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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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!

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

$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 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 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 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 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

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

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 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 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.

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.

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

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 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 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 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 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)

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 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?

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 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

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)

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.

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 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

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 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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

a Windows XP Professional OEM license.

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

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.

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

Dogs and cats - living together. Mass hysteria!!

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

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 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

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.

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

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.

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: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: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: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

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

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: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: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: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: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.

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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Turbolinux Licenses Windows Media 9

119 of 549 comments (clear)