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."
Almost all software (especially proprietary) requires you to click through a EULA that threatens to assult you with lawyers if you don't play nice.
That is only a problem for countries that enforce software patents, that is, IIRC, the USA. If he admits that Linux is better than the alternative, but he feels somehow constrained by the warnings and restrictions, he can either vote with his money (that he does) and buy a software that doesn't "put him off", or vote with his feet and move from the country that imposes such restrictions on him. He can also join the choir and try to change this absurd legislation that allows people to patent algorithms instead of implementations, but I'm trying to keep it real, for once.
From TFA: "...it's a perfect example of what's wrong with Linux and the concept of free software. Free software is great in isolation, but as soon as you have a situation where you're trying to integrate it with modern proprietary file formats, the idea falls apart at the seams."
Maybe the problem is with all the modern proprietary formats? I think this is a pretty crap argument, similar to how a dearth of Linux drivers is somehow Linux's fault.
There might be a better solution out there. By all means we should try to find it. But a click-through warning is pretty damn good, if it enables free to play with non-free.
Skype is too convoluted... Now I'm reverse-engineering the Kyoto Protocol.
He's apparently never read the EULAs for his Microsoft ware. Now that is scary stuff...
Perhaps the author of the article should instead complain about the way all these people make proprietary file formats and wonder how we got into the awful situation where we have to pay everybody and their brother in order to do a simple thing like listen to music on your computer. It seems to me that that's where the problem is. Patents and ridiculous companies who want their cake and eat it too by having their format be 'standard' while they still own all the rights to use it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Summary: "The poster cares about running afoul of the law in these ways, but I don't have such compunctions."
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
I beg to differ. If I am thinking of using linux in an enterprise and I need my people to play with media , it does indeed scare the users to see a disclaimer like this. Unfortunately this is another blow that stops adoption.
Most people don't want to see stuff like this when they load up software , it does scare them.
This package Does Not Contain a Winner
Should be "Do 'Illegal' Codecs Actually Scare Potential Linux Users?", because that's what the article's about. I don't think most actual Linux users (myself included, though I don't live in the US, so it's not even illegal for me) care about the legality of the codecs. They just want to listen to the music and watch the movies they paid for.
What is important is the content - ie not ripping off someone's copyright for the piece of music, film, ... That I don't do. If I can't obtain it legally then I won't play it -- I might not like the copyright on music (being for so many years and all that) but I will respect it.
See what I mean about the different between format & content ?
You can never take....our freeeeeeeeeeeeeedooooooooooooooom!!!!
=p
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
"I am not gaining anything out of it"
Then why are you doing it?
"am not making or denying any profit to any organization"
Except Microsoft. I guess they don't count because they are 'evil'.
"It is wrong and invasive, therefore the issue is moot."
Right, 2 wrongs always make a right.
"How many feds know a thing about Linux anyway?"
This matters because... ?
In the end, it doesn't matter whether you think it's 'right' or 'wrong', it's illegal and you take a risk by using the codecs in this fashion. I happen to think it's stupid as well, but it's still the law.
Has it ever actually stopped anyone from using them? There's probably someone, somewhere that's paranoid of the government and thinks it's a trap, so yeah... Maybe.
Don't try to rationalize that this activity is not illegal just because it's not immoral or unethical in your eyes (or anyone else's). The 2 are completely unrelated.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I find it to be a good thing. It can save money. Gotta think of my shareholders.
I am not a crackpot.
why would they put up such clear and understandable dialog boxes which just end up scaring the user. They should follow Microsoft's lead and put all that in 5-10 pages of legalese and call it an EULA. Then, their users will see that, maybe read one or two lines before hitting the [OK] button.
;-)
Shame on the Ubuntu developers for putting in such a simple and clearly understandable dialog box.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Yeah I can blame him. This is a ludicrous argument.
Is it the fault of Linux that they have to click through a simple warning written in plain English to take care of their legally mandated duty because of the way that certain laws are written, particularly in America?
Have you seen a EULA? Most people don't read it but scroll to the bottom, click accept and then they're done, but they're signing away much more than what you agree to when you click on that codec acceptance. We don't notice a EULA because it's so filled with legalese, no one takes the time to read what you, as a consumer, are giving up.
But this guy is complaining that he has to make an agreement about not using the codec illegally? THAT scares him off from making the switch?
I am simply amazed that a EULA gets a free pass because no one bothers to read it but in Linux, choosing accept on the codecs because you actually can read the damn thing freaks out someone. All that proves to me is that he's an idiot that doesn't read what he's agreeing to unless it's under ten sentences.
The bigger story is you (Linux community) *still* don't get it.
One of the many, many reasons Linux hasn't taken over the desktop is that people are intimidated by the Linux community. You can respond all you like about big companies pushing Linux, how respectable it is, IBM is Linux friendly, etc., and all it demonstrates to me is you still don't get it. The perception is of the uber-geek community speaking in a foreign language with high disdain for users who don't care about the mechanics but just want to get their job done, enjoy the Internet, send e-mail, and maybe play the occasional game.
So take this article and respond how you will. But if your response falls along the lines of "who cares about it being illegal" or "never mind that, the real problem is DRM" or the other stock standard responses from the Slashdot crowd, it only shows that you still don't get it. And perhaps you never really will.
I laughed when I saw this article.
This is just making excuses not to use Linux because they can't think of any real ones.
If your entire collection of mp3s is illegal to begin with, who cares if the software you have to install to play them is illegal too?
Not to detract from the humor of that, I think you more fairly should have received an "insightful" mod...
Other than media I personally encode (basically ripped CDs and DVDs, which I own and have the right to format-shift) and Creative Commons material - Both of which would use an open codec anyway - I don't think I've ever encountered a legally-obtained sound and/or video file. Not even indirectly as a request to help someone else play something.
Seriously.
Sure, plenty of people ask me how to open videos received via email, or compressed music a friend gave them on CD, but those don't actually count as legal. Arguably they both could; Someone could have asked a friend to rip their music collecion, or they could send home videos to a relative. But no one does. Such content unwaveringly comes from (copyrighted) websites, or "sharing" a collection of music that frequently neither person actually owns.
Not to say I consider those uses in any way immoral (illegal, whole different ballpark) - Fair use, IMO, exists so people can mail cheesy video clips to friends. I also don't have a problem with installing free codecs on the "wrong" OS simply because the EULA has the word "Windows" somewhere in it.
But we delude ourselves by thinking that we actually have any legal right to such content; Indeed, we hurt fair use by not standing up and demanding both the right and the ability to share such content.
I said music.
I see it as civil disobedience. (And no, I don't want to have a discussion about how much risk of discovery and punishment there has to be to qualify as civil disobedience, which is not necessarily part of the definition - look it up, including the original source. Thankyou.) Only with a government completely beholden to corporate masters is it possible to have a situation in which you are prevented from playing the media for which you have legally acquired a license.
I don't want to tell anyone else what to do (exactly) :) but I do think that if you believe a law is unjust, then you should do your best not to follow it. There's a lot of ways that can go wrong, of course, but I don't believe that you should do what you are told simply because you are told. I have to have a good reason.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This totally misses the point. Winamp's (for example) EULA may be long and tedious and nobody reads it, but it doesn't say that using it may be illegal. Why? Because winamp (AOL) paid fruanhofer for a patent licence to decode MP3.
Amarok (again, for example), hasn't paid Fraunhofer for a MP3 patent licence, hence you may actually be breaking the law by using a patented technique without a licence.
Of course, I think this is totally ludicrous and algorithms shouldn't be patentable. But for now at least, that is the law in U.S.
And that's why your comments are off the mark.
if the company is sending custom audio/video clips, just use Vorbis and Theora respectively.
I knew about ACC, but I though H.264 was like MP3 with "submarines" all over the place. Much like MP3 originally was part of an open standard group, but clever companies withdrew their patents from the pool after the sharing was agreed so they could get more royalties... and it's happened AGAIN in the case of mp3. Ogg's formats were patented and officially granted to the program writers.. so it's 100% legal. If Apple would put it on iPods we'd be all set for a universal format. The source code is even BSD based for just such a purpose.. there's no legal reason not to include the format.
* Download legally-questionable open-source codec
Legally questionable in the USA, please. In my country it's perfectly legal.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
That's a very dangerous point of view you have there. I have the unshakable belief that my government exists at my whim. If my government makes laws that I don't approve of, I will happily break them. I do it all the time. I also work where I can to change bad laws by communicating with my governmental representatives. That does not in any way make me a "sociopath." (It seems certain you don't know what sociopathy is.) This is, in point of fact, the long-established tradition of American behavior. If government starts acting in ways you don't approve of, and in addition starts to feel quite unrepresentative, our general solution is to stop following those laws.
I'm sure if Slashdot was around 40 years ago, you'd have been saying "coloreds" don't get it. All this "front of the bus" lawbreaking is positively sociopathic.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
?Actually most people shun Anything other than Mp3. Have a nice high end digital jukebox at home? Mp3 is what it supports 100% most car stereos support mp3 100%. portable players? mp3 based outnumber the others 90 to 1 in different brands and types.
What cant have DRM installed on it silently? MP3.
what tries to hijack your music? Media player 9,10,11 add DRM silently and pisses off everyone the first time they try to move their music and are told their music is unauthorized.
Mp3 survives because it was non DRM from the beginning has the absolute widest compatability and got a foothold so stron in the beginning that not even the superior OGG can touch it. WMA and AAC lose because they are late comers and certianly dont have the recognition.
Ask anyone on the street. "whats an mp3" they will answer you. Ask what's an AAC and they look at you like you are wierd.
mp3 - it's what's for dinner and will be the standard long after apple, microsoft and the others try to shoehorn in their "better" codec.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
IANAL and all that, but if you have a legal copy of the codecs (e.g. a Windows license), you can use w32codecs and all the other ones without any legal issues. At least that's how I understood the mplayer codec pack disclaimer a few years ago.
So going back to Windows because of this is just plain dumb (unless it's a pirated version of Windows, which would be even dumber...)
There is a wealth of free Linux distributions & free software out on the Internet and a far greater number of people will to devote time to helping others with Linux issues - however, to interact with that community, you need to demonstrate some self motivation and interest in your own computer, rather than expecting someone else to fix it.
Nobody is forcing you to use Linux. If Windows does the job you need it to do then stick with it - only one of the minority of Linux zealots would tell you to do otherwise.
Only when you've put some serious effort into learning Linux, and the general UNIX mindset, can you appreciate what it can do for your productivity in terms of security, stability & automation. Until then, don't even try to understand it...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
You're talking about millions of dollars in licensing fees; donations will never cover it.