Slashdot Mirror
Do "Illegal" Codecs Actually Scare Linux Users?
jammag writes "In this article, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes points out why he keeps giving money to Microsoft and Apple despite the clear advantages of Linux: the scary legalese dialogs you have to click through to install codecs for common multimedia formats. Quoting: 'Despite strong points that go far beyond price, Linux falls short when it comes to legally supporting file formats such as MP3, WMA/WMV and DVDs.' He talks about using Ubuntu and booting up Totem Movie Player, only to be confronted with a burst of legalese about what a hardened criminal he'll be if he uses Totem without a license. This problem is 'a deal breaker' for him."
If there is no legal (or affordable) way for me to obtain the software/video/etc I would likeI pirate it.
Hmm... kinda like this:
If there is no legal (or affordable) way for me to obtain [a PS3] I would likely [steal] it.
Its called rationalization and its not a good thing.
Plain and simple, the author of this article is a pussy.
No one 'normal' takes that stuff with more than a grain of salt if they even consider it at all.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Since when are ad hominem arguments "Insightful"?
Inviduals may or may not be concerned with possible legalities, but companies are and the potential for a lawsuit is enough to be a deal killer. That is what drives the BSA tactics, no?