 20:47 · Score: 1, Informative

2) Pron is moving to DRM (via DRMed WMV). Give it a year and free video trading will dry up substantially (but not go away, obviously).
Doubtful, considering the fact that there's already terabytes of porn already out there with no DRM ;)
Re:$149 per copy by DigiShaman · 2004-04-27 23:04 · Score: 1

Funny thing is, I own an Apex AD-1600 DVD player that I got for around 30 bucks (brand new). And with that player I got the ability to play DVDs (of course) MP3, JPEG, Kodak PCD, and Windows Media Audio. Not shabby for the price eh? And this is piece of hardware.

And Micro$oft want's to charge $199 for a retail copy of WinXP Home ($99 for uprade). They can BLOW ME! As soon as Linux supports the games and applications I want to use (without buggy WIN32 emulators), then I will make the official plunge. Until then, my software usage will be dubious at best.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:$149 per copy by mattyrobinson69 · 2004-04-27 23:21 · Score: 1

especially as coding for Mac is quite similar to coding for any other unix.

if this is microsoft licensing WM codecs for linux, this could be used in another anti-trust lawsuit.
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 01:09 · Score: 0

You think we haven't been giving away DRMed content that is wide open only to close it down later? How do you think we stress test our licensing servers?

We know how to play Kazaa, and we have hundreds of servers that we can setup to "give away" free porn that's DRMed, only to convert the license to popup hell later.

Like I said, we can make it dry up, but it would obviously not go away... we know it's a constant battle and the traders have (collectively) far more free time that we do.
Re:$149 per copy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 01:11 · Score: 0

We don't want "capable" we want "product", even if it's just a few scripts.

And it damn well better not be hackable in a week.
Re:$149 per copy by Trelane · 2004-04-28 01:25 · Score: 1

They have all been full, working, non-upgrade versions.

It depends on the system you use to get it. I was specifically ranting against the Campus Software Program (it may be called differently at your school, and I may have the name wrong). While the Office and other software is a full license, the Windows is an upgrade license. As I said, read the papers you signed carefully! While the CD they give us is a full copy, the license itself is for an upgrade.

There are other avenues of getting Windows at a campus; apparently those CompSci departments who have joined MS's program can give away full verisons of Windows to those in CompSci too. And they apparently (all of this hearsay from those I know in CompSci) are also not terminated if you leave the school sans sheepskin.

They're also spending $12 million on a "student wellness center" this year...i don't get to take my share of that and spend it on a gym membership instead, do i?

Good point. That said, for one, they need to stop adding all this crap to our tuition. (you don't complain every time they raise the tuition by faster-than-inflation?)

Additionally, I'm not arguing about the student wellness center crap; I'm specifically addressing the argument that the Microsoft Campus Software Program is a good deal; I don't believe that it is.

For a college student on a budget, those cheap MS offers can be a godsend.

Why? Because they didn't get a copy of Windows (likely, the latest version of Windows!) with their computer? (Esp. given the tendency to buy new computers when starting college and during college for college). Because they didn't get a word processor and spreadsheet bundled with their computer, or can't go down to the store and snag a copy for $100 academic? I honstly don't see the need for paying $300-$700 over five years for software one has or can less expensively aquire.

loves the $15 Windows they can get, even if its got no manual, or support. and that $10 Office is important when they are using Word in every class.

Once again, I wish to point out that, at least under the Campus Software Program, Windows and Office don't cost $10 ! To believe so is fallacy; they actually are costing you $60-$140 per year , and you don't get to keep 'em if you don't graduate (i.e. the money goes down the crapper) or if your school decides to stop (more money down the crapper).

File format lockin aside, why would most people need Windows or Office? Most people get an office suite of some variety with their Windows computer. That is sufficient for most of what people need to do. If they don't get Office or WP Office or Works or whatever with their computer, the academic prices are $100 or so for a full copy of Office. So, in the end, they're paying $200+ more than they need in the best (most value-saving) case!

Hasn't it been proven enough times that Linux is only more cost effective than Windows when its support cost(i mean cost in time as well as money) is less than for Windows?

Linux is outside the scope of this argument. I am solely addressing the fallacy that people are getting a great deal with the Campus Software Program.

--

--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Re:$149 per copy by 13Echo · 2004-04-28 01:33 · Score: 1

Does that mean that since I have legitimate Windows licenses (as many people do) from the purchase of a PC, or by buying the Windows software outright, that I have the right to use Windows media codecs on Linux?

I guess that's the shady issue. I would assume that is the case, but licensing issues are very touchy.

For instance, what about the new NTFS kernel module that links to Windows' own NTFS dll to do the dirty work? I guess that's about the same type of thing.
Re:$149 per copy by MeNeXT · 2004-04-28 03:02 · Score: 1

Hasn't it been proven enough times that Linux is only more cost effective than Windows when its support cost(i mean cost in time as well as money) is less than for Windows?

This is HOG WASH based on the study which is being conducted. These studies assume that a persone is 100% efficient 100% of the time. Now we all know that most companies plan training when they have downtime. They never hire someone to replace you when you are in training...do they? If you are salaried then it costs them no matter what work you do. The costs and assumptions that they make may or may not be true.

Now under the university program you have to load Windows or you have to load Linux/FreeBSD. I find it quicker to load the latter, but that is just me. As a student your time is not worth much other wise you would be out in the workforce. If you think that your time can be better spent, such as going to a party, you are making my point.

--
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...

Expensive by eww · 2004-04-27 14:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sounds nice. I would pay $20 for something like that but $146???? That's too much for what you get.

Eric

Re:Expensive by nite_warrior · 2004-04-27 15:55 · Score: 1

even downloading a $46 codec still sounds crazy to me... I might not have try to play any "new" windows media file, but as far as I've had the needs, avifiles does the work nicely using the win32 codecs packed with it.

What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:19 · Score: 5, Informative

Why not just use the VideoLAN Client or MPlayer? Both play WMV files on my Linux box without problems...

-H

Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by Teh_monkeyCode · 2004-04-27 15:31 · Score: 1

one word. DRM

--
-------
Chunky Bacon
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by tyfoon · 2004-04-27 15:50 · Score: 1

Clients are one thing. Show me a linux box that can _serve_ WM9 and I'll be impressed.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by sugar+and+acid · 2004-04-27 15:51 · Score: 5, Informative

The real concern here is that the MPlayer fully installed is dubious legally. That is why Suse and probably a few other distros only come with crippled versions that can not play WMV files and the like, though for suse a fully capable binary install exist elsewhere, but obviously this is out of the scope of the Suse companies legal culpibility. In the plan put forth your really paying for a licence to use the said technology, as the implementation has already been around in linux for a while now.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by kforeman · 2004-04-27 16:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Neither of these players has the legal right to distribute either RealAudio/RealVideo or WMA/WMV. Kevin Foreman GM, Helix RealNetworks, Inc.

--
Kevin Foreman
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by irokitt · 2004-04-27 16:53 · Score: 1

Well, I guess you'll just have to use Slackware or Gentoo then, huh? *removes asbestos mithril*

As for the grandparent post, I think this codec is necessary for streaming Windows Media. Which I don't do very often, so I guess I won't be paying the $64 for the codec.

--
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by Trejkaz · 2004-04-27 17:11 · Score: 1

If you have a player which can't play a certain type of DRM'd file, you would be unlikely to download a DRM'd version of that file, and more likely to download the MP3. That's the way I work, anyway.

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by kyhwana · 2004-04-27 17:32 · Score: 1

Auctally, you can play WMA/WMV with libavcodec, or/ffmpeg, which is free. So it's perfectly legally to distribute a player/codec which will play WMA/WMV

--
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by Art+Tatum · 2004-04-27 18:14 · Score: 1

I stream WMA and WMV with MPlayer and that seems to work fine too, unless I'm missing something.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by Killer+Napkin · 2004-04-27 18:14 · Score: 1

Well that really depends on the country from which the software is based, doesn't it? Just because it's illegal in the US doesn't mean it is or should be illegal anywhere else. Very few companies stand to gain from proprietary codecs and lot's of people are adversely affected as a result. In fact, most people would probably argue against it.

No offense for the people at Real (who I'm sure are decent folk), but I'd rather Real and similar companies go out of business than live in a world where the ability to do anything on a computer is patent-encumbered. Those short-term profits aren't worth the long-term consequences (which get extended every few years when yet another codec hits the market.)
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by juhaz · 2004-04-27 18:15 · Score: 1

FFmpeg only plays WMV1/7 (and 2/8 with some problems), it can't play WMV9.

And perfectly legal in copyright sense doesn't mean there aren't any problems with patents.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:20 · Score: 0

As others have pointed out, all of this stuff (including MPEG-2&4) is patented and therefore incompatible with the GPL and legally problematic to distribute to end users as part of a player.

Also, listen to the guy who works for Real -- they pay good money for this stuff and he knows better than you.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:33 · Score: 0

Those patents only applies in certain countries.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:38 · Score: 0

actually they do.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by phallux · 2004-04-27 19:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Doesn't that just burn you up that there are Linux users out there watching RealNazi(TM) media on their Linux boxes without having to suffer your RealSpyware(tm), RealAdverts(tm), and RealSpam(tm)? ;-)
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by k-zed · 2004-04-27 19:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

This doesn't really matter you know, especially with circumstances like realplayer using >50% cpu for a realmedia file in fullscreen while mplayer using 5%. Mplayer is simply superior technology and that's about it.

--
we discovered a new way to think.
Re:What about VideoLAN or MPlayer? by Delphiki · 2004-04-28 08:23 · Score: 1

In fact, most people would probably argue against it.

I always find comments like this amusing. Most people don't give a shit. Even if you changed it to most geeks, I still would find the comment doubtful. Unless you go with most OSS evangelists, I don't think your ocmment holds up. The average computer user would be completely disinterested in any argument about whether proprietary codecs should be allowed. Unless they happen to be pro-capitalism, in which case there's a good chance they would think it was a ridiculous question.

--
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".

Evil genius? by B5_geek · 2004-04-27 14:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

I wonder if this is some evil Genius way to Screw MS & give the linux community WMA & Legit DVD's.
IIRC the terms of the deal are that Turbo pay MS and the other companies for each copy that they SELL ?
While sticking to the GPL they still give the stuff away for free!

Next step mounting those "lasers" on the sharks.

--
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)

Re:Evil genius? by kiwirob · 2004-04-27 14:25 · Score: 1

Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request...and that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.

frickin' laser beams audio

cool by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:19 · Score: 0

Now this is neet.
Anyone know if they are selling the package so you can install it on other distros, or is it Turbolinux only?

Conservative moderators? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:20 · Score: 2, Funny

"Karma: Bad. Mostly because the only moderators that notice me are conservatives"

Let me know if you ever see one. All the moderators I ever encounter are knee-jerk liberals.

Re:Conservative moderators? by geek4ever · 2004-04-27 14:25 · Score: 0

hah...I'd give you a bunch of em if I could get the names of the people who moderate me.

--

Karma: Bad. Mostly because the only moderators that notice me are conservatives.
Re:Conservative moderators? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 22:44 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, you cannot moderate and post in the same thread. Sorry, you knew that?
Re:Conservative moderators? by gujo-odori · 2004-04-27 23:21 · Score: 1

I'm a conservative, and I get points pretty often. I also despise MS and most of its products, and support *nix in general and Linux and *BSD in particular. I believe in gun ownership, I support President Bush (but wish he'd dump Cheney and put Rice on the ticket), and support taking the war on terrorism to the terrorists rather than letting them bring it here.

Also (and I know you're not gonna believe me b/c this is /.) I don't moderate based on whether or not I agree with the poster's opinion. You can be informative even if I don't like the information you're providing. You can be insightful even if I don't much care for your insight.

One thing I rarely do, though, is spend any points modding an AC up. I may mod an AC down for a genuine troll or flamebait if it hasn't already been hit, but if you want to benefit from my mod points, you're going to have to post logged-in.

This entire post has, of course, been off-topic, so feel free to mod me down :-)
Re:Conservative moderators? by OwnedByTwoCats · 2004-04-28 04:27 · Score: 1

My mod points just expired.

I support taking the war on Al Qaeda to Al Qaeda.

Roosevelt did not declare war on "sneak-attack-ism", he urged Congress to declare war on Imperial Japan.

Bush was wrong to declare war on an undefeatable concept, rather than those who have attacked us. Bush was wrong to divert funds, material, and staff approved for or engaged in the war on Al Qaeda to the PNAC project of attacking Iraq. Bush was wrong to lie to the American people about why we were going to war.

Afghanistan is descending back into chaos. The Taliban have regrouped. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still free, and have been plotting and assisting attacks the allies of the United States for two years.

I got a different message from this press release by joeysmith · 2004-04-27 14:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Turbolinux engineers developed new software called Turbo Media Player that works with xine, a widely-used Linux media engine, to make it possible for customers to watch streaming video in Windows Media format.

Perhaps I misread, but this article seems to be saying that they used xine to play WMF, and makes no reference whatsoever to licensing WM 9.

However, they do appear to have an agreement with Cyberlink.

As for being "the first major Linux distributor to license and ship a media player capable of streaming Windows Media audio and video", well, I've been doing this for quite some time now, thanks to apt-get install mplayer

Microsoft? by gandalphthegreen · 2004-04-27 14:21 · Score: 1

Integrating or liscensing a micro$oft product into a linux distro is heresy, isn't it?

Re:Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:32 · Score: 0

Linux is about using the right tool for the job. Whether it's integrating SCO or Microsoft code.
Re:Microsoft? by TedCheshireAcad · 2004-04-27 14:43 · Score: 1

Yes. Find your club/torch/pitchfork and join the lynch mob.
Re:Microsoft? by kfg · 2004-04-27 14:58 · Score: 1

Might be, might not be. It's a reasonable question.

Not relevant to the issue at hand though, since what's really happening here is that TurboLinux have included a WM codec with their version of xine, a Linux "product."

The headline is misleading.

That's a polite way of saying "a lie."

KFG

I can do the same thing by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-27 14:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Weird, but I can do the same thing with Slackware and Mplayer for free.

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

Re:I can do the same thing by bogie · 2004-04-27 14:28 · Score: 1

That's a hack though and there are lots of problems with the implementation. Don't get me wrong since I do that as well but mplayer with legally questionable hacked codecs isn't a 100% drop-in replacement for WMP or Realplayer.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:I can do the same thing by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-27 14:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

A hack? Are you serious? Putting the codec package in /usr/lib/win32 and you got Windows streaming. If you wanna do it thru a browser, you only need the Mplayer Plugin.
With this, I can do all Quicktime trailers, Windows Media streams, you name it. Heck, you get the RealPlayer codecs and you can do that too.

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Re:I can do the same thing by TedCheshireAcad · 2004-04-27 14:58 · Score: 1

parent is right, mplayer owns.

i even use it on my MacOS X PowerBook AND my Windows 2000 workstation as the primary media player because of its extreme ass-kickery.

ironic, really. Mac has always been touted as "the video OS" of sorts, yet quicktime shits the bed trying to play a DivX file. unacceptable. mplayer can take a punishing. you can smear poop on a blank cdr, put it in your drive, and mplayer will play it.
Re:I can do the same thing by p4ul13 · 2004-04-27 15:05 · Score: 1

"you can smear poop on a blank cdr, put it in your drive, and mplayer will play it."
Man, does this guy know how to party or what?! =)

--
Paul Lenhart writes words!
Re:I can do the same thing by cbreaker · 2004-04-27 15:07 · Score: 4, Informative

But it's a grey area and although never really pushed into court, you're not technically supposed to use some of those DLL's without a windows license.

Most of the codec packages are given to you "if you own a legal copy of windows."

So yea, it works, but if a major distribution started making big bucks and came with these dll's on the CD, it might see the courtroom..

--
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Re:I can do the same thing by log2.0 · 2004-04-27 15:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Thats a funny one :) I agree though, mplayer will play anything (including half downloaded files...which is handy) In my opinion, MPlayer is the best media player thats out there because once you have installed all the codecs, you can throw anything at it and not worry.

--
Can your karma go above being Excellent?
Re:I can do the same thing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:37 · Score: 0

I know it has a Windows Media 6 codec, I didn't know about 9 though? Is that for sure?
Re:I can do the same thing by Fourier · 2004-04-27 15:39 · Score: 4, Funny

you can smear poop on a blank cdr, put it in your drive, and mplayer will play it.

Well, yeah, but it's gonna sound like shit.
Re:I can do the same thing by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-04-27 16:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I just tested his hypothesis with predictable results. I heard "Oops I did it again". Based on this observation, I think that if I use dog poop I'll get some Outta Sync stuff. Who needs peer to peer when you've got toilet paper?

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:I can do the same thing by simcop2387 · 2004-04-27 16:20 · Score: 0

You sir have just illegally copied our music. We at the RIAA think that scum like you are what is wrong with America. We plan to see you in court by 12:30 the following tuesday. Please bring a public defender and $12,000 in cash. Also bring your 75 year old aunt we know you showed her how to do it and she's used this method to copy over 27,000 of our songs. You are depriving the authors (us) of the music valueable income that they need to eat with.
Re:I can do the same thing by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-04-27 16:28 · Score: 1

Hey, no problem dude, I just wanted to see what shit really sounded like. I'll just stop, 'cause I didn't want to hear shit anyway. Or maybe I did. Er...
Hmm, wait a minute. I wasn't doing anything commercial! You can't sue me! I'll represent myself. Wait till I drop a load on the bench and say "I played this on my computer and those asshole that made it say I stole it from them". Move for immediate dismissal with prejudice. ;)

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:I can do the same thing by EventHorizon · 2004-04-27 16:42 · Score: 2, Informative

That's why you ship the CD with a retrieval script and let end users download the DLLs from an offshore site or P2P network. You can also copy/patch files off the Windows install; the DMCA has a provision for "interoperability" which may protect this activity (well, if Microsoft didn't own the feds).
Re:I can do the same thing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

But it's a grey area and although never really pushed into court, you're not technically supposed to use some of those DLL's without a windows license.

I'll bet this geek can puke the ins and outs of the GPL and such ad-nauseum but when it comes to a Windows license, suddenly it's a "grey area" that "you're not technically supposed to [use] without a license".

Oh, that's right, I'm reading slashdot again.

(as always, mod- because [amoung other things] I'm not a raving open-source-everything-free-as-in-beer loon)
Re:I can do the same thing by Joe+Tie. · 2004-04-27 17:02 · Score: 1

you can smear poop on a blank cdr, put it in your drive, and mplayer will play it.

If mplayer ever wants to put out a boxed set, they have to make this the sole quote on the back.

--
Everything will be taken away from you.
Re:I can do the same thing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 17:11 · Score: 0

let end users download the DLLs from an offshore site or P2P network

Contributory copyright infringement if it is anyway automated by a distro.

You can also copy/patch files off the Windows install;

This would be a good, and legal idea. Now off to build my program that slurps GPL binaries off a Linux CD...
Re:I can do the same thing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 20:53 · Score: 0

I'll bet this geek can puke the ins and outs of the GPL and such ad-nauseum but when it comes to a Windows license, suddenly it's a "grey area" that "you're not technically supposed to [use] without a license".

The GPL is a license, the WMP EULA is a contract. There is a difference, and it means that there *is* a very real grey area over whether the terms of the WMP EULA are legally binding.

Even raving Linux zealots are right some of the time.
Re:I can do the same thing by cbreaker · 2004-04-28 10:56 · Score: 1

I'm not a GPL zealot by any means. The thing is, most people do own a copy of windows somewhere. Whether you got the box from work, or whether it was preinstalled on some machine you now own, you probably own a copy.

The people that allow you to download a package of windows binaries for media playing state that you must own windows or the applicable software package in order to use them, but they don't check to see if you do.

So yea, it's a grey area. You're not supposed to use them without a license/contract agreement, but they are freely available and nobody cares (right now) if you do.

I really don't think my post was very zealotish, but hey, if you're looking for it you'll see it everywhere I guess.

--
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -

Wait a sec... by miketang16 · 2004-04-27 14:21 · Score: 3, Funny

It's Linux? And it's not free.... does not compute...

--
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell

Re:Wait a sec... by jefe7777 · 2004-04-27 14:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Maya runs on linux, and it's not free.

Oracle runs on linux, and it's not free.

So they have a media player, that's licensing windows media player code, so it can play windows media.

and it's not free.

what doesn't compute?
Re:Wait a sec... by DaHat · 2004-04-27 14:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

You are what is wrong with the Linux community, thinking that everything should be/is free. Do you think they are the first company to sell a distribution? RedHat, Mandrage, SUSE, you can buy a copy of their distro from all of em. If you don't like doing so, then just DL an ISO somewhere, otherwise, quit complaining.

As the other poster pointed out, just because something runs on Linux (or is Linux), does not mean it's free. You are helping to propagate the myth that everything about Linux is free, if that were the case, I highly doubt as many big name companies would do ANY development work in porting their apps to Linux, just to give them away for free.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Wait a sec... by HuguesT · 2004-04-27 14:52 · Score: 1

Sorry, others would say that *you* are what's wrong with the Linux community nowadays, full of people who think proprietary software is acceptable.

I don't really think you are wrong in any way, but I think you are a bit quick with the finger pointing.

The issue is not paying for software, it's whether the product we are paying for is Free (libre) or not.
Re:Wait a sec... by DaHat · 2004-04-27 15:11 · Score: 1

I would agree... I am what is wrong with the Linux community... mostly because I'm not a member of it, I'm a no good, rotten, terrorist supporting, baby killing, bush voting Windows users (Windows 2000 to be exact).

Proprietary software, like Linux is based on copyright (and remember that the so called copyleft movement/system is ultimately based on copyright). With out copyright, the free trade system would effectively break down. With out the ability to exclusively exploit ones creation, one has less incentive to create.

Like it or not, Copyleft/GPL/etc is much like communism, it's great in theory, and works well in practice only when everyone plays by the rules. As I hate communism and enjoy profiting directly from my proprietary work, I do not use Linux or any other GPL software.

Proprietary software is perfectly acceptable if you know what you're getting yourself into. Windows is proprietary, and yet it does not prevent me in anyway from doing those things I wish to do, web browsing, email, programming, gaming and much much more.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Wait a sec... by md65536 · 2004-04-27 15:30 · Score: 2, Funny

But but but... a media player is part of the *operating system*

Isn't it?! Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?
Re:Wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:45 · Score: 0

Well, by posting to this site you are "using GPL software." Hopefully, now that you realize this, you will go away and not come back.
Re:Wait a sec... by PianoComp81 · 2004-04-27 15:50 · Score: 1

Windows is proprietary, and yet it does not prevent me in anyway from doing those things I wish to do, web browsing, email, programming, gaming and much much more.

Except when you crash it (and yes, I crashed windows 2000 in less than 5 minutes earlier today)
Re:Wait a sec... by LilMikey · 2004-04-27 15:51 · Score: 1

Proprietary software is perfectly acceptable if you know what you're getting yourself into.

That's the problem. You really have no idea what you're getting yourself into. We have no source for Win2k. There's no oversight panel or 'standards police' keeping them in line. You have no idea who's patents and copyrighted material is in there. For all we know, MS could've been stealing open source code for years. They could've been stealing proprietary code. You surely can't say you approve of the Win2k "We own everything you do" EULA. You can't approve of their activation schemes or their anti-competitive tactics or their pilfering of open standard for their own benefit, price fixing, OEM abuse, bug reporting, patching scheme...

There's more to hate in Windows than the price. Most people don't care because, hey "it does not prevent me in anyway from doing those things I wish to do" but they have no idea how much it's already done and what kind of damage there is still doing. I understand and agree completely with you... proprietary software IS perfectly acceptable if you know what you're getting yourself into. But most people don't.

--
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Re:Wait a sec... by pla · 2004-04-27 16:15 · Score: 1

You are what is wrong with the Linux community, thinking that everything should be/is free.

No. If you have any interest at all in Linux, he embodies everything right with Linux. Even if your "interest" only extends so far as trying to make a buck off it, you still owe him (or at least, people like him) a heart-felt "thanks".
BR> Linux (specifically, GNU/Linux) exists because a large number of people said "Hey, I can write an app to do that, why should I pay Microsoft for it?"

You don't like the very philosophy that led to Linux existing in the first place? No problem. You don't have to use it. If, however, you enjoy using Linux (or even just enjoy getting some hardware cheaper because, by using Linux as a base for the firmware, they could trim the development budget by a third), then don't knock the very essence of it.

You are helping to propagate the myth that everything about Linux is free, if that were the case, I highly doubt as many big name companies would do ANY development work in porting their apps to Linux

See my point above about Linux as a base platform for firmware. Even companies appreciate Linux for precisely that reason - They can get it, and its source code, for free.

If you have a product for Linux, cool, sell that. If you have a product using Linux, cool, sell that. If you want to take an off-the-shelf pile of free (as in speech) software and try to make a buck on it - Hey, good for you if you find enough suckers, but don't come whining when people notice that you don't actually have a product.
Re:Wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:44 · Score: 0

Agreed, I think Linux is pretty much past the point where you can determine a persons philosophy by their use of it. It'd be like going up to someone using windows and saying "I see by your use of the widows operating system that you too are a follower of Ayn Rand!".
Re:Wait a sec... by mattgreen · 2004-04-27 18:03 · Score: 1

This is so amusing, and so simple that no one sees it.

Most people just use their computers, and don't drag religion into it. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter what OS you use as long as you can do what you want on your computer. Sure, each OS is good in some areas and worse in others, but it always amazes me that for a group of people acting for "freedom" try to scare users into switching to their cause. Or, you advocate choice, but you cry foul any time some big organization chooses something else.
Re:Wait a sec... by Rabbitt · 2004-04-27 18:43 · Score: 1

Just wanted to clear something up as it seems you don't really understand it. Copyright != License (of which the GPL is). Another misconception that you seem to have is that GPL != profit. That must mean that RedHat is on it's way out and that, I must have been seeing things when it's stock went up consistently pretty much every year since it's inception. Granted, it might seem harder to you, having never touched GPL, to actually turn a buck or two off of GPL'd software however, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen (on a fairly frequent basis I might add).

Just to ensure that you fully understand, I'll repeat myself (hopefully in simpler terms so that you might understand): GPL is a LICENSE. Copyright is your right under the law to do with your creation as you see fit. GPL is a -distribution- license. It's only connection to Copyright is by virtue of you, the copyright holder, -distributing- your creation using it as the -license- by which others must abide to -protect- your IP. Do you get it now?

Oh, one last thing. Your comment about 'free trade' breaking down if there were no copyright: Do you even know what free trade is? To quote dict.org, "commerce unrestricted by duties or tariff regulations." How would not having copyrights do away with free trade? How does it help it? I'm interested - please explain.

--
Carl P. Corliss
Re:Wait a sec... by Seeker5528 · 2004-04-27 18:48 · Score: 1

"Like it or not, Copyleft/GPL/etc is much like communism, it's great in theory, and works well in practice only when everyone plays by the rules. As I hate communism and enjoy profiting directly from my proprietary work, I do not use Linux or any other GPL software."

Like it or not, whatever similarity open source shares with communism in theory in practice it is better for free enterprise. If you don't want to play by the rules I will pay some other enterprise for the service I desire, that's how it works and that's why it works, and that's why it's starting to have success in the free enterprise market.

Later, Seeker
Re:Wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:53 · Score: 0

It's not about relgion. It's about freedom of choice, free trade, competition in the marketplace, value for value and all the other good things about capitalism. IOW, all the things MS hates.
Re:Wait a sec... by hplasm · 2004-04-27 23:05 · Score: 1

As I hate communism
The Party speaks very highly of you..

--
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Re:Wait a sec... by miketang16 · 2004-04-27 23:42 · Score: 1

Whoa... it appears I inadvertedly started a flamewar with what was meant to be a simple joke. (I don't actually believe that Linux can't or shouldn't be used to make money)

--
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Re:Wait a sec... by Rich0 · 2004-04-28 00:55 · Score: 1

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter what OS you use as long as you can do what you want on your computer.

Keep in mind that with initiatives like trusted computing that is possibly going away.

One might argue that it might have happened already if it weren't for market pressure from free software...
Re:Wait a sec... by LilMikey · 2004-04-28 01:33 · Score: 1

as long as you can do what you want on your computer

Exactly... you can't.

--
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Re:Wait a sec... by CarrionBird · 2004-04-28 02:07 · Score: 1

No, your issue IS paying for software. Since you seem to object to any commercial software. Who are you to say that closed source software companies have no right to exist. (which is basicly what your position amounts to)

--
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Re:Wait a sec... by mattgreen · 2004-04-28 03:55 · Score: 1

The average person doesn't give a flip about any of that.
Re:Wait a sec... by mattgreen · 2004-04-28 04:00 · Score: 1

So, what can't I do on my computer with Windows?
Re:Wait a sec... by LilMikey · 2004-04-28 04:07 · Score: 1

Make an image and install it on multiple machines, completely remove Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, MSN Messager, update your machine with your browser of choice, hell you can't even install the damn thing without notifying MS. There's also about a bazillion can'ts, shouldn'ts, and "if you do, we own it"s rolled in their EULA that Joe user happily agrees to so he can just get to the damn internet already...

--
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Re:Wait a sec... by mattgreen · 2004-04-28 12:01 · Score: 1

OK, so we agree its stupid I can't remove IE/WMP/MSN.

So, I want to play games. Guess I'll move to Linux then. *snicker*

Finally... by MsGeek · 2004-04-27 14:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Someone puts out a distro with PowerDVD for Linux. Too bad for TurboLinux that you can buy two of these excellent DVD players with VGA-out and still have money for a few used DVDs for the same price it costs to buy a copy of their distro.

Really, the time of DVD on desktop computers for anything other than loading software and (if it's a burner) burning DVDs is gone, gone, gone. Long live the cheapo "hacked by Chinese" DVD player.

--
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.

Re:Finally... by runderwo · 2004-04-27 14:27 · Score: 1

My monitors are bigger than my TV.

--
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:44 · Score: 0

umm, watching movies on the train while commuting to work. I haven't got an extension cord long enough for that Yamakawa dvd player
Re:Finally... by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-04-27 16:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Really, the time of DVD on desktop computers for anything other than loading software and (if it's a burner) burning DVDs is gone, gone, gone. Long live the cheapo "hacked by Chinese" DVD player.
What are you smoking? For the price you're talking, sure you could buy two hacked by Chinese DVD players, and all those two devices can do is play dvds and take up space. A computer can do a whole helluva lot more, and is well worth the extra money it costs to get it going. Not to mention that you can get a computer that can play dvds for that same price nowadays and a Free OS to boot! So, should I spend $X on a machine that I only use once a week, or should I spend $X on a machine that I'll use everyday and still does what that other box does that I'll use once a week?
It's a no-brainer. There's a reason everything's getting l'il computers in it and Linux is getting embedded all over the place (TiVo, anyone?). The flexibility is well worth it, and the reduction in R&D brings the products to market both faster and cheaper.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:47 · Score: 0

A computer can do a whole helluva lot more
My laptop never leaves my side.

My DVD player never leaves my house.
Re:Finally... by jazzer · 2004-04-27 17:46 · Score: 1

Really, the time of DVD on desktop computers for anything other than loading software and (if it's a burner) burning DVDs is gone, gone, gone. Long live the cheapo "hacked by Chinese" DVD player.
Nothing better than a little slave labour to save your precious pocket book.
Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 22:28 · Score: 0

Dialing the number on the website you gave says "Sorry voicemail service is temporarily not available for this telephone please consult your directory for the main number of the business you would like to reach. Goodbye. (F) (RECORDING)"

I know it looks like a fly by night company, but sheesh the fuckin 800 number on their web page doesn't even work. Very suspicious.
Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:45 · Score: 0

Really, the time of DVD on desktop computers for anything other than loading software and (if it's a burner) burning DVDs is gone, gone, gone. Long live the cheapo "hacked by Chinese" DVD player.

I'm a student. Even if I could afford a TV, I'd have no space in my room to put it. Plus, being in England, I have to pay an extra tax of the equivalent of $200 per year to own a television.

I think I'll be sticking with VLC, thanks.

And in Other News by Vengie · 2004-04-27 14:25 · Score: 4, Funny

AP Newswire -- Barbados:

Apparently, Satan, otherwise known as the Prince of Darkness or the Fallen Angel, has taken up residence in nearby sunny Barbados. When questioned about his recent arrival into this mortal plane, he claims to have come to the tropical islands for his retirement. "You see, my home kept freezing over, so I figured why not enter the lucrative ice-cube business." Profits from Hell-on-Ice exceed 10bn quarterly, and after the OpenIPO, HOI stock has split three times and nearly doubled in value.

St. Peter, the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Virgin Mary and Rabbi Lottstein were unavailable for comment.

--
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)

Another server bites the dust ... by nicodaemos · 2004-04-27 14:25 · Score: 1

slashdotted already .... can someone post a mirror?

Re:Another server bites the dust ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:29 · Score: 0

Turbolinux Announces First Linux Support for Microsoft Windows Media Format

New "Turbolinux 10 F..." Multimedia Desktop Brings Windows and Real streaming video, DVD movies and Apple iPod support to Linux

TOKYO, Japan - April 27, 2004 - Turbolinux, a global provider of Linux solutions and the best-selling Linux distribution in Asia-Pacific, today announced "Turbolinux 10 F...", a new Linux operating system designed for home computer users. With 10F, Turbolinux becomes the first major Linux distributor to ship a media player capable of streaming pure Windows Media format audio and video. 10F is based on Turbolinux 10 Desktop.

"Japanese consumers are moving in large numbers to Linux," said Koichi Yano, president and COO of Turbolinux, Inc. "Turbolinux Desktop has long had the best Asian language support and with 10F we now have the best multimedia system for consumers."

Home users can now watch feature DVD movies and Windows Media streaming video on "Turbolinux 10 F...". CyberLink's PowerDVD for Linux is included in the new "Turbolinux 10 F..." and supports Content Scramble System (CSS), an encryption system widely required by studios to protect popular Hollywood and theater movies. Turbolinux engineers developed new software called Turbo Media Player that works with xine, a widely-used Linux media engine, to make it possible for customers to watch streaming video in Windows Media format. Turbolinux is the first Linux company to form a relationship with CyberLink to allow viewing of encrypted movies in different international DVD regions established by the major studios.

Turbolinux 10 Desktop was ranked as one of the top 10 best-selling system software packages in Japan in the first quarter of 2004, including proprietary vendors such as Microsoft and Apple, according to market research firm BCN. Last month Turbolinux announced an OEM agreement with HP to distribute Turbolinux Desktop in 12 Asian markets on new HP business desktop computers.

New features in "Turbolinux 10 F..." include:

* Streaming video and audio support for Windows Media Format , RealVideo/Audio and MP3;
* PowerDVD for Linux enables legal playback of DVD movies and supports Dolby stereo sound and simultaneous display of sub-titles, and;
* Sun's Java applet and Macromedia Flash browser support.

Other key features that have established Turbolinux Desktop as a leading OS in Asia include:

* Instant messaging software compatible with the popular Yahoo! Messenger, MSN, ICQ, and AOL networks
* Apple iPod support
* Japanese TrueType fonts from Ricoh, and;
* ATOK X for Linux, the world's most popular system for entering Japanese characters on computers.

"Turbolinux 10 F..." will be available for purchase in Japan on May 28, 2004 and is priced at $149 per copy. Customers upgrading from the previous version of Turbolinux Desktop can purchase 10F for $64. Customers outside Japan can purchase "Turbolinux 10 F..." starting June 30, 2004.

About Turbolinux, Inc.
Turbolinux develops and sells the leading Linux distribution in Asia-Pacific. The operating system is optimized to run on a wide range of hardware platforms, including Intel-based servers and IBM mainframes. Turbolinux, with headquarters in Japan, plays a major role in developing Linux systems for the Japanese market, including Japanese and Chinese language "double-byte" text support. More than half of Turbolinux's staff is dedicated to Linux engineering development and support, providing expert support and custom application development services that go beyond Japanese localization issues. Turbolinux works extensively with standards bodies and partners to ensure certification and software compatibility in all business environments. For more information, visit www.turbolinux.com.

Turbolinux is a trademark of Turbolinux, Inc. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other product or service names are the property of their respective owners.

Editorial Contac

Actually price isn't that bad by bangular · 2004-04-27 14:25 · Score: 1

For how much they must have paid in licensing costs, that's not too unreasonable. This seems like the first product of it's kind. If it's successful the price will undoubtedly come down considerbly. And yes, I know the parent is trying to be funny. =P

Re:Actually price isn't that bad by blurp · 2004-04-27 15:02 · Score: 1

I think Microsoft sells a license (non-Windows license) for wmv for 10 cents a decoder. So even if they Turbo Linux bought all of Microsofts codecs I doubt it would run them more than a $1 for the IP.

-Blurp

"legal commercial DVD playback" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:25 · Score: 0

Does 'spike-288' try to imply that playing DVDs using other, free software players is illegal?

Re:"legal commercial DVD playback" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:29 · Score: 0

It is illegal if they are encrypted...like every commercial DVD.
Re:"legal commercial DVD playback" by blackdragon7777 · 2004-04-27 18:32 · Score: 1

It is, in fact, illegal. The only ones that wouldn't be are home made movies.
Re:"legal commercial DVD playback" by Simon+Lyngshede · 2004-04-27 19:16 · Score: 1

No it's not, you're allowed to break copy-protection such using tools as DeCSS and similar, if they prevent you from viewing a DVD og listening to a CD.

Since you didn't specify where in the world you're from, neither will I.

Turnabout is fair play? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:26 · Score: 0

IIRC, Microsoft licensed Mosaic from Spyglass, promising to pay a certain percentage royalty. But they gave away IE for free and a percentage of nothing is nothing and Spyglass got screwed.

Re:It still sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:27 · Score: 0

Suse is really nice but its getting more proprietary every day :(

-
Die Versicherung

Great but we want open stuff to play with! by t_allardyce · 2004-04-27 14:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

This sounds good to get things working in the short term, and for US distro's where reverse engineering to by-pass copy-protection isnt allowed, but surely in the long term its better to reverse engineer formats if companies wont release specs or code?

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.

Microsoft changing its tune to avoid EU antitrust by NZheretic · 2004-04-27 14:28 · Score: 1

Read the EU Microsoft report.

The Price of DMCA Compliance by psi42 · 2004-04-27 14:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

-----------
""Turbolinux 10 F..." will be available for purchase in Japan on May 28, 2004 and is priced at $149 per copy. Customers upgrading from the previous version of Turbolinux Desktop can purchase 10F for $64. Customers outside Japan can purchase "Turbolinux 10 F..." starting June 30, 2004."
-----------

So, for $149, one gets:

* Legal DVD Playback
So... the extra price in this case is to maintain legality with a piece of legislation (the DMCA), which, in the context of libdvdcss, does not make a significant appeal to the common sense politicians are so well known to lack. For an extra price, you can comply with the DMCA. Linux already has everything you need to play DVDs, except this one piece of legality, which is bound to cost more than all the rest combined.

* Legal WMA Playback
First of all, who uses WMA anyway? We all know ogg is THE format for audio, and if not that, mp3. As for video, there are far better (cheaper) routes to go.

* Realplayer
Hmm... realplayer for linux is a free (not libre) download...

Flash support
Oh yeah, this is worth a piece of the price all right.....
Unless they got the code from Macromedia and fixed all the problems, this is worth nothing.

And for this little insertion of proprietary code, I suppose redistribution is going to be illegal, despite the 99.9% prevalence of (superior) GPL'd code this distro is sure to have.

This makes our TCO look _really_ bad.....

Don't get me wrong here, I don't have anything against selling Linux, or support for Linux, for money. But this kind of thing is something that should be marketed as an add-on for any linux distro, not as part of a distro that will be rendered illegal for distribution due to this proprietary code. :)

--
Defenestrate Windows...

Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by aristotle-dude · 2004-04-27 15:03 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Let me guess. You are and academic? You see, us programmers who don't have rich parents and don't want to live in our parents basement need to get paid for our work. I hate M$ as much as the next guy but attitudes like yours will hurt rather than help the linux cause. Proprietary software has it's place. Don't like it? Move to cuba. I hear they are still communist. Proprietary software is not necessarily evil. If you want linux to succeed on the non-geek desktop, you will have to give us programmers the ability to earn a living. Open source and proprietary software can live together if you have "open standards". Sorry to burst your bubble. The "give away stuff for free and think of a business plan later" dot com era ended a few years ago.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by 0racle · 2004-04-27 15:10 · Score: 1

So remove the offending parts. Whitebox does the same thing for RHEL, which also is not a free product, can not be distibuted as is, but still contains GPL code.

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:14 · Score: 0

"Flash support
"Oh yeah, this is worth a piece of the price all right.....
Unless they got the code from Macromedia and fixed all the problems, this is worth nothing."

Exactly what problems are you alluding to? Its kind of trendy on /. to slam the Flash player on Linux but never decribe what it is your complaining about other than the fact every one hates it because its used for ads.
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by psi42 · 2004-04-27 15:15 · Score: 1

You bring up a valid point, of course. Let me try to clarify what I mean: Yes, I am very much aware programmers need to get paid. No, I am not a rich guy. No, I am not a communist. ;) Yes, I realize proprietary software is not "evil." I run some proprietary software myself. I believe in the open source model, and I believe in the commercial successes that have been built around that model. However, what I don't like is this: A linux distro is created, full of software contributed to the community, free and libre. A few lines of proprietary code are added to this distro, and suddenly redistribution of the distribution itself is illegal as it will violate the license of the proprietary code. I see very much the value of having this software bundled with linux. Aunt Tillie isn't going to go and look for a CSS decryption library when she learns it is of dubious legality. And she'll want to view all the multimedia stuff a windows user can, without stress. Perhaps a better solution would be to have a "GPL-only" version available, and then a "+proprietary" version as well. I certainly don't _expect_ a business venture to give away a ton of code without the expectation that they will receive a monetary return. ~psi42

--
Defenestrate Windows...
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:29 · Score: 0

* Legal WMA Playback
First of all, who uses WMA anyway? We all know ogg is THE format for audio, and if not that, mp3. As for video, there are far better (cheaper) routes to go.

You ninny!!!!! At least half of all movies online are in WMA! Haven't you heard of porn?!
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by aristotle-dude · 2004-04-27 15:33 · Score: 1

Ok that sounds reasonable. i personally support the OSS movement but i do have concerns with the GPL and how it might hinder linux acceptance. I'm of the opinion that kernel modules (drivers) should be free to use whatever license they wish. If I was to release Open Source software, I would release it with a BSD license. Why? I would view my software as a gift to the community. I don't believe gifts should have strings attached. GPL has strings attached so a GPL'd product is no-longer a free gift to the community since a gift cannot have conditions attached to it. If you want to control how your software is used, might as well release it as proprietary software.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by psi42 · 2004-04-27 15:39 · Score: 1

Okay, but what if a random company took your code, added it to their own, and released the whole lot as a commercial product under a proprietary license, without giving you any more credit than the BSD license specifically requires?

--
Defenestrate Windows...
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-04-27 16:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Whine whine whine, piss and moan. Look, if you really want to get paid, go open up a charity or something. Here in the US, and in many parts of the world, we have a free market, and you're gonna have to compete on it against our free code. Got a problem with it? Go to cuba, I hear they're still communist, and they'll gladly pay you to keep working.
Free Software is not communist in any way, but neither is it capitalist. It is Free of any economic system and is focused completely on the rights of the end-user. You want to steal my rights from me? Fascist. You can have my rights when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.
You programmers who don't have rich parents and don't want to live in your parent's basement that need to get paid for your work must know that something like 90% of all development is in-house stuff that never sees the light of day. Probably less than 1% of all development is actually products that reach market, and most of those are games!
Quit whining, fucker. If Free Software causes software to no longer be sold as product, it's effect on the marketplace will be minimal at worst, completely unnoticeable at best.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by aristotle-dude · 2004-04-27 17:36 · Score: 1

That would bother me because??? If my intent was to release software for other people to use freely (without restriction), anyone would be free to do with it as they wished. BSD licenses help promote open standards and interoperability between proprietary and non-proprietary software.
I'll give you a prime example. TCP/IP. If it had not been released under a BSD license, TCP/IP might not have become the standard for all OSes (Commercial proprietary and Open source).
Imagine if you can MS pushing a Netbeui derivative, Novel pushing pushing IPX etc... We would not have the internet as we have now. Now while it is true that companies can create close-source implementations, the open source versions and other competing closed source implementations seem to encourage adhering to an agreed upon "open standard". You might not be able to see the code anymore but the external interface should be the same non the less to ensure compatibility.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by oddfox · 2004-04-27 17:51 · Score: 1

How about this -- The sound lags by 1-2 seconds, it's an acknowledged issue, yet Macromedia has done nothing to fix it.

Quite annoying when trying to watch Trogdor burninate the countryside and the audio's out of synch with the video.

--
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by aristotle-dude · 2004-04-27 17:56 · Score: 1

How is the GPL protecting the enduser? What if the enduser is a programmer? Fascist? Have you read the GPL? Are you telling me that if I give you free code and say that you can do whatever you want with it is somehow fascist? I did not realize freedom was evil. BSD is true socialism (good) because contributing code back to the community is completely voluntary. That is true freedom. If you are forced to do something, you are no-longer free. Where do you get you figures from? Your arse? I work for a company producing inhouse software and I can tell you that 90% of the products we make do make it into production in our company and our partners which I cannot name for obvious reasons. We might not sell to the general public but the software is in use. Me whine? Chill out dude. You'll live longer.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-04-27 18:15 · Score: 1

Don't change your story and expect to defeat me. The post to which I responded made no mention of any specific license you use or anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, you were writing in support of proprietary software.
I'll gladly concede that proprietary software has its place, so long as one simple condition is applied: no copyright on the binary distribution. Copyright on the source, fine. Patent the binary but not the source, also fine, provided the source is provided. Keep your source locked up? Fine, but no copyright protections on the binary. That is the only solution I've been able to find/come up with that properly satisfies the social reasons for copyright and other intellectual property law. Proprietary software as it stands today takes much from society and offers very little benefit in return.
A government-granted monopoly on a product is not a right, and is in fact antithetical to the concept of a free market. So I'm throwing the fascist label right back at you, who supports proprietary software, which can only exist in its current state with a government-granted monopoly.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 22:50 · Score: 0

First of all, who uses WMA anyway? We all know ogg is THE format for audio, and if not that, mp3.
Napster and 90% of "legal" music download services?
Chances are, you don't use Turbolinux anyway, so why do you care? Go use Debian if you're such a GNU zombie. A lot of Linux users will see this as a step forward.
Who cares if you can't redistribute the proprietary code? Turbolinux is 99.9% GNU software, so you can just remove that stuff without impairing it's functionality. And if you're worried about TCOs and crap like that, you probably aren't going to be using whichever distribution you choose for watching WMVs anyway.
Re:The Price of DMCA Compliance by aristotle-dude · 2004-04-28 14:00 · Score: 1

First of all, I don't believe in software patents. Having said that, I do believe in copyright. In the country I live in (canada), the instant I create a work, it becomes copyright. I am free to bestow a license to others for the source and/or the binary but the copyright remains with me unless I specifically release my rights. I don't see how having a copyright on a binary is possible but not the source. The binary is derived from the source and someone has to write the source in the first place. That author will retain copyright unless they willfully relinquish it. Providing source also reduces the value of the binary to virtually nothing. Open source is no better than close source if it is licensed in such a way that only open source derivatives can be created. This can create a proprietary standard or format even though the source to generate that format/process is open source. FLAC is a prime example of this. It will never achieve wide acceptance/use because the author does not want commercial codec implementations and it is not an open published standard separate from the code. Proprietary software is not the great evil. Proprietary interfaces/formats are and can exists with OSS as closed source. We need both open source and open standards but open source should not be thrust upon anyone.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Content [Re:Another server bites the dust ...] by joeysmith · 2004-04-27 14:29 · Score: 1

Turbolinux Announces First Linux Support for Microsoft Windows Media Format

New "Turbolinux 10 F..." Multimedia Desktop Brings Windows and Real streaming video, DVD movies and Apple iPod support to Linux

TOKYO, Japan - April 27, 2004 - Turbolinux, a global provider of Linux solutions and the best-selling Linux distribution in Asia-Pacific, today announced "Turbolinux 10 F...", a new Linux operating system designed for home computer users. With 10F, Turbolinux becomes the first major Linux distributor to ship a media player capable of streaming pure Windows Media format audio and video. 10F is based on Turbolinux 10 Desktop.

"Japanese consumers are moving in large numbers to Linux," said Koichi Yano, president and COO of Turbolinux, Inc. "Turbolinux Desktop has long had the best Asian language support and with 10F we now have the best multimedia system for consumers."

Home users can now watch feature DVD movies and Windows Media streaming video on "Turbolinux 10 F...". CyberLink's PowerDVD for Linux is included in the new "Turbolinux 10 F..." and supports Content Scramble System (CSS), an encryption system widely required by studios to protect popular Hollywood and theater movies. Turbolinux engineers developed new software called Turbo Media Player that works with xine, a widely-used Linux media engine, to make it possible for customers to watch streaming video in Windows Media format. Turbolinux is the first Linux company to form a relationship with CyberLink to allow viewing of encrypted movies in different international DVD regions established by the major studios.

Turbolinux 10 Desktop was ranked as one of the top 10 best-selling system software packages in Japan in the first quarter of 2004, including proprietary vendors such as Microsoft and Apple, according to market research firm BCN. Last month Turbolinux announced an OEM agreement with HP to distribute Turbolinux Desktop in 12 Asian markets on new HP business desktop computers.

New features in "Turbolinux 10 F..." include:

* Streaming video and audio support for Windows Media Format , RealVideo/Audio and MP3;
* PowerDVD for Linux enables legal playback of DVD movies and supports Dolby stereo sound and simultaneous display of sub-titles, and;
* Sun's Java applet and Macromedia Flash browser support.

Other key features that have established Turbolinux Desktop as a leading OS in Asia include:

* Instant messaging software compatible with the popular Yahoo! Messenger, MSN, ICQ, and AOL networks
* Apple iPod support
* Japanese TrueType fonts from Ricoh, and;
* ATOK X for Linux, the world's most popular system for entering Japanese characters on computers.

"Turbolinux 10 F..." will be available for purchase in Japan on May 28, 2004 and is priced at $149 per copy. Customers upgrading from the previous version of Turbolinux Desktop can purchase 10F for $64. Customers outside Japan can purchase "Turbolinux 10 F..." starting June 30, 2004.

Re:It still sucks by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-27 14:29 · Score: 1

for the /. crowd.. see? point proven.

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

PowerPC? by Seehund · 2004-04-27 14:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

AFAIK, TurboLinux is/was one of the bigger PPC Linux distros. I saw nothing specifically mentioned in the PR about this, but does this mean that WM9, RA8 and reasonably up to date Flash support has finally spread from x86? I hope other vendors like Terra Soft (Yellow Dog Linux) will follow suit or sublicense from TurboLinux. At least for their not-downloaded-for-free versions.

--
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market

Re:PowerPC? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:51 · Score: 0

Amen. It's annoying to see all the "mplayer already does this" comments, when the Windows codecs they use with eg. mplayer only work on ONE CPU architecture: x86.
Re:PowerPC? by noahm · 2004-04-27 15:39 · Score: 1

AFAIK, TurboLinux is/was one of the bigger PPC Linux distros.
I think you know wrong, then. Dig around a bit on TurboLinux.com. They support x86, and that's about it. There were some mentions of amd64, but certainly no powerpc either under the "supported hardware" or "download" sections of their site.
TurboLinux's claim to fame has always been good Asian language support, which is evident on their site.
noah
Re:PowerPC? by bmidgley · 2004-04-27 16:07 · Score: 5, Informative

I was the sole developer of TurboLinux/PPC.

The problem is that the company always had a "healthy" sense of competition between the US and Japanese offices. Since the PPC effort was done from the US office, they didn't do a whole lot with it in Japan.

When TurboLinux ran out of money, they sent all the US employees home and sold off the Japanese office. So the side here that actually did PPC stuff was dismantled.

Ethics of TurboLinux by Technician · 2004-04-27 14:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Umm, Wasn't TurboLinux bought by SCO? A quick Google search brings up the snip- SCO has announced a number of professional services offerings around TurboLinux's TurboLinux and SuSE's Linux

I don't plan on supporting SCO in any way until the litigation is over.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Re:Ethics of TurboLinux by user+no.+590291 · 2004-04-27 15:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

That would make perfect sense. And having a commerically available player would provide Microsoft valuable ammunition in a legal fight against the mplayer and VLC projects, which use Microsoft's codecs. Maybe this is indeed part of the FUD Microsoft is getting for its investment in SCO.
Re:Ethics of TurboLinux by Quattro+Vezina · 2004-04-27 15:10 · Score: 5, Informative

TurboLinux, SCO/Caldera, SuSE, and Connectiva were once part of an alliance called UnitedLinux, intent on creating a united Linux distribution.

No member of UnitedLinux owned another. They put out one release, and once the litigation started, everything stalled. United is effectively no more--they still technically exist, but all operations are dead.

One thing interesting is that UnitedLinux had one member for each major geographic area except Africa. North America had SCO/Caldera, South America had Connectiva, Europe had SuSE, and Japan had TurboLinux.

--
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Re:Ethics of TurboLinux by davidstrauss · 2004-04-27 15:18 · Score: 1

Wasn't TurboLinux bought by SCO? A quick Google search brings up the snip- SCO has announced a number of professional services offerings around TurboLinux's TurboLinux and SuSE's Linux
By that logic, SuSE Linux would also be an SCO product, but it's not. Novell owns SuSE, and SuSE was independent before Novell's purchase. Thus, your logic must be faulty because it reaches an incorrect conclusion when applied to SuSE in the same context.
Re:Ethics of TurboLinux by B4RSK · 2004-04-27 15:42 · Score: 1

I don't plan on supporting SCO in any way until the litigation is over.

You mean to say that you would EVER support SCO again?

I wouldn't support SCO in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. Ever. And yes, I am in a position where I can make that stick at work as well as at home.

That said... Turbo Linux was part of the UnitedLinux group. UnitedLinux was disbanded as SCO refused to leave the group. It seems there was no way to force theme to leave, so everyone else left instead.

(The web site is still there, but there have been no updates since early 2003... Can't imagine why that might be.......)

--
Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
Re:Ethics of TurboLinux by B4RSK · 2004-04-27 15:49 · Score: 1

Damn... That link was supposed to be for UnitedLinux, NOT TurboLinux.

Corrected link.

--
Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
Re:Ethics of TurboLinux by Technician · 2004-04-27 16:17 · Score: 1

You mean to say that you would EVER support SCO again?
Sure, soon as they drop all the lawsuits, admit the mistake, make restitution for damage and expenses, contribute freely to open source (maybe WINE or sound & printer driver support), and provide a high quaility product at a reasonable price etc. I'm not holding my breath with the current board of directors in office.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Ethics of TurboLinux by Brandybuck · 2004-04-27 16:19 · Score: 1

Get stuffed! TurboLinux was NOT bought my SCO and your Google search is completely irrelevant. Are you stupid or do you truly believe that SCO must own TurboLinux just because they announced some services?

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Ethics of TurboLinux by steveha · 2004-04-27 17:54 · Score: 1

Umm, no. TurboLinux was a UnitedLinux member (along with Conectiva, SCO, and SuSE).

And at the time OpenLinux started up, SCO hadn't started acting evil yet. As far as the other companies knew, SCO was just a company selling Caldera Linux and SCO UNIX.

I don't plan on supporting SCO in any way until the litigation is over.

You don't need to worry that buying something from TurboLinux is supporting SCO. It isn't.

steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Re:Ethics of TurboLinux by havill · 2004-04-28 03:07 · Score: 1

TurboLinux (the Japanese side) was bought by SRA (Software Reseach Associates) The reason you never heard of them is because they are Japan only:

TurboLinux U.S.A. was dismantled, with various software properties (PowerCockit, enFusion, etc) sold to various companies and people.

Anyone find it ironic? by emkman · 2004-04-27 14:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just about 3 hours ago I was reading an article, cant remember where ..cough cough.. about how evil the Sun desktop is because they are licensing technology from Microsoft and are therefore desecrating the GPL somehow. Got it, Sun uses proprietary third party code in their distro, and are therefore evil. So I better find a new distro. I was thinking about Turbolinux 10F. I hear it can play proprietary Windows Media and Real formats, isn't that awesome!!! Man I can't wait. Ill never use that stupid evil Sun distro again.

--
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)

The real tragedy by rknop · 2004-04-27 14:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

The real tragedy is that Slashdot could post a story that uses the phrase:

legal commercial DVD playback

and not leave everybody scratching their head saying, "Huh?"

Playback. Just playing the frikkin' things, even if you own them completely on the up-and-up, is of questionable legality unless you do it in an Officially Sanctioned Manner. How stupid is that?

Our society has lost so much perspective it's very scary.

-Rob

Re:The real tragedy by skribe · 2004-04-27 15:08 · Score: 1

>Our society has lost so much perspective it's very scary.
And will continue to do so as long as good men do nothing.
skribe

--
Blog
Re:The real tragedy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:35 · Score: 0

"Our society has lost so much perspective it's very scary."

Or gained it, and left you behind.
Re:The real tragedy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:35 · Score: 0

And you think that reply constitutes "doing something" then?

Can't this already be done? by phisheadrew · 2004-04-27 14:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

Could someone please explain how this adds any functionality that mplayer doesn't already have?

I've never come across a movie that mplayer wasn't able to play.

Re:Can't this already be done? by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-27 14:40 · Score: 1

Dude, I have several Divx movies that Windows Media Player in Winders won't play, but MPlayer will. Go figure...

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

Re:I got a different message from this press relea by Revvy · 2004-04-27 14:31 · Score: 1

I agree - the Press Release doesn't say anything about WM9. Timothy apparently didn't bother to RTFPR before writing the headline.

one step back? by uv_light · 2004-04-27 14:31 · Score: 1

I am surprise that MS Media Player make into linux, actually, very surprise. for video, mplayer (or xine) would be more powerful than that "thing", to play music you don't really want to use MS Media Player unless you have a lot of ram. What's the point of this?

if you can't beat them, join them. Maybe microsoft start to understand this.

btw, the so called "legal playback" of DVD in turbo linux.... *sigh*... makes all of us that don't have turbo linux illegal when watching dvd in linux?

everything boils down to money, that's what's happening. But when I boil down my water, I don't see any money, instead I have a large water and gas bill...

Re:one step back? by 1u3hr · 2004-04-27 14:41 · Score: 1

I am surprise that MS Media Player make into linux, actually, very surprise. for video, mplayer (or xine) would be more powerful
It uses the codec, not the player. From the FA: "Turbolinux engineers developed new software called Turbo Media Player that works with xine".
Re:one step back? by mtnharo · 2004-04-27 14:49 · Score: 1

btw, the so called "legal playback" of DVD in turbo linux.... *sigh*... makes all of us that don't have turbo linux illegal when watching dvd in linux?
Technically, unless you use a program that legally licensed the official CSS decrypter from the DVD-CCA, it is illegal to play a DVD on Linux. If you use MPlayer or Xine, you are using something like libdvdcss, which is a reverse engineered CSS decryption library. Because CSS is considered a "Copyright protection," any non-licensed code the decrypts it is technically a "circumvention device," thereby violating the DMCA.

I use MPlayer and Xine to watch DVDs on a regular basis. Yet I don't feel any guilt over the whole DMCA thing. Odd that...
Re:one step back? by uv_light · 2004-04-27 14:53 · Score: 1

:) thanks, after I read it the second time, I realise that it is not WM9. The title is a misleading.
Re:one step back? by acceleriter · 2004-04-27 15:02 · Score: 1

any non-licensed code the decrypts it is technically a "circumvention device," thereby violating the DMCA
So why hasn't the MPAA sued? Maybe Valenti's stable of shysters doesn't think it's so black and white.

--
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Re:one step back? by uv_light · 2004-04-27 15:08 · Score: 1

a while back, there was this news about a software company got sue and loss the battle. Because the judge considered the CSS is digitial lock, and anyone who break the lock violate the law. (sorry i cant find the article anymore)

anyways, I use mplayer ans xine to play (legal and illegal) video, it is not about guilt, what I worry about is that it might interfere with the development of applications like mplayer. Looking at the larger picture, I don't want linux to be a free* operating system, but everything you use in there is not free* at all.

free*: as in freedom, not just the price.
Re:one step back? by mtnharo · 2004-04-27 15:45 · Score: 1

There have been lawsuits. Google search for decss or 'DVD Jon'. Maybe check out DeCSS Central
Re:one step back? by Prior+Restraint · 2004-04-27 17:05 · Score: 1

a while back, there was this news about a software company got sue and loss the battle. Because the judge considered the CSS is digitial lock, and anyone who break the lock violate the law. (sorry i cant find the article anymore)

I suspect you're referring to Universal, et al. v. Reimerdes, et al. , a.k.a. "MPAA v. 2600". 2600 Magazine (not a software company) printed the source code of DeCSS in one of its issues, and was sucessfully sued by the members of the MPAA. The outcome of the case was a permanent injunction against 2600; that is to say, the whole outcome of years of litigation was, "Take that source code off your site, don't ever link to it, and don't ever print it in your dead-tree edition."

I can't honestly think of any other DVD-related case where the MPAA or DVD-CCA actually won, so that's why I'm guessing you're mistaken about the defendant being a software company. (If I'm the one who's mistaken, though, I've no doubt I'll be corrected shortly.)
Re:one step back? by uv_light · 2004-04-27 18:32 · Score: 1

Here is the story that was covered by slashdot. I was refering, took me sometime to find it. If you have time taking a look.

I have not follow their law suit, but I guess if judges give too much power to the cooperation, they could effectivly kill some (or many) open source projects.

Is my worry reasonable? Also, the next thing after DVD, I am pretty sure that they are going to make it harder to reverise enginner, and they might use that to sell overpriced equiment/software even you bought the media. that's already happen to iPod, well, I relly hope that is not going to happen.
Re:one step back? by CowboyBob500 · 2004-04-27 23:23 · Score: 1

Technically, unless you use a program that legally licensed the official CSS decrypter from the DVD-CCA, it is illegal to play a DVD on Linux.

Only in the US. The rest of the world doesn't have the DMCA. It is perfectly legal for me to play DVDs under Linux here in the UK.

Bob

--
Listen to my latest album here
Re:one step back? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 01:39 · Score: 0

But they haven't sued the mplayer or VLC people. And their "trade secret" claim has been smashed.

Still Less than Winblows by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:32 · Score: 0

I know $146 is a nice bit, but still it is less than
Windows XP Professional which is around $449.

Re:Still Less than Winblows by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:20 · Score: 0

I know $146 is a nice bit, but still it is less than Windows XP Professional which is around $449.

Untrue. Windows XP Pro is $136.00 for a full OEM copy (see NewEgg, by selling it with a simple give-away CD-ROM audio cable they get around the "must be sold with hardware" limitation).

You'd have to be insane (or clueless) to purchase the full retail version and pay the full price.

Big Deal by LightStruk · 2004-04-27 14:32 · Score: 2, Redundant

Turbolinux is really stretching the truth when they claim to be the first to support WMV and RM on Linux. I run Gentoo, and I've been able to play these formats for over a year. I did the following:

# emerge mplayer # emerge win32codecs # emerge realvideo-codecs

Cost: $0.

Running a Free operating system for free: priceless.

Re:Big Deal by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-27 14:38 · Score: 1

I know man, is this really news? We smart ones have been doing this for years. ALL HAIL MPLAYER! HERE HERE! HERE HERE!

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:48 · Score: 0

# emerge win32codecs
# emerge realvideo-codecs

On x86, yes. On anything else, Windows DLLs don't do squat.

As someone pointed out above (so this post is redundant ;-)), TL focuses on PowerPC.
Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:49 · Score: 0

Violating Microsoft's Copyrights: $50,000
Re:Big Deal by prockcore · 2004-04-27 15:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

# emerge mplayer
# emerge win32codecs
# emerge realvideo-codecs

Cost: $0.

The look on your face when gentoo is forced to stop distributing MS and Real's intellectual property: priceless.
Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:09 · Score: 0

His action: do nothing.

And he can still play everything he has. Your point?
Re:Big Deal by blackdragon7777 · 2004-04-27 18:40 · Score: 1

Yes but mplayer is techniquely illegal in the US. The reason it's mainly around is that it was created in Hungary. Turboliux isn't really lieing here because it is the first to legally support all of these things in the US.
Re:Big Deal by Aneurysm9 · 2004-04-27 18:46 · Score: 1

Let's see, I have a license (or two) to use the MS codecs with one machine. I'm using those codecs on one machine for each license I have. More to the point, I have a validly licensed copy of Winblows on each of the machines on which I use mplayer and the MS codecs. Unless MS wants to argue that I can only use the codecs while running Winblows and open up another can of antitrust worms, I don't think I'll be worried any time soon.

--
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.

First DRMed player on Linux? by LostCluster · 2004-04-27 14:32 · Score: 1

If they got Windows Media 9 Series completely into Linux... does that also mean they'll be able to playback DRMed WMA files?

If so, this would open the door to some of the RIAA-approved music download sites to Linux users for the first time...

Riiight. by solios · 2004-04-27 14:33 · Score: 1

I could barely scrape together enough cash for a used dual G4, and have it adapted to an old Apple plug Trinitron from the mid nineties. Came with a combo drive. I don't have the luxury of being able to afford a television, let alone a DVD player that has no use other than playing video disks, which I borrow from friends on occasion.

Those days are gone for you, maybe. Others are not so priveleged.

Re:Riiight. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:14 · Score: 0

His point was that the hardware player is cheaper than the software solution.
Re:Riiight. by solios · 2004-04-27 17:04 · Score: 1

I understand his point. But for those of us who need machines, for whom entertainment is an OPTION, the hardware player is an unnecessary expenditure.

Religion in desktops... by ginwizard · 2004-04-27 14:35 · Score: 0

A bit offtopic, but what the heck...

Funny you say heresy, because I've been thinking for a while that religion is a useful metaphor for the desktop wars. Everyone feels very strongly about the one they use/like/follow, and everything about the other ones is "bad". But consider they all claim to do the same thing, not unlike religion. Moreover, people who "grew up" with one OS are unlikely to convert unless converted. On top of THAT, each one "borrows" useful apps when they come up, not unlike the borrowing of images and signifiers in religions (like the flood, the powerful man with the long white beard, and the baptism). So, in one sense, it really IS a sort of heresy, at least until it becomes orthodoxy.

--
You can't spell LOLCATZPURR without TROLL.

What's with the ellipsis? by 1u3hr · 2004-04-27 14:35 · Score: 1

All throught the press release, the distro is referred to as "Turbolinux 10 F...". The ellipsis is always there, it doesn;t seem to signify omission. WTF does that mean? Japanese characters?

Re:What's with the ellipsis? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:55 · Score: 0

It's meant to replace the letters U, C and K. Turned out the distro's original name meant something offensive in Japanese or something.
Re:What's with the ellipsis? by WebMasterJoe · 2004-04-27 15:41 · Score: 1

All throught the press release, the distro is referred to as "Turbolinux 10 F...".
That's the linux crowd's reaction to the price tag. "$64 for a xine frontend? Turbolinux is F...ed!"

--
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.

Interesting by QuasiCoLtd · 2004-04-27 14:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

At first glance everyone may cry heretics! but this is an interesting approach to making a commercial Linux. The core may be free but tack on a few proprietary extras and charge for it. The only thing keeping Linux from the mainstream is the lack of applications that "just work" like everyone expects. Don't want to pay for all that extra stuff? Download the "lite" version (a.k.a. the all-GPL and compatible licenses version) without all the extras and continue as normal.

Now, some distros, such as SuSe may have tried this to a limited extent before but the only thing you got from the boxed set was a proprietary installer, not exactly thrilling. I would love to pay for a Linux distro that included useful applications that weren't just carbon copies of existing apps, only open source. Yeah, it might not be fasionable to use proprietary apps but dammit, I want something that is compatible with closed standards that FOSS hasn't been able to reverse engineer yet, if that means paying for it then so be it.

I for one think this is a great idea, after all, the whole concept of Linux is that you can have it any way you want.

Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:46 · Score: 0

but this is an interesting approach to making a commercial Linux. The core may be free but tack on a few proprietary extras and charge for it

Sorta like a veggie burger with bacon on top. People love bacon.

More than..... by vwjeff · 2004-04-27 14:43 · Score: 3, Informative

a Windows XP Professional OEM license.

Re:More than..... by ImpTech · 2004-04-27 15:27 · Score: 1

Trouble with those is they make you buy the computer to go with it.

Why? by Espectr0 · 2004-04-27 14:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why use linux if you are going to include codecs and other propietary software, for 150 bucks? Just buy windows and end your compatibility issues

--
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication

Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:56 · Score: 0

eeh, because of Linux usability and user-friendliness?
Re:Why? by dmaxwell · 2004-04-27 15:36 · Score: 1

If I could end my compatibility issues without giving a single vendor the power to control whether or not I can open my own data, then I would be happy to. And that is only one of the power and control issues that come up.

Oh well, I'm perfectly capable of taking care of myself without the help of either MS or Turbolinux. So are many of us here. So why use Windows when you find it personally repugnant?
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:48 · Score: 0

Why use linux if you are going to include codecs and other propietary software, for 150 bucks? Just buy windows and end your compatibility issues

Or even better yet, just download Windows.
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:51 · Score: 0

eeh, because of Linux usability and user-friendliness?
That'd do it for me. The only way I've ever managed to get anything done in Windows was via Cygwin and/or PuTTY...

How this fits into Microsoft's scheme by eman1961 · 2004-04-27 14:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

The main complaint from the European Commission's antitrust ruling against Microsoft is that Microsoft locks people into Windows because most people who use Windows will use Microsoft proprietary formats. This is certainly true. My aunt Millie will upload all of her pictures, and perhaps some music into Microsoft applications. It then becomes far too daunting for her to switch to any operating system other than one from Microsoft.

This is Microsoft's main ploy - it locks aunt Millie into using Microsoft operating systems basically forever.

Now, Microsoft has set a precedent for licensing its formats to Linux distributions.

The real problem is that it is evil to use Microsoft formats, regardless of the operating system.

Contrary to previous posts, this is NOT a good thing.

Re:How this fits into Microsoft's scheme by westlake · 2004-04-27 17:39 · Score: 1

The real problem is that it is evil to use Microsoft formats, regardless of the operating system
The real problems are that F/OSS hasn't delivered a secure, competitive, distribution system for digital content while at the same time F/OSS ideologues casually undermine the light DRM of iTunes, clearing the field for Microsoft.
Re:How this fits into Microsoft's scheme by squaretorus · 2004-04-27 22:01 · Score: 1

When I move house I get a removals company to come over, box everything up, put it in a van, and unpack it in my new house. This is sweet. It saves me a lot of hassle and time.

When I swap OS I want a removals company to come over and spend a morning taking all my files off my old OS and putting them onto my new OS. Its not a windows media file I want to keep - its the home video of my son. Its not a word document I want to keep - it the letter I wrote to santa.

Of course in this case the removal guys would actually be a bit of software. And that bit of software would have to have legit licences. If Ive got broadband I can surely do this as an ASP and charge onlu partial licences to each user - so $50 of my swap costs would be file conversion. Sweet.

Now back to the real world - where did I save all those episodes of southpark I got through torrents!

What makes cyberlink's DVD player legal...... by nighty5 · 2004-04-27 14:46 · Score: 1

I have just moved over 100% to linux on the desktop, and my legally purchased DVD's do not work. Very frustrating indeed.

Can somebody explain to me why Cyberlink's DVD player is legal as opposed to our very own libdvdcss?

Apart from the obvious 'libdvdcss' mechanism 'cracks' the dvd codes, how does this differ from Cyberlink and any other commerical player, do they have some sort of authority keys?

It seems like any legal system can be bought for the right price to subsidise commerical incompetence.

Re:What makes cyberlink's DVD player legal...... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:49 · Score: 1, Informative

Basically you just have to pony up cash to the thugs at MPAA and promise not to do something naughty like allow the playing of DVDs from more than 1 region, etc.

The reason DVDs are encrypted has nothing to do with security since you can still do a bit-by-bit copy of it and it's fine. It's really too enforce the region coding system that is integral to the MPAA marketing scheme.
Re:What makes cyberlink's DVD player legal...... by aristotle-dude · 2004-04-27 15:11 · Score: 1

That commercial player is legal because it includes the price of a license for the mpeg2 decoder. Your "free" player does not have a legal decoder license. Go look up to license fees for decoders. Apple users get a legal DVD player with their OS as well as other goodies.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:What makes cyberlink's DVD player legal...... by emkman · 2004-04-27 15:33 · Score: 1

Yes thats exactly the difference. Cyberlink pays lots of money to license a player key from the DVD CCA. The authors of livdvdcss have never paid a cent. The reason there was never a linux dvd player in the first place is cause no company thought it was worth it, from a strictly economic standpoint, to spend money to develope and license a dvd player for an operating system with minimal marketshare in the home/entertainment demographic. Honestly, I cant blaim them. Because of all the DeCSS commotion, Cyberlink has seen that there is a demand for dvd on linux, and now they are investing in it. You can't fault them for not putting out a linux dvd player before they knew if it was even worth it. There wasn't really any conspiracy against linux, its all economics. With that said, if there was a linux dvd player from the start, we wouldnt have DeCSS and all dvd playback today would still be proprietay, so I'm glad no one decided to make a legal linux dvd player too early on in the game.

--
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
Re:What makes cyberlink's DVD player legal...... by Trejkaz · 2004-04-27 17:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

The real problem with DVD software is, when you buy a DVD drive, you generally get a free[gratis] copy of a DVD player. In my case it was Cyberlink PowerDVD. So Mac users obviously aren't the only ones getting the free stuff.

Now, this is all well and good, but if you're a Linux user like me, you can't use the copy of PowerDVD you got given. So you have a legally-obtained OS, a legally-obtained DVD drive, a legally-obtained piece of DVD software, and a legally-obtained DVD, but you still need to use libdvdcss or an equivalent in order to play the DVD.

I figure if Cyberlink or someone started selling Mplayer and/or Xine codecs (it would need to support both to be fair), and started giving those away with DVD drives, then people wouldn't even need to use libdvdcss (but of course we still would, because it's free[libre] and it's the whole principle of the thing which really matters.)

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:What makes cyberlink's DVD player legal...... by nighty5 · 2004-04-27 17:49 · Score: 1

Thanks a bunch for the heads up.

I don't mind throwing some money to the way of companies willing to invest in Linux, so I think its a good thing in general for Linux users.

We should start to notice a better experience on the desktop which is thus supported by companies and their websites. On a side note, I'm very excited that OSX is using KTHML, as this means that at least Konqi will be 100% compatible with websites that strive to be Mac friendly...

The future is definately bright!

In the words of Peter Venkman... by isny · 2004-04-27 14:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Dogs and cats - living together. Mass hysteria!!

Power DVD by Trolling4Dollars · 2004-04-27 14:46 · Score: 1

Damn. I've been looking for a "guilt free" way of watching DVDs under Linux. Currently I just use a set top box. I have to wonder if the Cyberlink people actually ported Power DVD to Linux, or if they are running it under W.I.N.E. I've tried several times to get it to run uder W.I.N.E. but even the installer bombs out. I've tried several of the bundled versions of Power DVD. Anyone else have any luck getting this to run under W.I.N.E.?

--
Un-news

Re:Power DVD by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:25 · Score: 0

I've been looking for a "guilt free" way of watching DVDs under Linux.

Why "guilt free"? By playing your own DVDs, what have you done wrong?

Just because the government says it's wrong dosn't make it so, they're not always right. Prohibition for example. Did people say after the law was enacted "By god, what have we been doing, drinking this....beverage!".

Sorry for the rant. I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere.
Re:Power DVD by swordgeek · 2004-04-27 16:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Guilt free? That's easy--there should NOT be any guilt at watching your own legally purchased, rented, or borrowed DVDs. The platform must NOT be a legal limitation.

Do you actually mean 'within the law?' In that case, you're home free too! As you can see on the EFF website, the decryption code lawsuits have been dropped! DeCSS is safe, legal, and free!

Furthermore, Jon Johansen was acquitted on all charges.

Download DeCSS! Use it! Feel free, in every sense of the word! This was a rare victory for the good guys.

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Re:Power DVD by Trolling4Dollars · 2004-04-27 16:08 · Score: 1

Not so much guilt on my part, but guilt on the part of a jury of my peers...

--
Un-news
Re:Power DVD by Trejkaz · 2004-04-27 17:35 · Score: 1

I wonder if this still applies in countries where the Government have been convinced that game machine mod chips are only for getting around copy protection.

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:Power DVD by kidgenius · 2004-04-27 17:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

DeCSSS is not "safe, legal, and free". All that came about in the rulings is that the DeCSS code is no longer secret. They did not find him guilty because all he did was find out the trade secret and publish it. That's no big deal. Like if I found out McDonald's "secret sauce", KFC's "Colonel's Secret Spices", or the recipe to Coca-cola. These are secrets. Just b/c it is no longer a secret does not mean you can still distribute it. The DVD CCA still owns the rights to it. Also, that only applies to Norway. In the US (and possibly other countries, of which I am unaware of those governing laws), you could still be in trouble.
Re:Power DVD by anubi · 2004-04-27 21:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am still really unclear on who owns what.
One is supposed to file a PATENT, and publicize the exact details and mechanization one's work, in order to receive the protection promised by the government in exchange for the idea becoming public domain in what.. 17 years or so?
The alternative is a "trade secret"... apparently not protected by patent. But possibly protected by copyright.
Ok, copyright. Some photographer takes a picture of the Grand Canyon. He has his copyright to his proofs. I supposedly can not grab one of his photos and redistribute it. But, apparently, what I CAN do is go to the exact spot he shot his shot from, set up my camera, and take one too.
Ok, So, I can not use the code I stripped from their program. Fair enough. So I go to the exact same spot and type the instructions I need into my machine manually if need be. Now, this one, like the film in my camera, has been personally authored by ME.
I am having a hard time thinking along the lines that someone has patent protection for a trade secret. And if he has copyright, I grant its gonna be hard as hell to tell by looking at a sequence of ones and zeroes if they are the exact same one's and zeroes he or I typed in. Just as it may be hard as hell by looking at the proofs just who took the photo of the Grand Canyon.
I note drug manufacturers have to explain exactly what it is they have and the exact structure of it in order to have that structure protected by patent law. And when the patent runs out, competitors are free to begin production. Its why some pills are hundred dollars per pill, and why I buy bottles of 200 ea. aspirin pills at the "dollar deals" store for a buck.
I am sure looking forward to the day when the word "standard" means a public-domain description of something which the public has agreed to adhere to. If its a "standard", then by definition, it would be public domain and no-one in the government would protect anyone's exclusive claim to license it. Imagine how our industrial revolution would have been hindered if companies could not as much as make their screws compatible with someone else's nuts? Or light bulbs that would run on standard voltages and have standard basing? All this legal snarling that Congress is creating is making it damn near impossible to make interoperative stuff.
( I wonder why photographers call picture a "proof"... maybe they were trying to prove they took a picture? Yes! I did put film in the camera! Here's Proof! )

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Re:Power DVD by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:04 · Score: 0

The DVD CCA does not "own" CSS. They have no patents on it. All they had was trade secret protection, and they lost that. They have no copyright on CSS, only their own implementation of it.

Also, trade secrets had nothing to do with the case in Norway. The trade secret case was in California.
Re:Power DVD by swordgeek · 2004-04-28 03:42 · Score: 1

DeCSS is, beyond a doubt, safe, legal, and free.

For starters, trade secret protection is gone once the secret is made public. At the very most, the DVD CCA could file suit against Jon Johansen for improperly making their trade secret public. Once it's out though, there's no protection for it. Also, keep in mind that the trade secret ruling was in the USA, not Norway.

Now copyright. First of all, there was no copyright filed. Secondly, it's irrelevant--the DeCSS code DOES NOT CONTAIN THE DVD CCA'S CODE! There is no material belonging to the DVD CCA in the DeCSS code. There is nothing that violates their potential (unfiled) copyright.

As an aside;
"Just b/c it is no longer a secret does not mean you can still distribute it."

With a trade secret, that is EXACTLY what it means! If it becomes public, then it is distributable.

Finally, what the hell is b/c?

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Re:Power DVD by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 04:10 · Score: 0

b/c == shorthand of "because"

rant on! by deathguppie · 2004-04-27 14:49 · Score: 1

but the reality we should *legally* be able to play movies on linux.

why should I have to pay, Turbo or Linspire, to get an Xine plugin that I should legally be able to purcahse over the web??

I don't mind paying a little money to be legal, But I want to be able to do it on any distro that I want to use it on.

--
once more into the breach

Headline is a lie by spiritraveller · 2004-04-27 14:49 · Score: 3, Informative

Neither the submission, nor the linked press release state that Torbolinux "licensed Windows Media 9".

All they say is that it is capable of playing Windows Media files, by using its own "Turbo Media Player" which works with xine.

My guess is that "Turbo Media Player" is nothing more than a front-end for xine (ala Totem), with xine doing all the work.

It's already possible to play Windows Media files in Linux... this is nothing new at all.

The thing about Cyberlink ProDVD is kind of interesting, but definitely not on the same newsworthiness scale as a Linux distro licensing MS technology would be.

Shame on you Slashdot editors... shame shame shame !

Re:Headline is a lie by spiritraveller · 2004-04-27 14:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Now the submission has been edited... but the press release doesn't mention anything about paying for Windows Media codecs.
I wonder what the source of "codecs downloadable for $64" is??? The press release states:
Customers upgrading from the previous version of Turbolinux Desktop can purchase 10F for $64.
Hmmmmmm.
Re:Headline is a lie by spike-288 · 2004-04-27 16:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Wrong spirittraveller, Turbolinux spent several months negotiating their license with MS. Read this article before you shame the slashdot editors... http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5201352.html
Re:Headline is a lie by spiritraveller · 2004-04-27 17:00 · Score: 1

THAT article should have been linked to in the submission so that we could read something that supports the headline.
Shame shame shame.

$64? by C_Kode · 2004-04-27 14:57 · Score: 1

Do windows users pay $64 for the codec? Anti-competitive? Windows XP only cost around $119.

Why? by photon317 · 2004-04-27 14:59 · Score: 1, Redundant

My $0 gentoo install plays every windows media file I've ever come across without paying any licensing fees or being illegal. Even streaming web media via browser plugins, etc.

--
11*43+456^2

You forget OEMs by rsilvergun · 2004-04-27 15:04 · Score: 1

As an OEM, I can't distribute linux with a DVD player/WMA/WMV codecs legally. As soon as I'm large enough to matter, I'm gonna get hit with a cease and desist. Hopefully thier OEM pricing will be better. In either case, I can get a lincense to use Xine legally with Linspire (god I hate that name) _much_ cheaper, but I still got to worry about WMA/V. Anyway, these issues need to be solved before Linux hits mainstream.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

this shows how far linux has come by UnseenEnigma · 2004-04-27 15:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

So a linux deskop with a half dozen pieces of licensed proprietary standards is all that seperates us from being a viable desktop for home users. This really shows how far the linux desktop environments have come. Two years ago i would have never considered running linux exclusively.

Doesn't seem so bad . . by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:06 · Score: 2, Funny

. . . until you add the $699 you owe SCO--then it's not pretty.

Unreasonable pricing by motown · 2004-04-27 15:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Windows Media codecs for Linux will be available for download for $64, the complete TurboLinux OS will cost $150 in Japan and the United States.

64 dollars for the codecs?! That's two third of a Windows XP Home OEM license!

And what I don't understand is why I would have to pay for these codecs, if the WMP9 codecs are offered on Microsoft's web site at the same time, for free!

But of couse, that's Microsoft's trick. Increase the Linux TCO for end users by charging ridiculous amounts of money for increasingly important components for Linux, while bundling them with Windows XP with no extra charge.

Please, People! In spite of their horrible adware-ridden previous software versions, RealNetworks has redeemed itself considerably, lately. Both with their RealPlayer 10 for Windows and as well as with their partly open-source Helix framework for Linux. Their codecs are pretty good and they've been the only one of the big three streaming media players (WMP, Real, Quicktime) that have consistently taken Linux seriously over the years, by supporting it as an official platform.

Don't let Microsoft obtain yet another desktop monopoly!

When given the option on media streaming websites, I always select Real- or Quicktime-format.

I currently have the WMP9 codecs installed on my Gentoo system, but I have them only in case I encounter a website with streaming media content that provides its content exclusively in WMP-format. Unfortunately, I've been encountering more and more of those lately. We need to turn back the tide, if we still can.

--
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"

Re:Unreasonable pricing by name773 · 2004-04-27 15:46 · Score: 1

Don't let Microsoft obtain yet another desktop monopoly!
yeah! us linux people should take over the second desktop market... M$ doesn't know about it yet
Re:Unreasonable pricing by swordgeek · 2004-04-27 15:52 · Score: 1

Very well said indeed! I agree entirely, except possibly the RealNetworks claim.

There are some companies I won't EVER give a second chance. Real is one of them. Unless their CEO and marketing staff from the days of the spyware fiasco get thrown out on their collective asses, without any benefits, pension, perks, options, or padding, I'll avoid them. If the company is taken over in a hostile bid, which leaves these same people penniless (good) or facing criminal charges (better), I'll consider actively promoting them.

quicktime is my streaming media of choice, and mpeg for downloadable. Streaming ogg (icecast, I think? Not sure) would be ideal, but real sunk so low as to make me think that MS is an equivalent evil.

How about a formal apology from Real? It's not quite penniless and bleeding on the sidewalk, but it would be an indication that they've recognised their poor behaviour. I've seen nothing of the sort, though.

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Re:Unreasonable pricing by kforeman · 2004-04-27 16:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Motown, well put. Thanks for your support. Our plan is to bring out the 100% open source Helix Player (inc Vorbis anfd Theora support) and it superset cousin, the RealPlayer 10 for Linux (inc. non-open source components like RA/RV, MP3, Flash, etc. on top of the Helix Player) this summer. Alpha for both is scheduled for May 10th.... Kevin Foreman GM, Helix RealNetworks, Inc.

--
Kevin Foreman
Re:Unreasonable pricing by claygate · 2004-04-27 16:40 · Score: 1

I know this is going against the slant of a lot of people here. But streaming windows media video works really well. The Champ Car World Championship now has a $20/year subscription where you get every race fed to your computer with 6 camera angles, race positions and times on the left, the 19 drivers on the right side with streams of their pit to car radio. I mean, for $20/year this is great. Only shame is it is one of those times I had to crank up IE instead of Mozilla. Apparently there must be some ActiveX involved in the page that was making it act weird.
Re:Unreasonable pricing by Ilgaz · 2004-04-27 19:20 · Score: 1

I am waiting for comments from Realplayer haters using linux right now... They are all offline now?

BTW, Wmedia 9 for Apple is a JOKE. Nothing works right, even in their own browser (IE 5.2 Mac), so I tell be sure to wait for user reports before buying that.

Oh btw, obligatory: Yes, I am paid Realone radiopass subscriber, which makes me a licensed owner of "spyware" too... Feel free to -1 me as you always do...

Again, thanks to Real Networks for making Realone for OSX a clean, non problematic application.
Re:Unreasonable pricing by Ricin · 2004-04-27 21:34 · Score: 1

"Alpha for both is scheduled for May 10th.... Kevin Foreman GM, Helix RealNetworks, Inc."

Great. Perhaps you can make sure it at least compiles on FreeBSD (and others) as well, because it still doesn't. The GTK stuff (arguably *the* part added by "the community") is seriously screwed and uses deprecated widgets/methods. In GTK-2.4 these are disabled by default in its hearder files. It took me a while to realize this.

And yes I contacted "the community" (the web site said "help wanted") but never got a response. Guess they don't want patches that are NIH. OS specific stuff seems to be easily patched but after a few sundays wasted on it, I got sick of dealing with bit rot in the GTK stuff or the interfaces between hxplayer and its GUI. I'm not a developer, but it's pretty clear that folks have barely looked at other platforms yet.
Re:Unreasonable pricing by vikman · 2004-04-28 06:42 · Score: 1

We would love for it to work on as many platforms as possible. Initially we had to pick a focus and we ended up picking x86, linux and other commonly used platforms. In fact, there has been work done on solaris(sparc and x86) thanks to community members who have started rolling the ball on it, powerpc, playstation2, ia64 even. Platform work
There is a pretty standard procedure listed on that page for how to start work on a platform or port to a new platform. I am sorry to hear that you had contacted folks in hc.org and didn't get any response. This might have been around the time when hc.org moved platforms (to Gforge now). Can you forward the email to me at vikram(at)helixcommunity.org? We would love to have you as part of the community.
-V

--
--
Re:Unreasonable pricing by rgammon_real · 2004-04-28 06:48 · Score: 1

Hi Ricin,

Sorry you had trouble getting in touch with the community. The best place to discuss player issues is the player development list, which you can subscribe to here.

We enthusiastically accept all help from the community. If you don't hear back from us, it's likely because we didn't get your message.
As to your comments on gtk-2.4, we're targeting gtk-2.0 as our development platform, as we need to be able to function on older versions of gnome.

Some of the gtk that is in gtk-2.0 is indeed deprecated in gtk-2.4, but it still exists. gtk 2.4 is binary backwards compatible with 2.0.

I've done much of the gtk work, both in the community with the helixcommunity guiplayer, and more recently as an employee of RealNetworks on the HelixPlayer. If you have concerns about the way we're using gtk, feel free to contact me at rgammon@real.com, or the player list at dev@player.helixcommunity.org

--
Check out Helix Player
Re:Unreasonable pricing by vikman · 2004-04-28 06:53 · Score: 1

Ilgaz,
thank you so much for your encouragement. Look to the upcoming RP10 for Mac which actually shares a lot of code with the Linux player. You will find some of that information here
There is close co-ordination between the mac team and the linux team which I hope will show in the ease of use of both products.
-V
--
Vikram Dendi
Program Manager (Linux and Mac Players)

--
--
Re:Unreasonable pricing by Ricin · 2004-04-28 10:21 · Score: 1

OK, I'll get back to you (both) soon via the forum/maillist(s). I'd need to sync first to the latest source. I did start with the entire sorce (including real codecs and all) to begin with. I'm not very interested in splay :) I don't think that's the problem though.

It's frustrating to see the "real stuff" all build without a major problem only to not be able to get through the gui-y bits. As I said I'm not really a developer but I'm sure I can provide feedback.

Please understand that as someone interested in porting the (full featured) app, I'm not very interested in the cumber, ehh ribosome build system for example (ok that was a cheap shot ;-). You shouldn't expect that from me either IMHO. I can understand how such a thing has come about though, and I also understand that the really interesting parts of helix are the server and the producer but as a user (aren't we all) I want the player. And please respect the viewpoint that I may want to work with what's called the community but not actively join it for whatever reasons I may have.

Anyway thanks for answering, and yes I think it was when the web pages were moving. You may be pleased to hear that I was able to run the linux version (built from source) on FreeBSD in January already, only for some daft reason the button images didn't show so I had to guess :)

Allow me to get up to date with the source and then I will accumulate and maybe comment on patches so far and try to clearly indicate where it goes wrong. One more thing: if you're going to have a FreeBSD port or package it has to roughly be in synch with latest gtk so I will target 2.4 anyway. Breakage as I see it might be caused by that but better to solve than to go around by mandating older versions.

Cheers, you guys made my day. I'd gotten frustrated enough to not bother with helix anymore. I changed my mind now.
Re:Unreasonable pricing by Ricin · 2004-04-28 10:33 · Score: 1

Please see my answer to rgammon_real.

I'm pretty sure I did email you personally at the time though because you were listed as one of two contact addresses. virkram and nhart to be specific. Feb 18 2004, contents now outdated.

Cheers, thanks for answering

More significantly by BiggerIsBetter · 2004-04-27 15:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

It shows that Microsoft is playing nice with the competition. If TurboLinux has licensed Windows Media codecs, who do you think it licensed them from? Could this mean Microsoft is changing strategy, or does it just mean they have licensed MPlayer and are using the free-to-download codecs?

One thing that bugs me is the phrase "PowerDVD for Linux enables legal playback of DVD movies" - implying that it's illegal to use DeCSS based solutions to do so. Not in my Asian Pacific country it's not. Still, it's on the US site I guess...

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.

Re:More significantly by Curtman · 2004-04-27 17:09 · Score: 3, Informative

implying that it's illegal to use DeCSS based solutions to do so.

Or worse yet, implying that DeCSS is the only way to play DVD's in Linux. I don't even think it's the preferred method. libdvdcss works quite nicely, and doesn't rely on a warez'd CSS key to do the job.
Re:More significantly by BiggerIsBetter · 2004-04-27 17:35 · Score: 1

I did not know that, although I do use libdvdcss myself - mostly with Xine for watching DVDs. I thought it was an (more or less) extension of the work done in the creation of DeCSS. I've been unable to find any disclaimer saying otherwise, which lead me to that conclusion... although the licensing does suggest it is independant work. :-/

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:More significantly by Curtman · 2004-04-27 18:21 · Score: 1

From what I understand about it, the trick is that CSS is broken and now a days they just exploit that. As opposed to reverse engineering a licenced DVD player and extracting its key, which is what DeCSS did.
Re:More significantly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:34 · Score: 1, Informative

It shows that Microsoft is playing nice with the competition.

"Under a court order" and "playing nice" aren't really the same thing.

Right now, they've got a Federal Judge asking them why people aren't licensing their technology, and having a Linux distributor buy-in to their program is a major win for MS in the legal world.

huh? by ylikone · 2004-04-27 15:11 · Score: 0

I watch rented DVD's on my Linux box all the time using zine... so this shouldn't work? am i missing something?

--
Meh.

Re:huh? by aristotle-dude · 2004-04-27 15:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Yeah, a license. Those hardware set top players made by Sony, toshiba etc... you see in stores on the way to school have a licensed implementation of the decoder.
What's with you people? Get off your butts and get jobs. You cannot be a "professional student" forever.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:huh? by ylikone · 2004-04-27 15:29 · Score: 0

You think I'm a student? I graduated from university 8 years ago and have been working in the IT field since. I own 2 dvd players but I like to sometime watch movies in a window on my linux desktop while I code.

--
Meh.
Re:huh? by nelsonal · 2004-04-27 15:41 · Score: 1

Actually a bunch of those exceedingly cheap DVD players that were so popular the past two Christmases were partly cheap because they also skipped out on the license payment. China didn't care, and avoiding the license in the future is a major reason that China is pushing for their own video standard for internal use.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:huh? by aristotle-dude · 2004-04-27 15:42 · Score: 1

Ok the, you should not be adverse to paying for a license for DVD decoders then if someone released a legal one since you code for a living.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:huh? by |<amikaze · 2004-04-28 04:27 · Score: 1

Ok the, you should not be adverse to paying for a license for DVD decoders then if someone released a legal one since you code for a living.

That is, unless you believe that the DMCA is a load of crap. I believe that since you have already purchased the DVD, you should be able to watch it with whatever software you want.
Re:huh? by aristotle-dude · 2004-04-28 13:25 · Score: 1

This has nothing to do with the DCMA and everything to do with copyright. If you are using a commercial codec without a licence, you are pirating software. Let's say that you are just using a re-implementation of the codec. This is still analogous to stealing cable. Just because you wire your house from the street cable box does not mean you can view cable for free.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:huh? by |<amikaze · 2004-04-30 06:11 · Score: 1

I would say it's much closer to buying cable and building your own TV, which I don't believe would be a problem, do you?

xine by ylikone · 2004-04-27 15:13 · Score: 0

not zine, sorry

--
Meh.

Still waiting for open video... by PurifyTheMind · 2004-04-27 15:17 · Score: 1, Offtopic

...royalty free, open source, free video format sure would be nice. Something that could dynamically detect one's streaming speed capability would be nice too instead of these kludgey "100 K, 300 K, 500 K" options. I heard a long while back that the Ogg Vorbis people were working on an open video standard, but haven't heard anything new since. Anyone know of updates?

Re:Still waiting for open video... by kforeman · 2004-04-27 16:34 · Score: 1

Check out the Helix Player project. https://player.helixcommunity.org/ Support both Vorbis and Theora. Kevin Foreman GM Helix RealNetworks, Inc.

--
Kevin Foreman
Re:Still waiting for open video... by Junta · 2004-04-27 16:43 · Score: 1

As to a free video format, some exist.
With container formats, I'm not sure any of the major ones are very closed or restricted, but certainly .ogg (which can contain video streams, and by convention gets .ogm in such a situation) and matroska are open....

There are also a few open codecs. The most successful by far would have to be xvid. The Ogg people have picked up a codec from On2 and their version is Theora. There are probably more, but that covers it.

Now the dynamic bitrate idea is cool, and vorbis has it for audio. I don't know of that in any video, Tarkin would've been the best bet, but all mention of it seems to be gone from xiph's site, which likely indicates it just isn't going to happen.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Still waiting for open video... by LucidityZero · 2004-04-27 17:01 · Score: 0, Troll

What difference does that really make? The Ogg Vorbis audio format sucks.

I'm not trolling here. You can check my karma and previous posts if you'd like. I'm all about open standards.

However, if the Ogg Vorbis video codec is going to be anywhere near the quality of their audio codec, I won't use it.

Before you mark me as a troll, encode something at 320kbps in Ogg and in 320kbps using LAME, and tell me that the difference isn't so amazing you'd wonder why you ever used ogg in the first place. (Besides the fact that it's totally open. That IS a major selling point.)

I guess the main point here is that we shouldn't be sitting here relying on "The Ogg Vorbis" people or the like to bring us something open. Why aren't we working on changing the general attitude towards these things, so even better codecs are developed open in the first place?

Don't place a band-aid on the wound. Stop it from happening in the first place.

--
Sig.i>

Legal Strategy by kawabago · 2004-04-27 15:19 · Score: 0

Why not develope a free open source version of the WMA codec and let users download it if they buy music in that format. If sued, argue that the user must have also bought the right to listen to the music when she bought the copy of the music, so she should not be obliged to pay again to listen to it.

Almost, but no cigar by davmoo · 2004-04-27 15:20 · Score: 1

I was actually interested in this when I started reading the Slashdot intro...until they had to go and ruin it by using that word "RealPlayer". *Nothing* from a bunch of infectious spyware pumping whores like Real will come near my computer, much less be installed upon it.

--
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.

Proprietary software on Linux by AhBeeDoi · 2004-04-27 15:21 · Score: 1

I run nVidia's non-GPL binary only drivers as well as other proprietary software on my Linux desktop. I also run GPL covered software on my Windows XP desktop. I have also paid for Debian cd's (it was only $20 but that's more than the Cheapbytes price). I doubt that I am one of the few who've mixed and matched proprietary and non-proprietary applications and operating systems, so I don't find the TurboLinux actions either surprising or sacrilegious.

Re:Proprietary software on Linux by TiggsPanther · 2004-04-27 22:16 · Score: 1

Me neither. Personally I wouldn't buy it. But if Linux really is about choice (like what people often say here) then surely paying for extra functionality is a valid choice. It might not be the best or the most preferable choice, but it's one all the same.

I also use the nVidia binary drivers on my dual-boot system. Suddenly 3D things that crawled along nip along at a rather nice speed.
Yes, I'd rather they released the source so that a source or binary package could be downloaded from the usual places. But in the absence of that, closed drivers will do. (For me, anyway. But what I lvoe about Linux is that you can tailor it to your own requirements).

A pricey distribution that includes licensing and proprietary software?
Well, it's not the ideal. And it's not cheap. But suddenly there's another available (legitimate) option for Linux. I'm not sure I'd buy it personally. But anyone who wishes to use Linux (or switch from Windows), "needs" to be able to play Windows Media and RealMedia natively, "needs" the same DVD software they're used to, well this would be an option.

Hopefully down the line a lot of this will be available for free (whether "open" or "no cost") for general Linux use. but until that time, there's at least a way of paying for the additional funcitonality - which is more than there was this time last week.
Tiggs

--
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."

Equivalent of Wine for Carbon API apps? by tepples · 2004-04-27 15:23 · Score: 1, Informative

Mac OS is still rather expensive. Not only does an entry-level eMac computer cost hundreds of USD more than the equivalent eMachines computer, but Apple chooses to refuse to license the special firmware to get competing PowerPC architecture machines to boot Mac OS. To estimate the cost of a Mac OS license, you need to estimate not only the cost of the boxed OS upgrade but also the cost of a bootloader capable of starting Mac OS on third-party hardware. Or do you know of an independent Carbon API implementation to match the independent OpenStep API implementation and independent Win32 API implementation?

Bit of a paradox by Magickcat · 2004-04-27 15:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

I personally can't see what the advantage is in paying for closed media formats on linux. It seems a bit paradoxical but perhaps it might encourage people making the switch.

It might be difficult convincing people to pay for something in linux, that is provided already free in Windows however.

Not a very compelling commercial package by my estimations however.

--

Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

MSFT acknowledges Linux desktop by kforeman · 2004-04-27 15:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Guys, this is great news. Its an acknowledgment from MSFT that the Linux desktop is an unstoppable force. Who knows, MSFT might be forced to bring out Office for Linux next. ;-) Kevin

--
Kevin Foreman

Re:MSFT acknowledges Linux desktop by swordgeek · 2004-04-27 15:45 · Score: 1

And this is good...why?

I'd personally be happier if Linux stayed under the radar of MS until hell froze over. As soon as they start developing for it, they'll start producing 'gotta have it' proprietary, incompatible software. By the time the Linux desktop is TRULY mainstream, MS will own it once again.

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Re:MSFT acknowledges Linux desktop by kforeman · 2004-04-27 15:50 · Score: 1

Having MSFT acknowledge (by legally licensing WMA/WMV for the first time), now IT managers can justify Linux desktops to their CEOs, who are often listening to MSFT position Linux as unimportant or not mature enough......until today's licensing... Kevin

--
Kevin Foreman
Re:MSFT acknowledges Linux desktop by sugar+and+acid · 2004-04-27 15:57 · Score: 1

Well it depends really, this isn't exactly cheap and if anything this is an attempt to counter the biggest bother to MS in the last decade or so, anti-monopolistic legal actions against them.
Re:MSFT acknowledges Linux desktop by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:40 · Score: 0

It's been legal before. This licensing deal means nothing at all. Get over yourself Kevin.
Re:MSFT acknowledges Linux desktop by user+no.+590291 · 2004-04-27 23:59 · Score: 1

I think this action is more to set the state for successful legal action against players like VLC and mplayer that use the MS codecs. There'll be less sympathy for the defendants when MS points out that their codecs were legitimately available for Linux.

Download an ISO? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:31 · Score: 0

RedHat, Mandrage, SUSE, you can buy a copy of their distro from all of em. If you don't like doing so, then just DL an ISO somewhere

You can download those ISOs legally BECAUSE everything on the CD has a license that allows redistribution. Not so with this new Turbolinux distro.

Re:How much is the free download? by slickwillie · 2004-04-27 15:33 · Score: 1

Or is that not a GPL requirement anymore?

Re:110% Off-Topic by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:34 · Score: 0

Look at the hit counter... 1.4 million already, and getting about 1,000 hits per second... lol

Right now xine is better than mplayer by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:37 · Score: 1, Informative

Mplayer used to be the best but now xine is better. I have all four major players installed, xine,mplayer, videolan and avifile. This combination of four covers every possible file format; however, each individual player has its own problems. mplayer has problems playing real media files: audio out of sync, altered colors, etc. Xine is perfect for real files, but fails to play some asf or wmv files. Avifile is the best for asf and wmv but does not play ogm, etc. In order to be able to play everything you need to have all four major players installed.

Re:Right now xine is better than mplayer by xannik · 2004-04-27 18:18 · Score: 1

Interesting... I have never had a problem playing windows media file in xine. Of course I am using gxine, but that is just a gtk+ frontend for libxine, so I wouldn't think that would really affect things. I have always preferred the interface in xine and I find it convenient for all my DVD needs. :-)

--

Go Illini!!!
Re:Right now xine is better than mplayer by Doug+Neal · 2004-04-27 20:55 · Score: 1

Xine is very good, the problem is the interface. The default xine-ui is nasty (wtf did they think that inventing their own widget set was a good idea for?!) - gxine and totem are alright but still a bit limited. What we need is a nice Qt based interface :)

Mplayer is still my player of preference because I can start it from the command line and it just pops up the video in one window, with no extra fluff. But none of them are perfect.

Works it does, necessarily legal it's not... by NetCow · 2004-04-27 15:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Microsoft's patent on the ASF file format
Windows Media Licensing Terms, and specifically the the licensing costs for Windows Media Audio and Video 9 codecs for non-Windows desktops and hardware devices
Apple's Quicktime software and hardware licensing terms
These terms may or may not apply, depending on the local laws. But in the United States at least it's certainly not legal to use Windows DLLs that way. Now I know people will start claiming they don't care, but purposedly breaking laws isn't going to help the Linux community.

Great News by Halfbaked+Plan · 2004-04-27 15:43 · Score: 1

Now if I can get the Linux kernel to recognize my sound hardware.....

(no, really. I've run Linux since back in the days of the 1.2.13 kernel. I took a year or two off recently and when I came back, via. Slackware 9.1, I can't get a kernel built that finds my stock Sound Blaster 32. I haven't tried that hard, but back in the day I didn't try hard, either, and my Sound Blaster 16 (and before that my Sound Blaster Pro, as far back as 1994) worked great.

--
resigned

Re:Great News by NotoriousQ · 2004-04-27 16:25 · Score: 1

Most distros have almost stripped the support for ISA cards. The distros rely on hotplug, and hardware IDs to chose which hardware to load instead of just probing all the drivers. Moreover support for isapnp is frequently disabled.

So get yourself isapnp, and insmod sb or sb16 with all the parameters necessary, and it will probably work.

--
badness 10000
Re:Great News by Halfbaked+Plan · 2004-04-28 14:35 · Score: 1

Thank you for the helpful suggestion. I indeed did compile my kernel with isapnp enabled, and it finds the sblaster card. I compiled in (non-modular) support for sound blasters which isn't 'taking' it seems. I have never used 'modules' in the past, have never needed to. Maybe I'm forced to finally deal with that mess instead of a monolithic kernel.

I didn't install a kernel from a 'distro' though. I built from a source tarball from ftp.kernel.org. It's a bit distressing that so much older hardware is being abandoned these days.

--
resigned
Re:Great News by NotoriousQ · 2004-04-28 19:38 · Score: 1
I think you missed a bit of information.
1. You compiled the kernel with ISA support, but isapnp is a user-land utility that tries to autoprobe ISA soundcards. Kernel tends to avoid that.
2. Drivers that are compiled in the kernel that do not autoprobe hardware still need parameters. They are passed in boot time on the kernel boot string. If you have them as modules, they are passed via insmod, making tinkering so much more convenient (no reboots).
3. If you are using ALSA, then this should be extremely helpful.
Old hardware does not stop being supported. It just becomes hard to figure out how to work it. Fewer sites are available for help, but as long as someone uses it, it stays alive.

Good luck in your efforts.
--
badness 10000
Re:Great News by Halfbaked+Plan · 2004-04-29 13:11 · Score: 1

My assertion, and I know it is true, is that kernels used to autoprobe ISA sound cards all the time. They don't any longer, and my error is in assuming that they do.

Thanks for the pointers.

--
resigned

proprietary formats by Neo-Rio-101 · 2004-04-27 15:44 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Even though you have a free OS, as long as there are no comparable free GPLed apps available people are stuck with a proprietary evil that can dictate how/when you use your own files. Real is no saviour either. I made some old .rm files and now they are useless and no longer playable on todays realplayer. I'm a victim of tech-rot. I may as well have made analogue copies on cassette and watched them slowly demagnetize. Until a decent open source format can be found for video, we're going to suffer the consequences.

--
READY.
PRINT ""+-0

Re:proprietary formats by kforeman · 2004-04-27 16:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Helix Player is 100% open source, inc. Vorbis and Theora. RealPlayer 10, built on top of Helix Player will add non-open source formats like RealAudio/RealVideo, MP3, Flash and MPEG-4 (for fee) when it goes alpha on May 10th. Kevin Foreman GM, Helix RealNetworks, Inc.

--
Kevin Foreman

Re:It still sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:46 · Score: 0

Even after they released yast under the GPL?

THANK YOU ROB by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thank you Rob -- and yes, I'm sitting here scratching my head over the whole concept ... of a lot of things.

A lot of these big companies just don't seem to get the concept that if I buy it ... I FUCKING OWN IT. Period. Frankly, after that point, I don't give one, or two, flying fucks about the laws involved. I'm going to do as I damn well see fit.

I take DVD's [purchased] and move them to a open crunched movie format so I can watch them where I want, when I want, and HOW I FUCKING WANT. I like ~1G (or less) file sizes for movies -- and it's amazing how many I can stack on the laptop hard drive for viewing on the plane. I WILL NOT USE A DVD PLAYER SUCKING UP MY BATTERY.

I happen to purchase .AAC or .M4P type Apple files and convert them to OPEN .MP3 format for playing on ANY FUCKING DEVICE I WANT/HAVE (even though they are used mostly on a iPod :). Mostly...

I would never own a X-Box, but *if* did you damn well can bet I'll cut and snip any FUCKING WIRE I WANT TO so it can boot Linux.

And as long as Satellites are bombarding my brain with signals I'll damn well listen in with any device I want ... that I FUCKING PURCHASED. Go figure.

This is turning out to be one fucked up world...

Re:THANK YOU ROB by germinatoras · 2004-04-28 02:57 · Score: 1

Right on. I 2nd the motion.

These licenses and digital restrictions have become completely ridiculous.

Companies are treating data bits as if they were molecules, which they aren't. You can't effortlessly copy a molecule. But you *can* effortlessly copy data bits. Anything that says otherwise is going against the inherent advantages of digital media.

You deserve a mod up for sure.

joo r th4 suxx0rz!!!!!!111 by rice_burners_suck · 2004-04-27 15:47 · Score: 1

TurboLinux iz th4 suxx0rz cuz itz ! a 100% free d1stro!!!!!111

Seriously, though. If you want an operating system that's free, use a free OS. Many of the applications for desktop use, however, won't be available in a 100% free form for a while. This is similar to the way that OS software wasn't always free, and now there are many free OSes. I think that in 10 years or so, many businesses will realize that creating proprietary software, even desktop applications, is such a high risk endeavor, that it will benefit businesses to participate in a global community of free software, while making money by achieving other goals.

Think about it. Bugs and testing account for a huge portion of development. Software is becoming increasingly complex and buggy, and the problem isn't getting any smaller. Time to market windows and acceptable software prices are getting smaller and smaller, while customer demands are getting bigger and bigger. Why would any business want to deal with these risks when it could, instead, consider software a fixed cost by applying several developers full time to an existing free software project. The business would know that X amount of dollars are being spent, and because many other businesses have it in their best interest to have the same software, and they are putting their developers on it as well, everybody will benefit much faster. No upgrade or support costs would be incurred because the software cost would essentially become fixed, and the developers in house could provide the support for that application. Best of all, the resulting software would be more efficient, stable, and flexible than any proprietary alternative could be.

I strongly believe that all of this will happen in the software applications market, not just for desktop use, but for businesses, governments, and other uses as well. Just as this idea might have sounded preposterous ten years ago (or even five years ago) with regards to operating systems, it has happened with Linux and the BSDs, and I think that in ten years, we'll enjoy the fact that businesses are waking up to this idea.

So give it a little time. I think that when the entire business world depends on certain operating systems and software to operate, it will fight DMCA-like laws so strongly that the MPAA, RIAA, and their likes will lose this unfair advantage.

In the meantime, it's good that TurboLinux will support some of this proprietary crap, because the faster people start using (mostly) free software and realizing the benefits of it, the faster there won't be many proprietary formats and software programs out there.

Re:How much is the free download? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:47 · Score: 0

Uhh... the Media Player codecs aren't GPLed, that's why you gotta pay for them.

Re:How much is the free download? by Gleef · 2004-04-27 16:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Free download was never a GPL requirement to begin with. Legend has it that RMS used to sell Emacs at $150 per tape, you can currently pay $345 for a pair of CDs full of GPL source code from the FSF.

If you are really interested, I suggest you read the GPL. To speed things up, Sections 2 and 3 answer your question (note, 2b "no charge for the license" doesn't preclude charging for the download, the CD, or whatever method of giving the person the software you care to do, it's the license that is Free, not the media).

That, and as a prior poster indicated, the Media Player stuff isn't GPL'ed by a long shot.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.

No problems by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-04-27 16:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Personally, I don't use WMP, but I think in terms of advancing Linux on the desktop for the average non-techie user, this is good, because like it or not, there is a lot of Windows Media stuff out there that the average person wants to play.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Re:No problems by evilviper · 2004-04-27 22:27 · Score: 1

like it or not, there is a lot of Windows Media stuff out there that the average person wants to play.

No thanks, when I left Windows, I left the Microsoft tax with it. I have no interest in bringing it back. Ask somebody if it's worth $100 just so they can watch WMV9 video.

Besides, this is why we have MPlayer. So you can convert all those WMVs to MPEG4 files.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:No problems by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-04-28 02:49 · Score: 1

I honestly don't think the average non-techie user wants to have to convert anything. Remember, "Linux is about choice", so what if the average non-techie user wants to play Win Media without the hassle of converting it? That's their choice, and they choose to pay the M$ tax. You are not obligated to buy that distro (I assume something with M$ crap in it will cost...).

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:No problems by evilviper · 2004-04-28 03:15 · Score: 1

what if the average non-techie user wants to play Win Media without the hassle of converting it?

They can do that with MPlayer just fine. The conversion was just a suggestion to everyone reading, not required to view the material. I think you need to check out MPlayer some time.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by kforeman · 2004-04-27 16:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Helix Player 100% open source. RealPlayer 10, coming this summer, adds non-open source components like RealAudio, RealVideo, MP3, Flash, etc. to the Helix Player. Kevin Foreman GM, Helix RealNetworks, Inc.

--
Kevin Foreman

OT free trade rant by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:20 · Score: 0

Wait, but do you (like most of the other ./ers) complain about the outsourcing of IT to India?? It's the same principle at work there-- cheap foreign labor means cheap products for consumers. Sure, it sucks if you had a job in an American DVD plant (not that they ever existed) or a slack ass call center job, but guess what? Thanks to foreign labor, you can afford to buy a cheapo DVD player, even if you have to work at Wal*Mart, since there are no job in manufacturing. It's like everyone in the country got a raise!! And now we all can afford really fancy, schmancy electronics! Lower IT costs will have a similar (though perhaps not as pronounced) effect on the American consumer, and yet people bitch about low paid foreign labor...

Sorry, resume dissing Turbo Linux as usual.

Re:OT free trade rant by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:43 · Score: 0

It's like everyone in the country got a raise!!
Including the illegal immigrants.

Why so much for a DVD player? by 3D+Lover · 2004-04-27 16:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I imagine that a good portion of this $150 is for the DVD Playback. The last several DVD drives that I have bought have included a copy of the PowerDVD player software! I can understand that there is some cost involved in getting their program to run under Linux, but if you can get their player for free with the purchase of a $35 DVD drive, why so much for those of us that want a better OS?

Not trying to troll here... by cgenman · 2004-04-27 16:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

But while playback may be legal, not all playback tools are. DeCss and, sadly, any program based off of it, is illegal in the US. It is a foolish distinction setup by people trying to separate us from our money, but it is a legal one. This distro would give a business that relies upon DVD playback, such as an authoring studio, a screening lab, or somesuch, an option that would stand up to a BSB investigation. Plus they can stream windows media, which another section of thier business may rely upon and which would be far more difficult to do legally than simple DVD playback.

I agree that it is scary. I don't think that our society has lost perspective, so much as gained a perspective pushed by large financial interests. But if you are an insufficiently large business, you must play by the rules.

--
The ______ Agenda

Re:Not trying to troll here... by jcuervo · 2004-04-27 16:39 · Score: 1

It is a foolish distinction setup by people trying to separate us from our money, but it is a legal one.
Stupid laws should be openly broken.

--
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.

Real responds to false spyware claim by kforeman · 2004-04-27 16:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

The spyware issue is a misunderstanding of the workings of our player that we fixed years ago. RealPlayer was not and is not spyware. The term implies that information about what an individual is doing is being recorded somewhere and correlated to personal information. This was not and is not happening. Way back in 1999 when this CD-ROM lookup database charge first arose, we changed how the RealPlayer communicated with the server (which as a client it has to do) in order to make it crystal clear that we were not recording any information that could track an individual. Today, there are virtually no background communications other than those chosen by the user when they install the player. Check out the new Windows RealPlayer to see the new install process yourself. Obviously our Linux Player is open source and not an issue. We heard the feedback and we think most will be pleased. Kevin Foreman GM, Helix RealNetworks, Inc.

--
Kevin Foreman

Re:Real responds to false spyware claim by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:36 · Score: 0

My tcpdump sessions show otherwise...

My advise is to stay clear of realplayer. forever...
Re:Real responds to false spyware claim by Loosewire · 2004-04-27 19:26 · Score: 1

provide evidence

--
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
Re:Real responds to false spyware claim by davmoo · 2004-04-27 20:24 · Score: 1

I really do appreciate your answer and honesty, and will give RealPlayer another try. But I'll be honest and upfront and admit that my first new install will not be going on my main production machine. I'll try it on my "play" system first.

Thanks again for your response!

--
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Re:Real responds to false spyware claim by kforeman · 2004-04-28 05:02 · Score: 1

Sure - two fold.

1) every alligation was thrown out

2) check the readily availble source code for yourself.

This issue is an urban legend that I've decided to not let stew any longer....

Kevin Foreman
GM Helix
RealNetworks

--
Kevin Foreman
Re:Real responds to false spyware claim by Loosewire · 2004-04-28 05:36 · Score: 1

no no no i meant to reply to the anon guy who responded saying "My tcp dumps show otherwise"

--
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
Re:Real responds to false spyware claim by vikman · 2004-04-28 06:57 · Score: 1

I would be very interested to learn about this. Can you forward those sessions to vikram(at)helixcommunity.org ?

--
--

Australia? by donscarletti · 2004-04-27 16:45 · Score: 1

What about Australia.

Australia is a long way from either Brazil or Japan and a hell of a long distance from Germany or the US.

I guess having none of these evil distro guys is another reason why Australia kicks arse. Though the most popular distro down here seems to be Debian, and I can't see them getting involved for some reason.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem

Re:Australia? by Trejkaz · 2004-04-27 17:15 · Score: 1

As an Australian, at the moment I'm more worried that running Mplayer (or any media player which might hook into Windows DLLs) might technically count as violating the FTA by enabling me to play WMV files without buying Windows.

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:Australia? by Quattro+Vezina · 2004-04-27 17:20 · Score: 1

Whoops--you're completely right. I completely forgot about you Aussies.

--
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Re:Australia? by donscarletti · 2004-04-29 01:35 · Score: 1

Well, to have those DLLs then you leagally have to have windows. So MPlayer does not let you play WMV files without buying windows.
That said, the FTA is EVIL and must be stopped.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Re:Australia? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-03 04:00 · Score: 0

I completely forgot about you Aussies.
That's OK. They totally forgot about sexless guys who live with their mommies...so you're even.

MOD PARENT UP. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:50 · Score: 0

My monitors are bigger than my TV.

The guy just made a nice argument in one sentence and 12 syllables. He automatically wins.

You hear all that shit about how DVDs blow away VHS because of the quality? Great, but how're you going to appreciate that on such a crappy TV?

Monitors, on average nowadays, do around 1280x1024. Televisions do something ridiculously low like 300xSomething.

When I'm watching my lesbian porn, I want to SEE those juices FLOWING, motherfucker!

Re:MOD PARENT UP. by juhaz · 2004-04-27 18:34 · Score: 1

Monitors, on average nowadays, do around 1280x1024.

Fat lot of good that does if the DVD itself has much lower resolution (usually 720x576 PAL or 720x480 NTSC)

Televisions do something ridiculously low like 300xSomething.

It's much higher than that, though TV resolution is not very straighforward to map into pixel resolution, they're whole different beasts. PAL TV maxes around 768x576, NTSC has bit less.

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by Curtman · 2004-04-27 16:51 · Score: 1, Troll

RealPlayer 10, coming this summer, adds non-open source components like RealAudio, RealVideo, MP3, Flash, etc. to the Helix Player

So.. What does it do? Its a player with no codecs of its own? Its a YAMP? The exciting things in open source media these days are OGM, OGG, Theora, Matroska, and MPlayer's upcoming NUT container. I remember a lot of hype about Helix, but I have to say I'm much less than impressed with the player from Real as it stands. Helix sounds like a huge improvement over that, but that's like saying herpes is better than prostate cancer.

But then again, I have no idea what I'm talking about. ;)

Lack of understanding here by WebCowboy · 2004-04-27 16:54 · Score: 1

You demonstrate some ignorance of the "Linux community" in your opening paragraph:

Do you think they are the first company to sell a distribution? RedHat, Mandrage, SUSE, you can buy a copy of their distro from all of em. If you don't like doing so, then just DL an ISO somewhere, otherwise, quit complaining.

Open source/free software advocates are generally NOT anti-capitalist/communist (in fact they are more likely to be of a libertarian mindset politically). Open source is about "libre" rather than "gratis", and when staunch advocates complain about non-free software it is concern about restricted RIGHTS, not the monetary cost.

Oddly enough, it isn't the gratis/"free as in beer" aspect of Linux that puts off those "big name companies". In the case of the GPL, it's a rights restriction of another sort--one that prevents derivative works from being made closed source--that scares them. If "free as in beer" scared Microsoft we would've been paying for IE and Media Player and whatever. MS is the MASTER of "free as in beer" then it helps them become dominant.

Thankfully, some "big name companies" (IBM, Novell...) are sensible enough to get past the paranoia to embrace Linux. It's also good to see some Linux companies that bring the technology into the domain of proprietary software in the name of competition. I prefer that when possible that an OPEN alternative be available, but so long as some "viral" proprietary licensing restriction doesn't contaminate Linux all the more power to them...if you're a purist on one side or the other, you can use Debian (if you're a Stallman) or Windows (if you're a Ballmer) and avoid applications with distasteful license agreements.

Always bugged me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:56 · Score: 0

that I couldn't watch porn in windows media format with other distros out of the box. I had to waste all my valuable jerking off time going and finding the windows libraries...

$64 for WMA codecs is absurd by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 17:02 · Score: 0

I don't understand the economics of Linux on the desktop. Microsoft charges OEMs about $45 per PC for Windows XP. Why would anyone want to pay $64 for the WMA codecs running on Linux -- more than the entire cost of Windows XP? That's basically paying more for a product with an exponentially lower installed base. Fine if you're a slashdotter with nothing but time on your hands to tinker, but not particularly cost effective for Normal People.

Can mplayer play encrypted movies? by meowsqueak · 2004-04-27 17:05 · Score: 1

I had some sort of encrypted movie file that had sound but the picture was all scrambled - some sort of DRM I suspected... If I theoretically had the key, would mplayer be able to play it properly?

99% Free better than 100% proprietary by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 17:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Have you ever stopped to think that the whole hard line of "No Non-Free stuff" is actually damaging? I run Linux, but I use the Nvidia drivers, and have a few proprietary games/codecs. I'd rather run a 99% Free system, than 100% Non-Free.

Also, some of us use Linux because it's better. It's more flexible, more powerful, and more scriptable. I like the cool little toys you get with it, like kweather, and you know that none of it is spyware, because it is GPL (and in wide use).

Re:99% Free better than 100% proprietary by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 21:26 · Score: 0

I'd rather run a 99% Free system, than 100% Non-Free.

i`ll remember that when it comes to paying your wages, you did want paying for your work right ? right ?

Huh? You are contradicting yourself by iamacat · 2004-04-27 17:15 · Score: 1

By providing a free Media player for Mac and licensing it for Linux, MS is "unlocking" aunt Millie to try other OSes. The core problem here is that they, as a rich monopoly, can afford to give the player away, denying Real and Apple a chance to make a little money. A lesser problem is that WMP is bundled with Windows. But frankly, if your connection is fast enough for MP3s and streaming video, it's fast enough to download a player. It's not Microsoft's fault that free RealPlayer is so diffucult to find, download and setup. Why not a self-installing ActiveX plugin like Java?

Perhaps a monopoly in inherintly evil, and should be broken up, restricted in how they do business and/or taxed to death. But blame Microsoft for the right reason. They are definitely not preventing OS competion by licensing windows media for Linux.

Re:Huh? You are contradicting yourself by Barlo_Mung_42 · 2004-04-27 18:04 · Score: 1

"...give the player away, denying Real and Apple a chance to make a little money."

I use iTunes all the time. It was a free download. And fuck the spyware bloated, hard-to-find-free-version of Real. When the company tanks it will be because of their marketing practices. They had a wide open lead and they wasted it by fucking over their own users. At least when Microsoft does it they give the user something in return to distract them from the fucking part.

It adds no functionality, just legality. by Trejkaz · 2004-04-27 17:18 · Score: 1

By running Turbo Media Player you won't (technically) be breaking the law, like you probably are with Mplayer. Sad but true. Why don't people just use open media formats to avoid these problems in the first place, though?

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!

Re:It adds no functionality, just legality. by TiggsPanther · 2004-04-27 22:52 · Score: 1

Why don't people just use open media formats to avoid these problems in the first place, though?

That's an easy one.
Firstly, there's people who make short clips. They'll use whatever they have. More and more often, this is the free junk that comes with Windows.

Secondly, there's people who encode full episodes of things. (Including amateur film companies releasing their own work)
Obviously they want to use as available a format as possible. So these are often the MPEG-related ones for really large files, and RealVideo for smaller ones. They could use the Ogg movie format, but not everyone would easily recognise it as a video format - or would look at the extension and go "That's not a Video File". (And you know that there'd be at least one...)
So they'd end up having to release multiple formats. And, sadly, that's rarely an option. (And even if it was, you'd always miss someone's pet-fave format)
Tiggs

--
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
Re:It adds no functionality, just legality. by evilviper · 2004-04-27 23:13 · Score: 1

you probably are with Mplayer

That's debatable. You are using the DLLs that were made available by the company that owns rights to them. The fact that you are using the DLLs in MPlayer instead of WMP, RealPlayer, or Quicktime doesn't necessarily make it illegial.

Why don't people just use open media formats to avoid these problems in the first place, though?

Okay! Which ones? I really want to hear this.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:It adds no functionality, just legality. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 00:59 · Score: 0

>You are using the DLLs that were made available by the company that owns rights to them.

The mplayer project doesn't own the rights to the Microsoft, Apple, and Real DLLs they distribute. mplayer is violating copyright law by distributing them, and so is those who download them.

However, if you download the DLLs from Microsoft, it's legal.
Re:It adds no functionality, just legality. by evilviper · 2004-04-28 03:20 · Score: 1

Well thank you for making mindless assertions with no facts at all to backup your claim...

Here's what avifile.sf.net has to say on the subject:

Legal issues covering Win32 DLLs which accompany source code are a bit more complicated. These DLLs are freely available in the Internet ( exact URLs to most of them are available on this site ). For those DLLs which come with the license, their copyright owners allow using them at no cost if you do not disassemble, reverse-engineer them, etc. In some cases ( Indeo Video ) they explicitly allow to include these files into other projects under mentioned restrictions. Many DLLs are available without having to accept any license agreement at all ( DivX ;-), all DirectShow codecs ), what obviously means that any kind of activity with them is acceptable.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

You don't "own" your cd by xswl0931 · 2004-04-27 17:31 · Score: 1

You own the physical media, but you don't own the contents. You have a license to view the contents. Similarly, you guys can complain all you want about proprietary formats and DRM, but you can't have unprotected content and commericial content. It's been shown many times over that if people can get it for free (doesn't have to be legal), 99% of the time, they would not pay for it. So content makers (movie studios, music studios) aren't willing to release their content unprotected. So basically you're left with either DRM + commercial content or no DRM and no commercial content. Take your pick.

Re:You don't "own" your cd by Barlo_Mung_42 · 2004-04-27 17:54 · Score: 1

So if my physical media on which my licensed music sits wears out can I get a replacement for the cost of the media? I still own the license and if I can't back it up (fair use) they should provide me with a replacement when it wears out.
I shouldn't have to buy another license.
Can't have it both ways.
Re:You don't "own" your cd by dago · 2004-04-27 18:11 · Score: 1

Nice troll ...

--
#include "coucou.h"
Re:You don't "own" your cd by Aneurysm9 · 2004-04-27 18:42 · Score: 1

But the license is attached to the physical medium you purchased. When you no longer own that piece of plastic you no longer own the license. You have no license to use any other media without an additional purchase.

--
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
Re:You don't "own" your cd by trezor · 2004-04-27 22:24 · Score: 1
- Can't have it both ways.
Hrm... Unless they buy off some senators that is.

Not to be cynical, but they allready has it both ways. Somehow I don't think they'll try to amend any sense in order to rebalance this, just to benefit their customers. But that's just me.
--
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Re:You don't "own" your cd by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 02:12 · Score: 0

How about you shills go away. I do very well own the contents of that CD and I can use it as I see fit. The copyright on the contents is owned by someone else though, and redistribution control is their right. So for my own personal use, they have no say in what I can do with it.

Really. Where did all these idiots come from. Slashdot has suddenly been invaded by people spouting the **AA's words. Can we get their IP addresses and see if perhaps they're all coming from certain organization's offices?

The idea of consumers licensing use is the greatest evil corporations spout these days. Usage licensing does nothing for consumers. It should just be ignored.
Re:You don't "own" your cd by Barlo_Mung_42 · 2004-04-28 04:59 · Score: 1

That's why I don't support via my pocket book any form of music DRM and why there will always be cracks. Laws that are unjust should not be followed. If I buy music, I am going to listen to it how I want. Unreasonable licenses will be ignored.

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by VAXGeek · 2004-04-27 17:32 · Score: 1

Hey, were you the guy that decided to make Real install itself everywhere? Were you the guy that decided it was important enough to need an icon in the taskbar? RealPlayer is crappy spyware, and I think the sun is setting for Real.

--
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by kforeman · 2004-04-27 17:33 · Score: 1

Helix Player will play Ogg Vorbis and Theora - both open source. Check it out at https://player.helixcommunity.org/ Kevin Foreman

--
Kevin Foreman

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 17:44 · Score: 0

"the sun is setting for real"
I read a cruel pun in that ...

only $29 by calle69 · 2004-04-27 17:47 · Score: 1

how can this happend?? TURBOLINUX 10 DESKTOP is only $29 and this new version with be $149?? can this be possible?

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by Curtman · 2004-04-27 17:50 · Score: 1

Okay. I was hoping the GM would post info than that, so I'll pry.

I went here , and browsed around on the page for a bit. It will definitely be interesting to see, but why all the proprietary codecs? FFmpeg looks a lot more like what is needed for Linux at this point. We've got media players out the wazoo already, its the codecs that are the big problem. The server/producer stuff looks very interesting though.

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by Curtman · 2004-04-27 17:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not in the know about this stuff either, but I don't think its fair to dismiss Helix because of Real's history on Windows. The Linux client doesn't do any of those things, its just not even close to open/free. This does look different, and is for sure a leap in the right direction.

Looks like OS X for x86 hardware by chipace · 2004-04-27 18:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

I really like the idea of getting a professional desktop linux OS, that runs on x86 hardware. I really like Mac OS X, and would buy it instantly if it ran on x86 hardware. Hopefully this would be similar.

I have been tied to win2k for 3 years now because of it's excellent japanese language support. If turbolinux can match (or beat) that, I would gladly switch.

Re:Looks like OS X for x86 hardware by loco_0wnz · 2004-04-28 04:12 · Score: 1

I already, and have for quite some time now, use TurboLinux Desktop 10. The Japanese support is great, since it is in fact a Japanese distro!

Ummm, well by Sycraft-fu · 2004-04-27 18:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Currently, the Media 9 codecs have probably the best licensing of any complete advanced codec out there. They are an open standard, sumbitted to and accepted by STMPE meaning it can't be changed with out STMPE's approval (and those changes being made public). This is the same as MPEG-2 or MPEG-4. The difference is in the cost, the media 9 codecs cost a good bit less to license than either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4.

That's something a lot of people forget about beloved projects like LAME and Xvid. The projects themselves are probably legal, protected as academic works since they are source only. That does not mean you may legally use them. The formats they encode are open standards, but ones that are licensed. What's more, MPEG-4 has a content use fee, you have to pay $0.04 per 2 hours of content.

Now for audio, the solution is simple at this point: Vorbis. It is available for use free of charge. However their video codec isn't yet complete. Well all the other formats are either proprietary, or open but licensed. Even MP3 decoders need a license. All those free MP3 decoder projects that haven't paid it ($60,000 one time fee I believe) are technically illegal to use.

In practise the MPEG group and companies like Microsoft have more or less ignored people that use their standards without a license when not for profit, however that doesn't make it legal.

So until there is a free video standard, you either need to choose a quite old standard (MPEG-1 might be free of licenseing but I am not sure), pay a license fee, or you'll be infringing. That is true if you use MPEG-4 or WM-9. Main difference is WM-9 is cheaper.

Now before you shoot back about MS locking people in, read my post again carefully. WM-9 is no longer proprietary. They submitted it to SMPTE as an open standard. What this means is that anyone can implement WM-9 for a standard licensing fee (called a reasonable and non-discriminitory license, or RAND license). It also means they can't make any future changes to break compatibility since any change has to be submitted to SMPTE and if accepted will be made available to all who licensed the format.

This is the exact same way that MPEG-4 works.

Re:Ummm, well by Carewolf · 2004-04-27 21:55 · Score: 1

LAME and Xvid are also international projects. They can't really stall just because the end-product cost money to use in the US. The licenses are based on software patents, and even though the EU now also have software patents, they are much more restricted here.
Re:Ummm, well by evilviper · 2004-04-27 22:42 · Score: 1

However their video codec isn't yet complete

While Theora may not be complete, VP3 has been complete for a long long time. Either using the VfW tools, or using quicktime, you can create VP3 video with vorbis audio... That's 100% restriction-free.

In fact, I've spent a lot of time looking around for Unix programs that can encode VP3 video, and have been unsuccessful. Even encoding using the windows vp3 dll on Unix would be a good stop-gap measure.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Nope, guess again by Sycraft-fu · 2004-04-27 18:12 · Score: 4, Informative

In a bid to become the HD-DVD standard, Microsoft has made WM-9 an open standard. What that means is that they submitted their standard to the appropriate body, SMPTE in this case, and it has been accepted. Part of this acceptance is that it be made available for a reasonable and non-discriminitory fee. That means that ANYONE can license them for the same fee. You don't negoiate it, it is a fixed thing. There is a page with fee schedules and comparisons to other formats on their site.

Real and Quicktime aren't any better. Quicktime now uses MPEG-4, which is also an open standard with RAND licensing. It is, however, more expensive than WM-9. Real is still proprietary and thus up to Real networks as to what is available to who and for how much.

So no, MS is not gouging Linux. If the company that chooses to implement it gouges you, that's their bussiness and you should take it up with them. The license is standard, and the terms are known to the world, just like MPEG-2 or MPEG-4.

Re:Nope, guess again by Dcnjoe60 · 2004-04-28 02:49 · Score: 1

While I agree in general with your post, the fact that Microsoft charges everyone the same price for something doesn't mean that they still aren't gouging people on the price.
Re:Nope, guess again by Sycraft-fu · 2004-04-28 05:18 · Score: 1

Well let's see, the license fees they charge are in every way less than MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. They charge less per encoder and decoder, they do not charge use fees, and they have lower maximum caps (some MPEG things are even uncapped).

So seeing as they are the CHEAPEST of the open standards, how are the gouging people?

It is $0.10 per decoder and $0.20 per encoder for a license. Compare that to $0.25/$0.25 for MPEG-4 and $2.50/$2.50 for MPEG-2.
Re:Nope, guess again by Dcnjoe60 · 2004-04-28 11:48 · Score: 1

If the oil companies, for no particular reason, suddenly raise the price of gas to $5/gallon and I sell it to you at $4.95 instead, does that mean I'm not gouging you because I'm the cheapest?

Let's say we weren't talking pennies here, but instead it was $100 per decoder and $200 per encoder. Would they still not be gouging because they were the cheapest (assuming the others were more).

The relationship of price to others in the market doesn't define what gouging is. It's the relationship of price to what is the worth of the product.

The codecs are given away with every copy of Windows. That's fine, it's their product, they can do with what they want. But, one has to assume that they've recovered their development costs on the codecs a long time ago, so what exactly are they licensing?

Besides, you keep claiming that these codecs are open standards and yet, if someone tries to develop a clean room version of one of them, they are taken to court (otherwise, I should be able to decode foreign dvds without worry, right?)

Back to the original topic, if Microsoft is charging for their implimentation of the open standard, then fine, that is their right. If they are charging for anyone's implimentation, then yes they are gouging.

Just think if everytime you bought a car, you had to pay a license fee to Ford (or pick your favorite auto manufacture) for the right to have a steering wheel on the correct side of the vehicle for your country. In essence, that is what Microsoft is doing with their licensing fee of a supposedly open standard. Wouldn't you call that gouging.

And just in case you still can't see it as gouging, I'll sell you the codecs for $63, making me cheaper than Turbolinux. Ah, heck, I'm a nice guy, I'll do it for $59.99.

Re:How much is the free download? by slickwillie · 2004-04-27 18:14 · Score: 1

I was referring to the distro, not the Media Player. What's to prevent someone from paying $150 for TurboLinux and setting up free downloading of it? I thought that's how Mandrake got their start, by repackaging RedHat with their own installer.

Re:I got a different message from this press relea by Sycraft-fu · 2004-04-27 18:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

They probably mean legally. Ya, mplayer will play WM-9 just fine, but they nab files that they don't have a license for to do that. WM-9 is an open standard, not a free one, so if they haven't paid the licensing fees, they are breaking the law. Now odds are MS just isn't going to care, it's not for profit and open source, nothing to be concerned about. Same as the MPEG group with Xvid. While the project itself is probably protected as an academic work, being source only and free, it's use would require a license (MPEG-4 is also open, but not free). However I doubt you'll see the MPEG consortium going after people for non-commercial, personal use of it. IS still technically illegal though.

Looks to me like the TurboLinux people actually went and licensed the WM-9 codecs, and so are fully licensed to be distributing them. That would be a first in the Linux world, and actually somewhat of a first anywhere. WM-9 hasn't been an open standard for all that long and I'm not aware of any licensed 3rd party implementations until now.

Not True... by vwjeff · 2004-04-27 18:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Trouble with those is they make you buy the computer to go with it.

You only have to buy hardware which is almost anything. Here you can buy an OEM Windows license. This qualifies as hardware. You don't have to buy a computer to get an OEM version of Windows.

Re:Not True... by plj · 2004-04-28 01:44 · Score: 1

The interesting point here is that if you buy a retail version, you are eligible to Microsoft's own support. If you buy an OEM version, then you have to get your product support from that OEM too, if you need any.

And I don't think newegg.com will offer much support to you... although I don't really know about Microsoft's own support options, either. Probably just some crappy phone support for 90 day or so, unless you purchase a volume license.

--
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus

Quiet you troll... by Dwedit · 2004-04-27 18:48 · Score: 1

Quiet you troll...
Ogg sounds far superior to mp3 in the 32-64kbps range mainly. It's especially good for high quality streaming audio at low bitrates. I encode mp3s into mono .ogg streams at Quality -1, for an average bitrate of 48k, and it sounds really good for such a low bitrate.

Re:How much is the free download? by whaley · 2004-04-27 18:53 · Score: 1

Distro vendors can mix GPL stuff (Linux kernel, GNU tools, ...) and their own commercial programs and trade marks, so you can't just go and copy any Linux distro and sell it yourself. You can use the GPL'ed parts and sell them yourself, though.

Uh oh, so much for freedom... by pair-a-noyd · 2004-04-27 19:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

Licenses and purchases of licenses and what-nots?

This is starting to look a lot like a typical windows discussion.. Why go through all this, why not just use windows?

We use Linux because we want the freedom of the GPL and the freedom to download and compile OS apps and not get locked into restrictive licenses for proprietary codecs and applications.

Not to mention were basically a bunch of cheap bastards that like free shit... At least I am....

Re:Uh oh, so much for freedom... by TiggsPanther · 2004-04-27 19:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is starting to look a lot like a typical windows discussion.. Why go through all this, why not just use windows?

We use Linux because we want the freedom of the GPL and the freedom to download and compile OS apps and not get locked into restrictive licenses for proprietary codecs and applications.

Not to mention were basically a bunch of cheap bastards that like free shit... At least I am....

"Why not use Windows?" Well, perhaps 'cos Linux has a tendency to let you actually do more behind the scenes, and makes it easier (for geeks anyway) to remedy the majority of crashes without having to reach for the power-switch?

Yes, it's more open. That's great. Yes, it's (beer)free. Even better.
But if paying for certain items of software is the only way to get them, then I'd gladly pay to get extra features. (I'd just get everything else free (speec AND beer) instead.

I don't like licenses or proprietary codecs/file-formats. Unfortunately the Big Companies do. This causes a problem. As yes, in Linux I have the "freedom" to tweak any setttings I want. Sadly, if I want to play certain games or read certain formats I have to boot into Windows (or go without).
Not exactly "freedom".

--
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."

Re:How much is the free download? by Ancient+Devices+King · 2004-04-27 19:18 · Score: 1

IANAL, but AFAIK, that would be fine, provided that you don't distribute any non-free software that comes with the $150 license (like the WM9 codecs). Not all software running on Linux must be GPL. That's why the downloadable SuSE installer is one CD, and the one you get when you buy it is 7 CD's or one DVD; the commercial one comes with a bunch of non-GPL software they're selling you along with the OS.

--
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"

TurboLinux?!?!?! by dspisak · 2004-04-27 19:22 · Score: 1

WTF? I thought these guys died out over a year ago if not more, yet they have a Slashdot icon? I don't even know anyone who uses this distro anymore let alone anyone who could probably even remember these guys existed. These jokers werent even targeting the desktop linux market they were trying to be server oriented and HA oriented and now they come out from the Bermuda Triangle of Distro and are trying to pitch themselves as a legit desktop distro that can play all those media codecs that were/are questionable under xine/mplayer? Sorry Charlie but this just seems dead in the water before it was even announced.

Re:TurboLinux?!?!?! by spike-288 · 2004-04-28 04:29 · Score: 1

How many people do you know in Japan or China? If you do then you'd know that Turbolinux is on every store shelf and has been the most popular distro in Asia for quite some time. This is a Japanese distro, not an American product. If you researched your facts before spouting you'd learn they have been selling products nonstop for over 10 years. Just becuase something isn't sold in the U.S. doesn't mean it doesn't exist (and do well) elsewhere. Take off your blinders, there's other countries out there.
Re:TurboLinux?!?!?! by dspisak · 2004-04-28 09:30 · Score: 1

I seem to recall China was working on its own distro? I know a few people in Japan but none of them are Linux users or admins.

My comment is still relevant because this trend WONT be seen in the US since you don't see their distro being sold anywhere that your average geek will shop.

Additionally this will help in Japan but China? Come on, when was the last time you saw anyone in China pay money for licensing? *cough*DVD players w/CSS & Macrovision able to be turned off*cough*

And frankly this distro wasn't always a Japanese distro, they did try their thing in the states for a while until they closed up shop or whatever over here.

I seem to recall there was someone in this story who commented who worked in the US side of things on the PPC stuff...he might be able to comment on this better.

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by Ilgaz · 2004-04-27 19:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

You waste your time for nothing man...

See, they try to SELL WMEDIA codecs for $64, you have to PAY for Linux which CAN run Wmedia, they still bitch/whine about Realplayer ON LINUX as SPYWARE for gods sake!

I still wonder if Real/Helix is a budhist or something still serving to that AWFUL community for free! Patience you know.

Is it GPLed by jeet · 2004-04-27 19:31 · Score: 0

Is it?

Re:110% Off-Topic by ThaReetLad · 2004-04-27 19:31 · Score: 0, Offtopic

it's currently approaching 100 million!!

--
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

WMA plugin may have to be GPL'ed by 4front · 2004-04-27 19:35 · Score: 0

I looked at Xine's xine-plugin.h and it's under GPL. Hence anything that includes xine-plugin.h will be automatically gpl'ed. Check out: xine-plugin.h
Did Microsoft even look at what Turbolinux was doing with their family jewels?

MPlayer for SuSE by houghi · 2004-04-27 19:52 · Score: 1

though for suse a fully capable binary install exist elsewhere

They can be found here:
xine and/or kaffeine packages
MPLayer
Win 32 codecs

Other things can also be found at http://packman.links2linux.org

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Wrongo by spitzak · 2004-04-27 20:33 · Score: 1

Even if they completly screwed up all that Microsoft would have to do is stop making this plugin and pull TurboLinux's right to distribute it. Despite all the attempts by Bill Gates to brainwash people into believing otherwise, using GPL code does not cause you to have to give away everything you ever wrote. That is a damn lie, one of the biggest to come out of him.

More to the point, it is pretty obvious that xine allows binary plugins to be used. They sure haven't complained about their code being used to run existing Windows DLL's, have they?

Re:Wrongo by 4front · 2004-04-28 04:49 · Score: 1

More to the point, it is pretty obvious that xine allows binary plugins to be used. They sure haven't complained about their code being used to run existing Windows DLL's, have they?
Xine isn't like the Linux kernel where you are allowed to load binary-only modules/plugins. The license for Xine doesn't specify that in writing. The Xine plugins to load Windows DLLs are all GPL'ed. If the plugins themselves are binary-only then we have a problem. The plugins don't do the decode, they simply call the wine-loader to load Windows DLLs. Decode happens in the Windows DLLs.
If your license is Mozilla/Apache/MIT-X/etc, you are in the clear. But that is precisely the reason there are no proprietary plugins for the GIMP which is released as GPL.
OTOH, they should have gone with XMMS which allows proprietary plugins because the plugin-API for XMMS is BSD licensed.

Wait, I have to pay for WM9? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 20:44 · Score: 0

****! I won't see half-minute-vomitive-quality-porn videos on my Linux box :P

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by spacefight · 2004-04-27 21:08 · Score: 1

Or in other words: Helix Player is completely worthless and nothing more than marketing hype from Real.

There is no added value such as RA/RV playback, why even bother developping/maintaining another Media Player?

No problem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 21:27 · Score: 0

You can (and are encouraged) to do this.

Distributing it without allowing the conditions of the GPL is wrong, however.

Re: ... a nice Qt based interface [to xine] by Ricin · 2004-04-27 21:48 · Score: 1

Try kaffeine [kaffeine.sourceforge.net]. Integrates very nicely with KDE, including embedding. Still a bit crash prone though.

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by Curtman · 2004-04-27 22:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

If its opensource which it is, it will be possible to make it use ffmpeg, or even port MPlayer's codec loader. So yeah, in that sense I'd say its a waste of time becuase I would rather just keep using MPlayer I think.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I pay for codecs that I don't even get the source for.

I'm not sure I understood what your point was though. Are you talking about Real/Helix, or this TurboLinux shyte?

woohoo! by Linwood · 2004-04-27 22:15 · Score: 0

now i can decide weither to give $150 to Microsoft and run games, tons of apps, etc, or buy turbolinux for the same amount, and run the same stuff that 6000 other linux distros give out for free.. (well except I can play my WMP files) every /. person will sware MS is pricegouging them to death but when a linux company or any os company (Zeta?) charges damn near the same amount no one says anything.

Wait a minute... by ScottGant · 2004-04-27 22:50 · Score: 1

I've been watching Windows Media streams for a long time now with Linux...using mplayer.

In fact, I watch quicktime, windows media, divx etc etc with mplayer. I've been doing that for a long time now.

So how is this new? How can they say they're the first major Linux distributor to license and ship a media player capable of streaming Windows Media audio and video? My media player now is capable of viewing this.

Or do they mean a server that can stream Windows Media?

Enlighten me please. Or is mplayer not suppose to be doing all of this?

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.

Re:Wait a minute... by Dot.Com.CEO · 2004-04-27 23:23 · Score: 1

The key word is "legally". Mplayer uses codecs that are "borrowed" from a Windows installation and you therefore infringe upon at least Microsoft's EULA's licence. Also, I'm pretty sure DRM does nto work.To the vast majority of people those two factors are irrelevant but I'm pretty sure Desktop Linux distributions would really want to avoid any legal "gray areas" and just play by the rules.

--
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.

Re:We are allowed to listen to our own music! by gujo-odori · 2004-04-27 23:03 · Score: 1

Actually, TurboLinux is about burning through obscene amounts of venture capital in astonishingly short periods of time, and having the biggest display booth at Linux Expo in Tokyo, with the most mini-skirted "companion girls" attending it. I had a pretty good front row seat to that capital burn.

In two years, they moved office not once, but twice, and went from about a dozen employees to nearly a hundred. They actually weren't doing too badly in some areas, but also were by that time being run by VC people who just didn't get Linux or the broader FOSS movement, nor did they have much of a plan for how to deal with Red Hat's move into Japan. As a result, RH ate TL's lunch right there in their core market. I don't know how many people work there now, but I bet it's a lot closer to a dozen than a hundred.

Re:I got a different message from this press relea by Tim+C · 2004-04-27 23:11 · Score: 1

The headline is written by the submittor, in this case spike-288. All timothy did (assuming he's not edited it) was choose the story to post, and add the update.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Wrong. by adamofgreyskull · 2004-04-27 23:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Piracy was first associated with copyright infringement in the 1800s when copyright infringers would take copies from England to America where copyright wasn't established. This was before any international copyright treaties.

Pirates of Penzance - Gilbert & Sullivan 1879

The Pirates of Penzance, or The Slave of Duty, is a Gilbert and Sullivan comic operetta in two acts. Music by Sir Arthur S. Sullivan, libretto by Sir William S. Gilbert. After the copyright problems associated with unauthorised performances of HMS Pinafore in the United States, it was resolved that its first American performance should follow its first British performance as soon as possible. Consequently, it was first performed in Paignton, Devon, on December 30, 1879, then in New York on December 31, 1879. The New York performance was the first full performance. The Paignton performance was perfunctory since its purpose was to establish copyright in the UK. The first full performance in the UK was on April 3, 1880 at the Opera Comique.

So, I overturn your last statement. Though I couldn't comment on the legal definition, I think you're correct.

Re:Wrong. by gujo-odori · 2004-04-27 23:42 · Score: 2

Let me get this straight. Because G & S wrote an operetta called "The Pirates of Penzance" (which was about pirates and not about copyright infringers) and there were coincidentally differences in copyright law between the UK and the US, that therefore that "Pirates of Penzance" is somehow a reference to copyright infringement?

What next? Finding out that it weighs the same as a duck and then declaring it to be a witch?

With all due respect, you have overturned nothing.
Re:Wrong. by azzy · 2004-04-28 00:20 · Score: 1

er.. /funny/ please md this /funny/ and not informative. There is no association of 'piracy' to actually mean the mentioned copyright problems etc.. The only association is fears of copyright problems over the operetta about real pirates.

I take my hat of to the parent for the wonderful post, it is delightfully funny.. but please.. not informative.
Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 04:40 · Score: 0

HEY MODS!

This isn't informative, it's FUNNY!

The only reference to "pirates" is the name of the play -- get it?

Sheesh.

Re: ... a nice Qt based interface [to xine] by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:28 · Score: 0

Nice plagiarism.

Oops by Morosoph · 2004-04-27 23:57 · Score: 1

missing link

--
Wikileaks, no DNS

No one has mentioned the Kanji fonts by lovemayo · 2004-04-27 23:57 · Score: 1

No one that I've seen has mentioned the new kanji fonts. You all complain that it'll cost "$150 for WMP in Linux", but thats not true. You get more than just Windows Media support. I'm really excited about the new fonts. Kanji fonts in linux has really sucked up until now. And japanese IME(input message editor) too. Hope the new Turbolinux has a good sollution for that. Or else I'll stick to Windows 2000, which has a superb IME.

Re:No one has mentioned the Kanji fonts by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 00:39 · Score: 0

theres a really good input method called ami, but its hard to find and build. i also submitted commentary about the kanji fonts being a major selling point of this linux. like minds think outside of the slashdot affect :D

Why isn't PJ ragging on this? by jsimon12 · 2004-04-28 00:10 · Score: 1

Seems TurboLinux is trying to put propritary hooks in Linux to make a buck....... Gimme a break PJ, this is no differnt then what Sun is doing. Corporate life is about making money, so unless you want to live in the CCCP let people sell a little.

Something overlooked is the kanji release by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 00:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

Turbolinux is a smart company; they see a need for X in their environment, they provide X. There are so many hacked up versions of kana/kanji libraries for unices out there its rediculous, and not all of them are equally well supported. Conversely, windows has a fairly idiot proof way to gather and display any of the major asian character sets. With Turbolinux putting commercial viability into the linux character sets for asian doublebyte characters, suddenly it becomes more idiot friendly. No longer must you build or collect 9 different character sets/locales just to run rxvt.cjk. It comes standardized! Your grandmother can finally send an email via Kmail or Sylpheed without worrying how to input text! This is a major victory for linux in the asian environment, along the lines of WOW linux for Korea. Add to this linux versions of well known, well branded products supported in a commercial manner (wmp, wma, flash, powerlink), and irrespective of what the heathens of slashdot may want to moderate, suddenly you have a linux distribution thats no-nonsense appropriate for its locality. It has to grow up eventually, and while some of you may feel that the commercial ties to other dubious companies are sketchy and not exactly well liked, this is definitely a step in the right direction for wide market adoption in Japan.

Probably the funniest thing I've ever seen on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 00:42 · Score: 0

...well done.

Sorry...evidence this time? by adamofgreyskull · 2004-04-28 01:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

;o) Nice story though...right?
Anyway, I mentioned Gilbert and Sullivan because I heard a program about them on Radio 4 one time, and they mentioned that the people guilty of copyright infringement were pirates. Sorry the links and quote failed to mention that, I was in a rush.

Here is a link about the etymology and various definitions of piracy, freebooting etc. from 1250 to 1988. Quote from the 1988 etymological dictionary:

#6 Pirate (Piraat) n. Probably before 1300, in Kyng Alisaunder; earlier as a surname Pyrot (1254); borrowed from Old French Pirate, and directly from Latin pirata sailor (in Medieval Latin piratus sea robber, 1328) from Greek peirates brigand or pirate; literally, one who attacks, from peiran to attack, make a hostile attempt on, try, from peira trial, experience, an attempt, attack; see fear. The transferred meaning of a person who appropriates or reproduces the work or invention of another without right or permission is first recorded in 1701, in Defoe's works.

The term pirate/piracy HAS evolved over time, you are wrong, though I wish I'd taken more time to support my argument with evidence earlier.

So...it was about 200 years before Gilbert & Sullivan that it was first used that way...pretty cool.

I think that this association is as bad as the next guy, but I don't think the RIAA invented it :o)

Re: Pirate Radio by makomk · 2004-04-28 01:28 · Score: 2, Informative

> There were radio stations referred to as pirate radio in the 1960s and 1970s. It was not, however, their playing of music without paying royalties (I don't know if they did or not, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn the didn't) for which it was called pirate radio.

Actually, pirate radio in Britain in the 1960s was actually broadcast from ships in international waters, which seems a likely origin for the name. (And yes, I think they did have the ship owners' permission)

64 dollar question by Dcnjoe60 · 2004-04-28 01:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the street price of Windows XP is $99, and just the codecs for Windows Media Player cost $64, does that mean a stripped down version of Windows XP, without the media player would only be $35? Seems like the license for those codecs are quite expensive compared to the cost of XP itself.

Re:64 dollar question by spike-288 · 2004-04-28 04:20 · Score: 2, Informative

$64 doesn't pay for just the WM codecs. It also covers other licenses such as PowerDVD, Flash, new commercial Asian fonts, etc. All these things cost money so the overall price for WM might be very small.

Sigh by bogie · 2004-04-28 02:13 · Score: 1

Yes I AM serious. I'm well aware of what is involved in setting up Mplayer and where the codecs go. And Yes I was using the plugin the day it came out. Did you think I was new to this whole Linux thing or something?

"With this, I can do all Quicktime trailers, Windows Media streams, you name it. Heck, you get the RealPlayer codecs and you can do that too."

Good for you. So can I. But if you weren't so busy defending this hacked solution you'd realize that A)the whole codec thing is questionably legal and B) it does NOT work 100%. Yea sure most trailers work fine at apple.com, but there is a ton of content out there that does NOT display correctly.

So spare me the lecture on what you can do with Mplayer and realize that like I stated it is NOT a 100% drop in solution.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

Re:Sigh by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-28 05:12 · Score: 1

When using the term 'hack' I tend to think of whoever said it as a 'noob'. A ton of content... Ok, prove it. Send me some URLs that I can check out for myself.

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

Don't get it by hardgeus · 2004-04-28 02:23 · Score: 1

Why not just buy windows? If I'm going to plunk down money on licensing proprietary software, I might as well pay for the stuff I know works. I don't run Windows, but I don't understand the mindset that isn't willing to buy Windows, but IS willing to spend a comparable amount of money on emulation.

wtf? by Sfing_ter · 2004-04-28 02:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have no problems playing windows formats on my linux boxen, between mplayer and zine, I have access to everything. I used to like Turbo, back around 3.6 etc. they had some nice utilities and it always worked. Now they have Sympathy For the Devil. (cue the Rolling Stones) "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste... etc."

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips

Microsoft tax hits linux by wardk · 2004-04-28 02:56 · Score: 1

so $64 for the ability to use windows media content? Seems like TurboLinux is now right in line with intel PC makers in that an enormous amount of the expense of the system just gets syphoned off to redmond.

and in this case, for somewhat dubious reasons, has anyone seem WMV content you could not previously live without?

I can see maybe $5, but $64 is a shakedown.

TurboLinux....good luck with that

Re:Microsoft tax hits linux by polyp2000 · 2004-04-28 06:17 · Score: 1

I've seen WMV content on linux using mplayer. Whats the big deal?

nick ...

--
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp

How much to download DirectX9.0b for linux???? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 03:17 · Score: 0

Seriously.
ANYONE that has the money and drive to do this
can add the SAME functionality to DirectX for
Linux and make a MASS of cash on the downloads... No?

Wait, lemme guess, Microsoft prices the licensing
so that instead of $65 it would be around $600.
Nevermind.....

How much? by joeharrison · 2004-04-28 03:18 · Score: 1

"the complete TurboLinux OS will cost $150 in the United States and 1,534,452,786 yen."

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 03:25 · Score: 0

The parent post is great and it's 100% right to boot. We'll all know that Linux has hit the big time on the desktop when a wide variety of proprietary, non-free applications are available that run on it.

Nope by tepples · 2004-04-28 03:28 · Score: 3, Informative

These two could be done on Windows as well

No. A "modified kernel sound module" wouldn't get logo'd and signed by Microsoft WHQL, and "emulat[ing] the entire system" could be detected, as extant emulators have their telltale signatures, which is why Secure Audio Path doesn't work on VMware.

Re:Nope by Fastolfe · 2004-04-28 07:56 · Score: 1

and "emulat[ing] the entire system" could be detected, as extant emulators have their telltale signatures

This just suggests that the emulation isn't complete. I guarantee that at some point it will be possible to emulate every aspect of a PC today within software, at least as far as the software can tell. Any "telltale signatures" are just artifacts of the emulation that could, in theory, be fixed.

The worst case hurdle is a sound card that has some hardware-based crypto used by the firmware to ensure integrity, and used by the OS drivers to ensure firmware and hardware integrity. You'd have to emulate this (which means reverse-engineering it or somehow hooking that hardware into your emulation system). No system like this is truly unbeatable, at least from a technological perspective.

For attestation by tepples · 2004-04-28 03:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

the codec itself could just look at the file and determine if the player is authorized to use its DRM.

But what if the recording's restrictions-management data contains the instruction "must not be played with cleartext digital outputs such as /dev/dsp redirected to a file"? Only a kernel module can provide such attestation.

Re:For attestation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 04:51 · Score: 0

No, they can't.
Re:For attestation by Ancient+Devices+King · 2004-04-28 21:00 · Score: 1

They don't have that limitation on Windows. Why would they implement it on Linux?

--
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
Re:For attestation by tepples · 2004-04-29 04:03 · Score: 1

They don't have that limitation on Windows.

If you claim that Microsoft has not made it possible for WMA files to specify that they can't be converted to .wav through the sound card driver, then go look up the Secure Audio Path.

Re:How much is the free download? by vondo · 2004-04-28 04:29 · Score: 1

You are partially correct. If you read the GPL and and GPL FAQ, you will see that if you offer binaries for free download, you MUST offer the source for free download too.

incorrect - Re:$64 for WMA codecs is absurd by spike-288 · 2004-04-28 04:35 · Score: 1

$64 covers more than just WMF licenses, it also has to cover the CyberLink PowerDVD licenses, Macromedia Flash licenses, commercial kanji font licenses, ATOK input method licenses, etc.

Microsoft plays by the rules... by petrus4 · 2004-04-28 05:32 · Score: 1

In other news, extra-dimensional camera footage of ice-skating demons has been captured by numerous individuals over the last 24 hours. In light of this development, the IOC has voted unanimously to nominate Hell as the site of the next Winter Olympics. Film at 11.

Cross Over Office already takes care of this issue by bigmoosie · 2004-04-28 05:35 · Score: 1

HELLO !!!! Codeweavers Cross Over Office & Plugin bundles already do the media player plugings. As long as you own your Office 2K/Xp you will have media player. You can also run Windows update to get media player 9 (soon 10) under cross over office

~ryan

Why Bochs doesn't work by tepples · 2004-04-28 06:26 · Score: 1

Do you claim that a kernel can't detect Bochs just as easily as it detects VMware? If the hardware has over x of the known bugs in any Bochs version, it's Bochs. If the BIOS contains the name "Bochs" or other identifying marks of the PC BIOS licensed to the Bochs project, it's Bochs. If the emulated BogoMIPS is less than the minimum system requirements, it's Bochs. If it's Bochs or any other Free emulator or virtualizer, it doesn't qualify for the Secure Audio Path.

Re:Why Bochs doesn't work by pla · 2004-04-28 07:24 · Score: 1

Do you claim that a kernel can't detect Bochs just as easily as it detects VMware?

I don't think anyone would claim that. However, what about Floz? Or Blah? Or SquiVM?

Sure, they can deliberately detect any given virtualizer or emulator. They can even look for some common traits of such programs. But They can't detect them all, certainly not ones as yet nonexistant.

And, speaking of nonexistant at the moment, even if they deliberately detect Bochs, nothing stops Bochs from deliberately concealing itself from the emulated system.

So, as in all wars-of-escalation, if one side has nothing to lose, they all but win by default. For a recent example, the iTunes update... A crack for FairPlay comes out, iTunes releases a fix to address that crack. And next week, we'll see a new crack for the update. If no such new-and-improved crack comes out, "we" lose nothing. If it does, Apple loses their DRM until the next round.

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by vikman · 2004-04-28 07:13 · Score: 1

Like Kevin pointed out earlier, RealPlayer 10 is mostly HelixPlayer with just a few libraries bundled in.

We wanted a player that was completely opensource, didn't have any binary components, which had Ogg and Theora as the primary codecs. That is HelixPlayer. It becomes easier to redistribute it and developers can have a much better experience working with it.

This is the interesting problem we always face. If we hadn't done this and had just one Helix/Real Player that needed binaries to add to the functionality - then folks would have complained about how it is not all opensource.

-V

--
--

Error, sorry by Ricin · 2004-04-28 10:41 · Score: 1

The running linux version was *not* built from source on FreeBSD just plugged into linux compat. oops.

64 dollars? by Siniset · 2004-04-28 14:43 · Score: 1

I just want to know, why does microsoft charge so much for their codecs? I know, it's marked up by turbolinux, but still, but microsoft is probably getting 2/3 (at least) that, which would be about 42 dollars or so. I thought most OEM's paid about that for all of Windows. I guess it's microsoft's technology, to charge whatever they see fit, but i just don't see the economical sense in buying this distribution. This is why i really hope ala carte cable doesn't get passed, all it's going to do is raise the prices on cable. Because when companies break things apart, they invariably charge more for each part than it would cost you for each if you bought it in a package.

MOD PARENT UP (insightful) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-29 03:16 · Score: 0

Pffft!

PowerDVD and WinDVD by ripcrd · 2004-04-29 06:42 · Score: 1

I got both of these with drives I bought. So if they have a Linux version now available, can I trade up? I never actually installed either software. If I can't trade, then will the cost of the DVD playing software be less than the cost of the OS used to play it? It should be cheaper than a copy of XP, OS X or Linux bought off the shelf at BestBuy.

--
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.

Re:Real Player? vs. Helix Player by spacefight · 2004-05-04 03:35 · Score: 1

Unless the RA/RV formats are opensourced and royalty free, people will complain. There are already tons of opensource players out there, so if Real wants to make someting which pleases the crowd, then release all codecs. Yeah I know it won' going to happen but hey, this is /.

Slashdot Mirror

Turbolinux Licenses Windows Media 9

549 comments