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."
With all the noise the RIAA and MPAA are making about copyright violations (and the subsequent lawsuits) can you blame him? If Linux ever starts making serious dents into Microsoft's market share, how long until they begin employing similar tactics?
If there is no legal (or affordable) way for me to obtain the software/video/etc I would likeI pirate it. I watch a fair share of anime and typically the only way to get certain series or to not have to wait a few years for it to come stateside is to download the fan subs and then watch them with my "illegal codes" on my linux box. I never lost any sleep about it, not sure why anyone else would even blink at it. It certainly does not solve the problem at hand but it is an effective workaround for the time being.
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
So why do people think that Linux players and community shun AAC or H264? here on slashdot posters tend to tout MP3. I think it's the conflation of AAC and fairplay DRM. Or simply that AAC permits DRM at all. But shouldn't people really embrace AAC precisely because it lacks MP3's player royalties?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
They should seem scary. People who are using these things need to know that certain formats are under proprietary control, so that they can know how to choose formats that are not under proprietary control in the future.
The problem has been that people have not been frightened by this stuff so they've allowed the "content providers" to deside the format used... which is not in their best interest.
This is a necessary splash of water in the faces of "go-with-the-flow" lemmings.
So if these plugins don't work on my system...
If I buy the Fluendo codecs but don't download them, and install my distro's version instead, is that still legal?
Is there an IP lawyer in the house?
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
And he said in TFA that he uses Windows so he MUST have read the EULA at one time or another. Unless he decided it was too complicated and just clicked-through. I'm with you, this is either a TROLL or he's incompetent to write such an article since at the very least, he should have also discussed the MS EULA.
0 6/09/a_contract_only.html
There was a really good article on the MS XP EULA called "Windows XP EULA in Plain English" by linuxadvocate.org but that site seems to be gone and I can't find a mirror or PDF of it. Just a small hint of how bad the MS EULA is can be found in this short article which states that Microsoft has in their EULA that they are not liable for breach of contract. Read on, it's just a page or two long:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/20
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I don't feel bad because I've already paid for all of these 'illegal' codecs over and over again. I've bought numerous DVD players, computer DVD drives, video cards which decode mpeg*, a hardware WMV/AVI/DIVX/MPEG* player, an ATSC tv (mpeg again), dvd software packages (windvd, et. al.), computers with Windows (and the licenses for many of their codecs), and more.
For one PC I had to pay premiums on the video card, optical drives, motherboard and 3 pieces of software because of some 'illegal' codec that demands such a premium. Take decoding off video cards and the prices would drop. I'm not afraid because on this Ubuntu laptop I've a copy of Vista, shrunk to a 5 gig partition. Don't I keep some of those rights?
How many times do I have to pay for these same licenses? It's mainly MPEG-2, DVD which is the same, and any proprietary MPEG-4 codec (HDWMV, Divx, et. al.) I don't fear or feel bad about 'stealing' these codecs because I have paid for them a million times. I've played along, my choice of OS shouldn't stop me from continuing to take advantage of these codecs. Besides the video card is doing the lifting and NVidia has already paid that premium because it decodes most of these 'illegal' codecs natively (now a days).
Do I feel bad?
No.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Probably because there's no law that would allow it. The entire concept of patent lawsuits against end-users exists only in the press (and if you were to dig into the origin, it's probably somewhere in Redmond). The patent system is an abomination, but it isn't currently broken in that particular way.
-"So, what did you do?"
-"I used a software that contained a patented technology. The distributor didn't pay royalties to the patent holder, because they are distributing it for $0.
Moreover, it was to watch a DVD : the media industry bought the law known as DMCA so that it would be illegal, among other things, to make a DVD player without buying a license from them, to legally circumvent the protection. As my media player software is developed by people who do it for free, they had no money to pay the license, and they illegally circumvented the protection. So I had to use a software that is twice illegal, only to enjoy a movie I've legally bought a copy of. At an artificially inflated price fixed by an illegal cartel that seems to focus very much on extortion these days. Oh, and, before I forget - the movie has recouped ten times its costs on the first week-end it was published, anyway."
Yeah... dreaming
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
Suppose I run a dual-boot and create a song on the Windows side. Then I boot into Linux and access the mp3 that I just created. I'm legally required to pay someone (for the codec) to listen to my own creation in Linux?
I've never once had Windows find and install a codec for me when I click on the 'find codec on ma intarwebs' button. On the other hand, Ubuntu does it perfectly. All I have to do is click "I'm not in America and/or I'm in ur netwerks stealin ur codex". Also note that often the 'codec packs' you download to install DivX, xvid etc. contain at least some copyright-infringing code anyway. For example, "DivX ;-)" is the MS MPEG4 codec, hacked to read/write files in the AVI file format.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Canonical is registered in the tax haven Isle of Man and employs staff around the world, along with their main offices in London and support office in Montreal. Isle of Mann is not part of the United Kingdom, but external relations, defence, and ultimate good-governance of the Isle of Man are the responsibility of the government of the UK. So no it's not UK based and it has a global reach; So laws around the world impact upon it. That includes but is not limited to UK, Canadian, Usa, Chinesse, Polish, Liechtenstein and Monaco laws.
Every nation has bad laws, welcome to planet Earth. It is interesting that you are so blase; people accuse usian of being ethnocentric jingoistic, however it seems that's a more universal trait;-) Thanks for demonstrating that.
I'm more of a fan of ogg speex and ogg vorbis than mp3 . I think I finaly added a repo that had the mp3 codec after a long time. I might be liable for a civil tort, *shrug* oh well. I won't go with fluendo no matter what.
Happily as far as I know only 3 countries allowed patents on software: US, Japan, and Australia. EU which UK is part of allows patents for "Technical contributions" that might include software. Actually from the two recent Supreme Court rulings, the UK and USA might now be on even par concerning the patentability of software; so wipe that smirk from your face.
As for end-users being liable, in the usa I am fairly certain that they are. It been that way since 1903 at least. As for software being patentable -- from 1981 to 2007 pure software was patentable in the usa. Whether end-user in the uk are liable look at EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION and UK Acts, Rules and Directions and the case law. I have a gut feeling it would be similar to the usa in that regards though.
The laws of the US and the UK on software patents are extremely different I don't know where the hell you figured otherwise because of some lame AT&T case to do with the exporting of patents outside the US doesn't change the laws outside of the US.Irrelevant since a media codec is a purely software invention anything on an operating system is purely software. You can not hold a patent on software alone in the UK.I know you're trying your best to FUD this up, but just stop trolling. Its lame that you have gone to these lengths.
Software patents don't exist in the UK. Software patents don't exist in the EU. I know you want them to for the sake of "winning" an internet argument but they don't. They will never reverse this decision in the UK so whatever bullshit you want to reply to this go ahead but the US doesn't dictate patent law to the world just because of some courtroom case on American soil.Help with what? There is no problem at all. Its all just a lame excuse just so the author of the article can go "see, Linux is still not good enough".
This isn't the first negative Linux article written by the author.