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.
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?
No.
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.
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.
the scary legalese dialogs you have to click through [CC] to install codecs for common multimedia formats.
apt-get install w32codecs
Wow that was super scary. I'm so glad it's over...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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?
The road to hell is paved with Cat 5 cable.
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...
Mot everything on my computer is illegal anyway. :P
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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
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.
Yes, they are included with Windows as part of the software you purchased. Copying them from your Windows machine is pirating the software. If you want to legally use those codecs, you must pay for Windows (or a Mac).
Wow, has this ever been the Week of the Trolls. Mr Adrian Hyphenate, why don't you also study the typical Microsoft or Apple EULA. You'll find they are much scarier. Assuming you're even interested in a fact or two.
we will end no whine before its time
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 ?
Fluendo currently sells MPEG2, MPEG4, Dolby AC3 and Windows Media codecs legally. They also give you the MP3 codec free of charge.
If you want peace of mind and avoid being a criminal in countries with silly laws, then these may be something for you.
You can never take....our freeeeeeeeeeeeeedooooooooooooooom!!!!
=p
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
is an MP3 proprietary? Isn't it an ansi standard? Can't anyone take that standard and write a codec for it?
I actually got an MPEG LA license to manufacture divx players/encoders. The license charge is $0 for the first 100,000 units. I then compile the codecs and players (with some local modifications), and give them away to myself . Every year I need to send in a report of how many I've sold.
This doesn't take care of mp3, but my understanding is that Thomson doesn't mind people using free mp3 decoders (they said something about that years ago) as long as they don't sell them (that's GPL incompatible, I know).
"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
It's just ones and zeroes, MAN! *continues downloading everything*
This guy is really one of a kind. I mean, most people I know who use windows don't give a damn about the legal status of the software they're using! I mean, talk about free software to the average windows user and they will tell you that all their software came free of charge anyway.
Even on a job (for a company which doesn't exist anymore anyway) when I was setting up a computer I was given a set of CD-Rs and the hint to google for office activation codes...
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
Unfortunately, I don't believe the law will side with you. And when your case winds up in court (if you can afford to take it that far without being forced to settle with the MAFIAA), it won't be like in those movies where you can "put the system on trial". The IP holders have a lot of money to throw into the ring to protect their investments, and they'll brand you as some kind of loony pirate. Your message will not get through.
Taking a mature stance for the cause of free file formats and software is less egotistically satisfying than just saying "fuck 'em". It's full of hard work and tough battles, but I think it's the only way to make lasting gains for digital freedom.
Skype is too convoluted... Now I'm reverse-engineering the Kyoto Protocol.
Remember, you only have to wait 4 more years for the MP3 patent to become public:
The various patents claimed to cover MP3 by different patent-holders have many different expiration dates, ranging from 2007 to 2017 in the U.S. [9]. However, U.S. patents can only last up to 20 years, and MP3 was released as a specification in 1991, so if U.S. courts applied U.S. law, no patent could apply beyond 2011 to MP3 itself.[10] In the U.S., any patent claiming to cover the fundamentals of MP3 after 2012 should (by law) be struck down as an invalid patent, due to the existence of published prior art (the MP3 specification) more than a year before the patent's filing. If it had been published earlier (such as in public drafts), the latest date would be even earlier. However, it is unclear if U.S. courts would enforce this. The situation in other countries that permit software patents is similar.
--From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
There's nothing stopping you from licensing the codecs.
I really don't get this. If I tell Ubuntu during the install process that I reside in a country where such codecs are not illegal, why does it need to bother me with legalese that does not apply to me? (I know, US based.) I would not mind if they made an "international" edition, although I guess it would only confuse some people.
Apparently, it's better to have your hands tied behind your back, having consented and become bound to legal agreements you've never read, than be presented with them up front.
I was referring more to home users. I agree that a few people will be scared off upon reading a disclaimer like that, but in my experience most users don't bother to read disclaimers, and for the ones that do this codec disclaimer will be in the same boat as mattress tags.
PowerDVD for Linux
nope do not care.
Why is it "illegal". Either it's legal or it's not.
If it's morally questionable then say that. If it's yet to be tested in the courts then say that.
But if it's illegal but you don't think it should be then don't muddy the issue by putting the world in speech marks and calling it "illegal" because that does nothing to move the discussion forward.
Say it's illegal but an example of a bad law (and one that's perhaps yet to be tested) and move on.
Yes, it would be nice if the DCMA, draconian licensing agreements and EULAs that leave you scratching your head didn't exist but they do.
Yes, For most people, clicking through one of these dialog boxes presents no major moral dilemmas. But for some, perhaps individuals and businesses who want or need to be whiter than white, they do, and that's where TFA has a point.
Long term, the ideal solution is to use 100 percent open formats all of the time. But, right now, that's a pipe dream because formats such as MP3 aren't going to disappear any time soon, so the most practical legal solution is to lobby for the right to use these formats, both with the parties that hold the relevant rights and legislators.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I not sure how to expand on the title....
ppl are used to EULA's everywhere. Almost all of them are long and tedious. How many ppl read them? Few if any. Why? because they are long and tedious. All of Linux's stuff is short and too the point. MANY ppl will read these. They do sound scary. Perhaps, what is needed is to make long convoluted EULA, or a very short one that says, we are not responsible.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How can a EULA be scary? I never read them.
Basically, all EULAs are are non-binary DRM - a text file that tries to tell you what you can and can't do with the software.
I ignore them. It's in my possession, I'll do whatever I want with it, thank you very much.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
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.
But it does keep liability-conscious companies from adopting Linux.
If you're going to make inroads into the proprietary-license software world, you've got to do it legally. Granted, we might not like software patents and draconian copyright terms, etc... but for now it is the law, at least in the US. To make Linux compelling, it has to give back to the community, rather than just piggybacking on the hard work of others. Implementing a copy of a popular product isn't innovation; producing a better code (Ogg?!) is.
Why would we want to emulate the proprietary software model? Instead, let's do something original and better. I'm much more open to using Ogg than MP3, because I know the former was produced in the spirit of free software, and the latter wasn't. If open standards really are better than closed ones, why do we bother using closed, proprietary codecs? The only conclusion the outsider is apt to draw is that closed code is somehow better.
And who knows? Maybe it is. After all, it made it into a Linux distribution...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
You know, you're right. I have those codecs on my Ubuntu box. I should take them off. Mp3s be damned. I'll just have to do without them.
Actually, there is a third option, the one that is actually most often used here, the one that the MPAA doesn't want anyone to acknowledge exists. Yes, it can have some dire consequences, but it doesn't change the fact that it's worked numerous times throughout history.
Here's the way I look at it. I've paid good money for a DVD and for the player that can play it, and some nice person has written software that they're giving away for free that will allow me to watch the movie that I've paid for. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to obey some stupid law that says that I can't watch the movie I paid for because I might make copies and share them with my friends (which, incidentally, I do not). If they want to come and get me for that, then so be it; let them come.
Then perhaps you should legally license the codecs. There are several Linux distros that contain legally licensed codecs, specifically Linspire and Xandros come to mind. Are they free? No, of course not, because those codec licenses aren't free.
http://www.mhall119.com
Because you didn't pay Fraunhoffer for the license to use their patented IP for decoding MP3 files. That's why it's illegal.
I read the internet for the articles.
As far as I know, using a codec for personal use to decode media is not easily (and certainly not routinely) punished, though I may be mistaken. Obviously commercial software has been pulled off the shelves for illegally using codecs, like the DVD backup software a few years back, but I don't recall ever hearing about end users of it being sued, let alone convicted. Decoding MP3s with LAME or installing the Win32 codecs on a Debian system is probably not going to land you in the slammer, and I've never been afraid to click Yes.
On the other hand, reading through a EULA for perfectly legitimate software and codecs (as some people have already pointed out in earlier comments) is downright scary. You know you're not breaking any law in using the software on the othr end of an MS EULA, but I'm much more hesitant to click Yes on those than on a simple legal warning suggesting that my country's patent and copyright laws might be a bit too severe.
This is ironic because I consider the lack of click-through licenses to be one of the benefits of Linux. I forsee a day when people must sign a EULA to buy something at CompUSA and I'm fighting it as much as I can. You can't install anything on Windows without a 20-page EULA that denies people of things they take for granted. I my frustration I bought a Mac, only to find that they are just as bad.
Personally its just really annoying. With MSFT or Apple products you just click through it in the install without ever reading it. I remember having to go online and looking up how to install MP3 support the first time I used Fedora Core 3. I got it working but it took a lot of time. Let's face it, the typical non-standard install is easier or requires less know-how than on Linux still.
Some people can't handle taking that much time or needing to know that much about Linux.
lol: You see no door there!
And that's something I've never quite understood myself. If I purchase a DVD-ROM for my computer, and I run Linux, why don't I have the right to play DVDs that I purchased? Seriously, someone explain the logic to me (I understand the corporate greed thing), but could I not simply call the maker of the DVD-ROM, inform them that I run Linux and ask that they provide me with functional software? Can't there be some kind of recourse if they fail to do so, because the device (while functional), can't be legally used in the manner I paid for? Doesn't the software they sell with the DVD-ROM come with the codecs? Shouldn't I be able to use those codecs that I paid for? Just askin
I got nuthin
I don't listen to anyone who talks about "integrat[ing] [Linux] into my existing ecosystem of PCs."
Ecosystem of computers? Jackass.
My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
"Copying them from your Windows machine is pirating the software." If he removes them from his Winbox to his linbox he's not pirating ... I'm sure a lot of us have legit copies of older versions of windows that we don't use any more, but that we can use the codecs, fonts, etc.
Kevin Smith on Prince
You know, reading your article about Ubuntu and Linux in general, I couldn't help wondering if you expected everything in Linux to be free. MP3 players are bundled with most distros, so music playing isn't an issue. So the only problem I have had, and the one you note is DVD playing. There are US legal DVD players available. They simply aren't free. I find it quite odd that since you can't legally get a free DVD player in Linux, you are consoling people to buy a non-free OS to play DVDs. Occam's razor would suggest that if you like Linux, pony up the small fee to buy the software you need that isn't free. I'm not going to do your research for you here, after all you are getting paid to do that and I wouldn't want to give you something free.
Most of these restrictions apply in the tiny patch called U.S.A. on the tiny planet Earth revolving around a dwarf star in a minuscule part of a very common galaxy, billions of them are known to exist. Conclusion: the topic is irrelevant for the rest of the Universe, free of the software patent non-sense.
You've been able to PAY for these codes via Linspire's click-n-run for over a year now.
And since linspire is Ubuntu based now - its pretty darn easy to install on ubuntu that way, too.
The linspire-ubuntu proprietary codecs stuff is actually old news.
The author of TFA just doesn't know how to Google. Perhaps he's afraid he might not be searching legally?
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
...Is it time yet?
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
I have maybe a dozen friends who have told me that they would use some linux distro regularly (after seeing what I'm using) specifically because my system plays/rips almost anything, except that they don't want to deal with having to go find and set up (flash, win32 codecs, decss...) It's not the illegality, it's the perceived hassle. They *want* free codecs -- which is to say the illegality is, in a way, an advantage -- but they'll pay to have it all done for them. When I talk about making a distro that already has all the codecs installed, they say "I'd use that in a heartbeat."
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
There is a big difference between listening or viewing media you have purchased legally, and burning thousands of copies of media and handing it out to all your friends or selling them on the street corner. Of course I would not do any such thing anyway as this is the reason the artists do what they do and I don't mind supporting them. Piss on the RIAA!
Not too proud to be an American these days
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Because I live in Norway. Software patents are not enforced here.
The owners of the mp3 codec only want a cut of profits from people who want to sell mp3 encoders/decoders. From their FAQ at http://www.webcitation.org/5MeUrGbFN
"...no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00..."
You are always free to donate funds to a variety of development projects for media players, operating systems, tools, utilities, etc... to facilitate widely available OpenSource software free of the threats of legal doom.
Clearly this author has a 2-dimensional decision pattern. If you are offered the choice between an apple and an orange you actually have 4 choices: apples, oranges, both, neither. That is what the "Free" in Free Software is all about.
Sure it's your choice to pay Jobs or Gates, but don't forget you can also contribute to OpenSource projects.
Hope is the currency of fools
Since you're already making a big change switching the OS, you might as well change to free formats such as ogg.
That solves the problem.
Or look at it this way:
This almost seems like the purchasing of indulgences in the old Catholic church.
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 bet not 1% of all users read the 'legalese', regardless of what OS they run.
And 1% of that group would actually understand it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The RIAA gets past my robot sentry's with quad lasers! But I am more afraid of the DEA finding out about my moonajuana... but thats a different story.
The only reason codecs are declared illegal is to protect already powerful monopolies.
This goes against any civilised concepts of fairness such as consumer rights, free speech, or a free market economy.
I already own media such as DVD's that I paid for fair and square.
Why should it even be legal, let alone considered acceptable, for some company to implement completely artificial restrictions who's only purose is to stop me using my own media on my own player?
What happened to my rights? They got purposely destroyed by a megacorp who only gets away with it because they have enough money to buy politicians.
I think we as good citizens have an obligation to fight this both by mass refusal to buy media that will only play on certain platforms, and to refuse to buy OS's such as Microsoft that comply/implement the undermining of consumer rights.
I think I remember hearing about a distribution that was going to start including these codecs as part of the default install when you purchased the OS. It may have been SuSE, but I can't remember.
Illegal codecs dont scare linux users. When you lock out a group of people from society in such a way, they will do what they have to, to enjoy the same things the other people do.
:) One day soon that may change. Lets hope linux doesnt ever dare give up the hacker mentality... which is simply defined as "personal freedom"
Its about freedom. There is a vast amount of knowledge and expertise within the linux community and it attracts people who enjoy the idea of their "PERSONAL COMPUTER" being just that... their own personal computer for which they can do as they dam please.
Microsoft used to be this way in the face of IBM. Now MS is the IBM, and IBM is sideing with linux...
NEVER shall we forget the rogue, rebelious nature for which the personal computer and pc compatible spawned from. It is our job to educate and continue the exploration of freedom and creativity that first created and drove the entire pc movement (apple included).
Linux is the bleeding edge of it really. It is the spirit that is behind all of us 30, 40, even 50 year olds... who were the hackers in our rooms trying to code pacman clones on our vic20s. It is the spirit of us geeky kids like myself who in the 90's banneded together and ran bbs's with multiple telephone lines from our bedrooms, trading ansi art and warez...
If we lose that sense of rebellious freedom... We're all in trouble... Remember Xerox created a lot of what we know as the modern desktop and they said it wasnt profitable...
It wasnt profit that kept the developement of the PC (apple included) alive... it was the dam desire to see through the potential that computers could acheive. Profit came along with it... and now its big buisness and big buisness HATES creativity and freedom... and it will try to control, and squash the freedoms that are out there.
They dont want you to learn to program.. unless you're coding for them. It's that simple. Linux is a continuation of the desire for personal express, control and use of your own "personal" computer. For which you can create code, play games, watch movies and do whatever your mind or other like minds are capable of.
Windows and and the Mac are toasters.... But luckily we still have the ability to instlal illegal codecs in them
I remember having this discussion in my Ethics and Technology class about having to use the libcss and libdvd libraries to watch legally bought DVDs in Xine. My stance was that it was perfectly fine, and my professor agreed. It falls under my fair use rights, in that I can watch the DVDs that I bought on my Linux machine or any machine. MP3s fall into this category for me too. I bought the CD, I legally converted the songs to MP3s, and I can legally play them on my Linux machine using lameMP3 codec. The information is important not the mode of transport. So if I need to use an "illegal" codec to get my information then so be it, to me its no difference then having a document I wrote and having to use an "illegal" .doc converter to make it something else.
Selex
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.
I think Ubuntu would be much better off by giving its users a menu of options when it pops up a "This may be illegal!" warning. For example, for playing an MP3, there are 3 options:
* Download free legal MP3 codec from http://shop.fluendo.com/
* Download legally-questionable open-source codec
* Quit
This kind of thing would be a lot less scary to users, and would give them somewhere to go after they've been warned. They could even integrate the Fluendo shop into their repositories somehow to make it as easy as possible.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
Care to explain people's general indifference to click-through EULAs then, and the generally nasty stuff in them?
I actually got an MPEG LA license to manufacture divx players/encoders. The license charge is $0 for the first 100,000 units. I then compile the codecs and players (with some local modifications), and give them away to myself . Every year I need to send in a report of how many I've sold.
Why not help out the first 99,999 Slashdotters to fill our your web form then? Post instructions when it's full for the next person to carry the torch.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I used to ponder that question a while ago. My solution is oddly simple: Transcoding the content to formats that are free. My MP3 collection ceased to exist, it became an ogg collection. Since format shifting is (still) legal here, it was perfectly legal to take the MP3 file using a Windows machine and transcode it into OGG. It was a bit of work, but it's doable.
What keeps most people on the leading-string of the industry is not knowing about the free alternatives. Mostly I'm guilty myself, too. Lacking a need, I do not know which video format would be legally "free". What format could you use without running into some legal hassles?
And the list goes on, what format to use for pictures, which for databases, what about text documents? There are a lot of very different forms of content, all of which can be stored in a lot of formats.
What we should probably start to assemble is a list of "known good" and "known bad" formats. Or has anyone done that already, and could point me to it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If there is no legal (or affordable) way for me to obtain the software/video/etc I would likeI pirate it. I
Is it not possible for somebody to compile binaries and charge for the relevant licenses? What would it cost to package up libfoo's for all the common codecs?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I said music.
There is a idea in Ideastorm, and I wonder HOW is it that it has so few promotions.
http://www.ideastorm.com/article/show/67635/MultiM edia_availability_on_Dell_linux_systems
Go and promote it!
... even in the simple add/remove programs option under the application pull-down. Just select all packages (not just "supported Ubuntu") and search for Codecs and you'll have the option of quickly installing codecs that let all the major file formats work with media players.
Beleive me, it can get A LOT more complicated trying to get some codecs installed in Windows.
if the company is sending custom audio/video clips, just use Vorbis and Theora respectively.
Here's the problem:
The codecs used in many Linux media players are literally just ripped off Windows codecs, with some wrappers to get the DLLs to work. Take a look through them with strings - you'll find all kinds of interesting stuff in there.
This isn't a patent problem. It's nothing to do with licensing. It's because people are redistributing non-free, copyrighted software in an effort to get support for decoding their media files. A laudable goal, but somewhat illegal.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
So... does this speak against Linux, or against bullshit licenses?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's my faul, actually. Some years ago when I first used Ubuntu, I submitted a bug report about the lousy error message that you get when you double-click on an MP3 -- it was some technical mumbo-jumbo. The bug got kicked around a bit and the resolution was what you see now.
IIRC, anyone is allowed to take the standard, write a codec for it, and play mp3s as much as they like, legally, for either a royalty fee per copy or US $50 000. The license fees are here. (When it says US $2.50 - $5.00 per unit I presume it's per copy of the codec, not per song).
I believe the technical term is "RAND" (Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) licensing: Thomson S.A and the Fraunhofer Institute are playing nice, they don't refuse anyone who wants to license their invention (they have that monopoly right because it's a patent), and they don't change their mind about the license price when they don't like you (they have that monopoly right because it's a patent).
There's only one catch, that RAND doesn't resonate with F/LOSS software at all.
This is why it matters that standards are not only open but that also RAND is out of the question if you want to allow FLOSS to use your patented standard; Suppose you ask a license fee of only $5.00 per copy of the software distributed, who's going to pay it? Licenses such as the FSF's GPL state that (paragraph 10 GPL3)
But, you want everyone who copies your program to pay you the $5.00 so you can pay Thomson back their rightful royalties! Do you see the problem? Suddenly you need an administration organisation to count who has downloaded the FLOSS program. And you are not allowed to sanction them if they don't comply because the license forbids you that. And you'd need to monitor everyone who downloaded it to see whether they copy the program further (which is their right by the GPL anyway) otherwise YOU piss off Thomson. etc. etc. It's a nightmare.
This is why there are no legal GPL'ed mp3 players. Incidentally, I think this is also why some British linux and mac users complain that the BBC wants to use a proprietary video standard which they can't be allowed to play.
Think about using Ogg/Vorbis and Ogg/Theora, will you?
Now let's see if we can also tie in the raging ODF - OOXML battle and then this fanboi will shut up :-)
AFAIK, this is why there is such a difference between "real open" data interchange standards such as ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) which is free to use because Sun have made an irrevocable patent pledge that they won't sue anyone ever for implementing ODF, and on the other hand OOXML (ISO *DRAFT* international standard 29500) where Microsoft states that they'll grant a R.a.n.D license for Office XML Schema. So it's all good, you see!
Can you still see under which walnut shell the pea is?
If I'm not horribly mistaken:
Office XML (R.a.n.D licensed)
=
Office 2003 XML
!=
Office 2007 XML
which is
Office Open XML (= nothing to do with OpenOffice.org which uses Open Document Format)
No worries!
I actually think they've amended their ways because on this page it states in quite reasonable terms that Office Open XML 1.0 (ECMA-376) is now a Covered Specification. Still I wouldn't trust it as far as I can throw a printed 6000 page document because on that same page it says:
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
I installed Ubuntu 7.04 the other day and saw no such warning when starting Totem. I do however have to download all the codecs myself, which means it's pretty useless out the box unless you have everything in WAV or OGG. I mean it could have at least supported FLAC!
Apparently Linux Mint is supposed to be have codecs pre-installed, and I've heard it called Ubuntu with "batteries included" but I've yet to try it.
I thought mattress tags were directed at the retailer, not the consumer. Anyway...
I could actually see a more broader effect (like you said if people do bother to read the disclaimer) - people equating Linux with being illegal. Generally, Linux is something you download off the internet instead of buying in stores...kinda shady.
I do think the enterprise is kind of an interesting scenario. You convince management to get this free software for all the desktops, then they see this message. Is Linux free because it is illegal? Is it free because it is stripped down? Is it free to suck you into buying all these add-ons?
You pay to be alive in this world. You pay for your housing. You pay for electricity. You pay for amorphous, ambiguous licenses like insurance and taxes, without seeing any real benefit unless disaster strikes. You pay for internet access. As a result, the consumer is skittish about anything free, presupposing that somewhere along the line, something was stolen (some would argue that since F/OSS is often clone software of major packages, IP was stolen, but as of yet that's not a legal distinction). What the consumer needs is an article on pcworld.com re-assuring them that no theft has happened in the reverse engineering and creation of codecs.
technical writing / development
I agree that this is a real problem, and that the author of the article deserves none of the ridicule that he is getting.
I run a small visual effects studio, with most of the machines running Linux, and we are constantly having this issue with proprietary codecs. Just yesterday, we were trying to re-encode some movies using a Sorenson codec, and it's just not possible under Linux. Even if it was possible, it certainly wouldn't be possible legally, as (from what I can understand) Apple and Sorenson are in a race condition -- neither one will allow the other to release the codec legally. After all, my company is in the movie business, the only thing that makes the movie business a "business" and not a "hobby" is copyright -- it is absolutely hypocritcal of me to violate this very thing that puts bread on my family's table. A recognize that I am a hypocrite -- it bothers me quite a bit.
At this point, it's a combination of annoyance and bad-tummy feeling. When I download a bag of codecs, I know I'm doing something illegal, but I also recognize that the chance of getting caught is vanishingly small. The only viable alternative at this point is to get a Mac mini to sit on my desk for doing Quicktime.
But the interesting question is what happens in the future. It's only a matter of time before codecs start to phone home to verify license compliance. Microsoft and other companies in the license business (they're not really in the software business) will find a way to pollute the world with extremely tight DRM. At some point this uneasy detente we have will fail.
I do believe that the only way to for the forces of good to prevail in the future is to be as pure as possible now, to develop, sponsor, and use as free as possible systems going forward.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I cant sleep at night knowing they are out there.... waiting to get me and force me to watch pirate movies from Canadian camcorders.
the horror, the horror
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!
* 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
So, if I purchase media encoded in a proprietary format, I need to pay again in order to view the programming on that media legally? Don't know about anyone else, but I would figure that the US$15 I paid for the DVD or CD should pretty much cover any licensing fees for the decoding software as well. If this isn't the case, maybe it should be.
DMCA says that decoding the program material on my own (using deCSS) is a crime, but then what exactly did I buy, when I bought the DVD? I thought I was buying the right to watch the program material...not the right to watch it on a particular platform.
Many codecs are free for decoding (so the media can be disseminated to the consumer), while the encoders are quite costly. This was the case for quite a while with MP3...Fraunhoffer was quite happy to see "their" format spread, and only raised a fuss after adoption reached a critical level (much like the Univac GIF patent). While I do feel that companies should be financially rewarded for their efforts, proprietary codecs seem unfair. Especially when (as with MP3), the algorithm itself is a published standard, and commonly used for information exchange.
In any case, given that the "Windows tax" has been estimated at $50, it seems hard to understand how a lifetime license for all codecs included in the typical Windows bundle could be priced higher than about $10, and most of us have paid for the right to use those codecs several times by now.
Absolutely not. Playing an MP3 that *I* ripped from a CD *I* bought or playing a DVD I paid for are as illegal as brushing my teeth. Sure, I could re-rip everything to OGG or whatever but I don;t care to and my MP3 player can't play them.
This is as stupid as limiting encryption for countries outside of the U.S. As if no one outside of the U.S. could come up with 128-bit encryption on their own.
I'm tired of corporation and companies somehow able to wiggle their way in to drag everything down and slow down progress for greed. Other countries are able to have tons of features on their cell phones, blazing fast Internet connections, and much more because it isn't being stifled by fucking companies.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to scare potential Linux users...
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.
From Fluendo:
Sure, VLC doesn't have any problem at all with proprietary software...
It is only in selected places such is the US where the stupidities of such laws get debated. So why not change the title from "Do "Illegal" Codecs Actually Scare Linux Users?" to "Do "Illegal" Codecs Actually Scare US Linux Users?"
I don't believe you when you say this is hindering your decision on switching to Linux as its the lamest excuse I have heard yet.
[Ferengi] You Clothe your women!11?!1 Shame! [/Ferengi]
You also said "in a subdirectory right on the CD!" Which really does lead one to ask, what CDs are you buying, and where? None - not one - of my many hundreds of CDs have such a folder.
Feh. You've been modded insightful? Christ, how do I get in the puff-puff-pass line around here?
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
You can't patent a mathmatical/logical algorithm. It's part of the paperwork in what is/is not patentable. A patent is supposed to be on an implimentation of a solution, not the concept of how to solve the problem. Thus, you can patent your design of an electric motor, but you can't patent the concept of an electric motor. The only reason software patents are allowed now is because the USPTO & The Fed court that governs patents don't read anything.
How many patents are there on razor blades? I count 8 on the razor I used this morning. How many are there on the MP3 Algorithm? ISTR there is only 1. Why? because the concept was patented not the implimentation.
The problem with software patents is that in order to provide more protection than copyright, they have to patent concepts not implimentations. As soon as they do that, they become broad enough to kill off whole swaths of programming that they don't even touch in the implimentation.
Sorry, that doesn't count. That other software/codecs have EULAs which forbid their use with other operating systems or software, only as packaged.
It's just like how buying a computer with Windoze preloaded on it (with no install disc, and lots of junkware added on) doesn't make it legal for you to download a "clean" copy of Windoze from BitTorrent.
Don't let the lack of legality stop you, though. It's not like they're busting down doors to private homes looking for EULA violations. It's illegal to have oral sex in many states too, but you don't see that stopping anyone.
"Right, 2 wrongs always make a right."
But, 3 RIGHTS make a LEFT...
(sorry...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
That the thing though. It's illegal, but everybody does it. That means you have to live under the cloud of "they could press charges anytime they want". That's why the linux distros come with those scary looking messages when you try to install an MP3 player. It's retarded, but there is a liability there. The music industry has proven that if you're a big enough dick, you can go around and sue everybody too.
I read the internet for the articles.
One of the hallmarks of a sociopath is implying that other people are by putting words in their mouth then telling people that anybody who feels that way is displaying one of the hallmarks of being a sociopath.
Oh, wait, I have no idea what I'm talking about and am just spewing vitriol in a pathetic attempt to make myself sound big and tough and make it seem like I have a real argument! Oops.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Very interesting... regrets for posting obsolete info.
Mod down - useless comment
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
And you say that the Linux comminity doesn't get it?
We have a problem. And this time it is not ourselves.
Rethinking email
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...)
Ahh, yes. Interesting tactic. That means Open Source developers are generally exempt, but that distributions like Red Hat are not. I still don't like it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
On every CD I have, on of the oldest I could find in a hurry:
d ag0.png
c dag0.png does but it is full of ads, beware).
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2087/vorbisonc
I guess your computer isn't fully functional
(if that url don't work maybe http://img409.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vorbison
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 agree with this, but I'll take a more moderate tone on this issue. If you want to legally play, i.e. decode mp3s, you have to either pay the royalty fee or use a software program that already has. Thinking of it that way, TFA is put out that FOSS programs haven't payed the fee on their behalf so that the Linux end user can legally listen to mp3s. And it's the same thing with playing dvds and some of the other dirty formats. You can actually pay for the decoders, and pay for LinDVD and then legally watch and listen to all those formats. Or on Windows you can use free as in beer software that has payed the royalties. Either way, somewhere along the way someone has to pay the royalties for you to legally play those formats.
If anyone should be blamed for this middleman grift, it should be the big companies that standardized proprietary formats instead of adopting free open source ones. Certainly with a cd collection, I can choose my format of choice for compression on the pc, but the record labels chose mp3 for online selling, and the mpaa chose to encrypt their dvds. We didn't have a choice in it, FSF didn't have a choice in it, and blaming Linux for lack of convenience is foolish, and smacks of demanding a free lunch. Steal it or pay for it, but don't whine about it.
Those aren't encoded tracks on the CD. They're konqueror offering to automatically rip and encode the tracks for you.
You know what I don't get? How you can have this great discussion going on, Both sides bringing up valid and intelligent arguments. And then ruin the whole post by throwing in some juvenile cheap shot. You all do it, and it lessens the value of every point you made in your post. Why cant you just make you point and leave it at that. It's not just the Americans or just the Europeans doing it. It's all of you. Please, grow up!
Is your country taking refugees from the more oppressive patent and copyright regimes?
Unfortunately, thats the only way to do it, becuase how the codecs work is 'trade secret'. If there was some documentation somewhere that would allow a Free implmenetation, trust me, someone would have done it by now. Also, even if there was, then there probably would be a patent problem as well.
Basically, there are two choices:
1. Support proprietary, undocumented codecs by allowing end-users to (possibly illegally) copying the Windows DLL's
(Users will complain about the legalage, even tho, strangely, they dont have a problem with the scary click-through EULA's that most proprietary software has)
2. Dont support proprietary undocumented codecs at all. (Users will gripe that they can't play files in those formats)
The owners of these proprietary codecs will neither support nor even allow a Free implementation of them, specifically because they want to use them to further their own proprietary control of software and software platforms, and that control doesn't benefit by any furtherance of Free software.
The real solution is for publishers of media to stop using proprietary undocumented codecs, then there will be less demand for software that plays them.
If and when proprietary software is no longer monopolizes the mainstream, then perhaps open, documented data formats will be the norm, and this whole problem will go away.
There is nothing "simple" about listening to music on a computer: Video Game Music [History] The Sound Blaster card doesn't appear until 1989. Winamp in 1997.
In 2007 it's assummed that a PC can:
record and play MIDI music {with sophisticated wave-table synthesis)
record and play digital audio
play (and often record) data-compressed digital audio in any of a half-dozen or more formats, including multichannel theater sound.
Something I'm unsure on here. It IS illegal to create the codecs and distribute them with out paying the licensing fees. But where does it say that it's illegal for us to use them? As far as I'm concerned I don't know weather the author paid royalties or not. How do I know if Microsoft paid or not. (I know it's obvious but still) I don't have to pay it myself so why is it illegal for me to use them?
I've never quite understood the motivations of developers to put these warnings in. If they're in a country where it's "legal", then what are they worried about? What is going to come back onto them if someone in a fascist state like the USA uses it, and it's illegal there? And on the other hand, if they UnitedStatesians, and they know they're writing "illegal code" and distributing it and therefore breaking the law, why on earth do you put the warning then? I think what it is is they've managed to get us all paranoid about this stuff, and by putting up notices like that we're playing their game. It's nonsense and it's madness--ignoring it is the correct thing to do. It's kinda like when you rode the bus to school, and everyone would misbehave at once because hey, they can't put us ALL in detention. Can they?
expandfairuse.org
Apple takes so much from opensource and Msoft try to always shut it down! This is what the cause is in the end! Something has to be done about this.
Obviously, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is a moron who has never read the EULA on his Microsoft Windows copy. And he could just go to Fluendo and get the codecs legally.
But no, he has to rant. The only explanation I can conjure is that he is an imbecile.
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
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.
For example, this is what VideoLAN says regarding their VLC player:
http://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questio
OSS devs should handle the legal stuff themselves rather than passing the burden to the user. If they can't come up with the funds to pay for the license fees (because they don't sell the software and can't sell support (because something like a media player doesn't require support (not enough to charge for, anyway))), then they can accept donations from the OSS community at large to cover any and all license fees so their users don't need to worry about it.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
While I agree that the level of vitriol here is pointless and distracting, the fundamental issue is worth a lot of anger. If we lose control of our information infrastructure to bad elements, we won't have a free exchange of information any more.
And that means we cannot solve any other problems. And we have other problems that need to be solved.
expandfairuse.org
You're talking about millions of dollars in licensing fees; donations will never cover it.
Which is a much better choice based on sound quality and file size, by the way. But good luck finding a car stereo for cheap that does OGG. I haven't seen one yet!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Winamp is perfectly legal. They pay all the necessary fees. Just run it under wine. You can also run your paid for (maybe comes with DVD player) DVD playing software under wine, and not worry about breaking "the law."
Winamp is not free. It is not even open source. But at least you can still use linux for other stuff. And, unlike Windows, I am almost positive that it doesn't contain any spyware or backdoors.
I have never tried this solution. I've been using mplayer since before I switched away from Windows. It might not even work, but it probably does. Wine runs just about everything. If not winamp, something else.
I'm surprised more people don't suggest this solution.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
But buying a laptop with Windows *does* make it legal to install that copy on another computer. Microsoft says otherwise, but their EULA is worth every dollar I was paid to agree to it.
EULAs are post-sale restrictions. In fact, telling someone they're valid when you know they aren't is likely fraud. Considering that the companies who do this are intentionally misrepresenting the truth for commercial gain.
And similarly, if you buy a license to use patented technology, you can modify the software or hardware that uses that license. Do you think your car is illegal to modify just because some parts are licensed patented technology? Do you think using a patented muffler is okay on a Chevy, but becomes illegal if duct-taped onto a Honda?
Ignore your EULAs and install your DVD-player under Wine, or simply use it as patent indemnification.
lol I wish I had mod points!
YO ADRIAAANN!!! you gotta be fucking kidding me.. this is so ridiculously retarded i can't even begin to think why i hate his reasons for making this the "deal breaker".. i'll break your FACE.. that'll be the deal breaker.. seriously, how about you click on your nice little "Add/Remove" programs button under the Applications menu, and install a different media player.. it takes all but 10 seconds to install VLC or XMMS.. pure laziness is all this is.. if you pay MS and Apple hundreds of dollars just to play mp3s, then you are one stupid mother fucker..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Wrong.
EULAs have been found in court to be enforceable, so there is precedent here. If MS puts it in their EULA, and you buy it, you're bound by the EULA whether you like it or not. You do have the option of returning it if you don't agree to the EULA, but obviously you didn't do that.
Patented mufflers and computer software aren't comparable. Your argument might make sense, but our laws aren't based on sensibility.
Besides, if you purchase a license for a muffler technology, and the license says it's only for Chevies, then you're bound by that. Your customers, who buy your Chevy-specific mufflers and then modify them to put them on Hondas, are not bound by that, but you are since you purchased a license from the patent holder. When you purchase a license from MS, you're in the same position. Here, there's no middleman between you the end-user and the patent holder. Again, the two situations really aren't comparable. Physical mufflers aren't intellectual property, even though their design may contain patented IP. Codecs are IP, and have no physical component. So they're treated differently under law, thanks to the corporations that have lobbied for laws like this. Again, it might not make sense, but that's the law.
software piracy is what linux must compete against! Linux is losing on 2 major fronts. 1) certain softwares are not up to snuff compared to the stuff you can get for windows/osx. This is mostly media content creation stuff (photoshop, maya/3dsmax, etc) and 2)Software on linux is free but due to piracy so is software on windows! (also i think its easier for people to pirate software then attempt to deal with the idea of getting software absolutely free without breaking the law. Having to pay for stuff is so ingrained in humanity that its not helping FOSS. ok i may not be right but that just came to mind so spout i must!
Balderdash!
Then try mp2 at sufficiently high bitrate.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
I agree with your statement. The following is not an argument, simply my opinion on the morality vs legality problem.
There will always be actions that are moral but illegal, and there will always be actions that are immoral but legal. As I see it the best solution to this is to never bring legality into your logic for deciding what you should or should not do. This just leaves morality (i.e. what effect does this action have on others?), and cost (effect on yourself) to base these decisions on. MUCH better IMHO.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
XXX#######
It doesn't matter who's at fault. If I need to use a certain piece of hardware, and linux won't support it, then linux doesn't word for me - period.
That works great right up until you are sitting in jail.
At any rate, 'moral' and 'ethical' vary from culture to culture and religion to religion. He obviously has no problem whatsoever taking someone's IP without paying, but I don't see it as the 'victimless' crime he does.
I'm not claiming to be a saint, even by my own ethical/moral code. But I'm not rationalizing my actions instead of admitting my faults.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
many many people actually do possess a shred of respect for the law,
Really? The vast majority of computers I've worked on have at least one piece of unlicensed or improperly licensed software installed on them. Until MS added unzip functionality to Windows virtually every Windows PC in existance had an unlicensed copy of Winzip installed, and even now probably half of the copies of Office I see were copied from friends or installed on more than one computer. I'm actually the only one I know who's even read most of the licenses for the software installed on their computer.
If people don't have a problem borrowing their friends copy of Office then what makes you think they would have a problem with violating someone's patent in order to view a DVD that they've paid for?
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.
Translation: Other than all of the legally-obtained sound/video files I've encountered, I've never encountered a legally-obtained sound/video file.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
OK, more likely he's just trying to get page hits.
You can buy software that runs on Linux that has proper licensing for those formats.
OSS devs are willing to work for free but can't donate a couple of bucks in license fee donations???
Don't slashdotters advocate a utopia where music and movies are made with donation-based funding where donations are placed into escrow and when there's enough money, the music or movie is made, allowing the music/movie to be immediately placed into public domain so they can be legally shared by all? How can you on the one hand advocate that the LOTR movies could be made with donation-based funding yet claim that license fees can't be paid the same way?
Besides, the required donations would be a drop in the bucket to OSS-backers like IBM, Red Hat, Google. Why don't they step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are and pay for the license fees?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Your points are true and valid - however,
this is just another troll like the 300+ distros FUD from yesterday or whenever.
There has been a stream of these articles on the various tech magazines and blogs over the last few days.
Expect it to continue until the shiny new Vista SP comes out.
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
How is the Fluendo decoder (not codec, since it doesn't encode) free from patent trouble? The licensing is per application, not per decoder. Otherwise, there probably would've been a drive to get a fully licensed (but still open source) decoder under Linux. Debian Etch lets you play MP3s out of the box, BTW. I guess we'll wait to see if the lawyers start targeting the U.S. Debian mirrors.
No encoders are included, however. That appears to be the real issue. Even if the implementation is completely different, they basically claim that the act of making an MP3 is covered by patents. The licensing terms are far reaching though and the whole thing seems like a money grab. They want money for streaming MP3 content (for profit) as well. It would be nice if a lawyer could explain how patents could possibly cover the streaming of user created content.
You seem to argue that Linux users should care more about adoption rate than whether or not those users care about their freedoms. Maybe you don't get it. Maybe DRM, RIAA, software patents, Microsoft, etc., should matter to people. Maybe a free software desktop should be about giving people freedom from those "evils."
You may not agree with those values...I'm not sure I do. But to accuse people who do care about those values of somehow "not getting it" is pretty immature.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Well, it seems to me that's a nice niche for a distribution to fill. Why not contact all the various companies that provide codecs and ask them if they will let you distribute their codecs legally in the US packaged so as to run on a Linux box for a fee. Then you can sell all that non-free stuff as a separate little add-on that people who really care can use. It sounds like a great business idea if what you say is true.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
1) music companies make a new format
2) the new format becomes popular
3) music companies patent the format
4) Linux users are illegal to use the format
So who's to blame here? why shouldn't I listen to the music I want, just because someone says the format is illegal? who is this someone? what's his power over me? just because that someone has lots of money, he can make laws? the hell he can't. Especially on algorithms!
So, for this reason exactly, those patent lovin' companies can go f. themselves over many times. Patenting algorithms is a way to make money you don't deserve, because algorithms are mathematics, and no one can patent mathematics!
Whenever you install, upgrade or update Windows and it's components there's quite scary language too. How is that any less frightening?
Nobody reads that anyway and most of it is so silly it's obviously unenforcable. The rest would've be up for a court to decide if any corporation issuing that gobbledygook would ever dare to bring the case up. In principle you should consult a lawyer whenever one of the things pops up (which would about triple the cost of any IT-administration).
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
The man looks for a reason to slight Linux.
Never does he actually look into the matter.
Sheep.
He is doing exactly as intended. Running home to mamma because he can't think for himself.
Free shmee. Ubuntu doesn't pay money to give you free software... ok. actually they do pay for shipping of free CDs...
Look closely and you'll notice that nearly every new PC is shipped with a Windows license, granting you rights to the included Windows codecs.
The libdvdcss code is not illegal.
Fair Use is still a concept worth investing in. I purchase DVD's and play them on Linux. Take away my rights, I dare you.
Government of the people by the people and for the people. People should not fear governments. Governments should fear its people.
How would you put such a requirement? What if a customer says that they run QNX, zOS, GCOS, or any other system with an even smaller (desktop) market share than Linux? It doesn't sound reasonable that the DVD provider should be responsible to provide software that works for any operating system in the world.
You mean like, "most people don't know or care what a rootkit is, so why should they care if they got one on their computer?" (slightly modified from the original statement by a Sony executive, to fit the parent post)
So it is not fine to get free stuff if it is F/OSS, since we are so ingrained to pay, but it is fine to avoid paying by pirating stuff instead. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't follow.
Your point is valid, and I can see why you ask, but should it still be illegal to use the codecs I paid for?
I got nuthin
I'm using FreeBSD, and some of the proprietary-codec-related entries in the ports tree carry big scary warnings from the FreeBSD security team saying that the software in question has known security vulnerabilities, isn't safe, may allow any random website to totally take over your computer, and shouldn't be used.
Who needs legal threats when there are technical ones?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Wrong. We have open-source (GPL and LGPL) decoders for most formats and encoders for many formats inside ffmpeg (that used by MPlayer, vlc, xine and others).
Your information is obsolete by five years, if not more (when I started using MPlayer at ~2002, I already need not DLL crap for playing mpeg-{1,2,4} [and I need not other formats at that time; MPlayer/ffmpeg already supported [natively] many more even at that time, and support much more now, usually faster and/or better quality than commercial/closed/DLL crap]).
For now, the only remaining problem is patents on algorithms.
AFAIK, all mpeg-{1,2,4-{avs,avc}}-{video,audio}, aac, ac3 and dts encoding and decoding are heavily patented in USA and Japan.
And that patents license terms absolutely incompatible with F/OSS.
Oh, Yes. The author is a pussy and you are such a brave man. I am in awe in front of your bold and fearless attitude. I mean... it certainly takes a lot of courage to break the law when you are almost certain that you'll never get caught. Not a lot of person would dare to click on "I agree". You are a hero. Yes, Anonymous Cowards unite! Call out other people for being weak, tell them you do not respect them and tell them they have no courage! If you persist in your efforts eventually every one will realize that the only people with a backbone and any respectability are those that post anonymously. You, AC, are my hero. Pathetic wastes of life aside, I think the author does have a point. So does everyone else, These projects redistributing these codecs have no direct relation to groups such as Microsoft who we would need to be a licensee under to use WMV. At the same time, the usage of widely available information under these codecs should be handled better in the future so that a user of open source software can become a legal user. In all likely hood this probably doesn't matter. By downloading the codec we likely become a user of the EULA anyways even if we don't see it and click accept. It is our responsibility to read it. IANAL so what I said is likely wrong, or merely half truths. The point being companies have some responsibility to society to be fair with their creations ... just because Microsoft may not want their codec used on non authorized platforms doesn't make their stance just. A lawyer once told me though, that laws and court rooms don't care about whats right and fair, they just care about interpreting the law correctly.
Wrong. We have open-source (GPL and LGPL) decoders for most formats and encoders for many formats inside ffmpeg (that used by MPlayer, vlc, xine and others).
Your information is obsolete by five years, if not more (when I started using MPlayer at ~2002, I already need not DLL crap for playing mpeg-{1,2,4} [and I need not other formats at that time; MPlayer/ffmpeg already supported [natively] many more even at that time, and support much more now, usually faster and/or better quality than commercial/closed/DLL crap]).
Yeah, but FFMpeg isn't the be all and end all. MPlayer also provides a buttload of other codecs - and that's where the copyright illegality comes in. Do a search for ".dll" on this page, and you can see the ones that are of highly questionable legality.
MPlayer HQ codecs status page
Coming soon - pyrogyra
OSS devs are willing to work for free but can't donate a couple of bucks in license fee donations???
The developers are outnumbered 1000:1 or more by users. To cover patent licenses for something like VLC would cost about $5 per copy times millions of copies. It is unfair to put that burden on the developers (after all, they wrote the software for free), so what percent of VLC users would donate and how much would they donate? I just don't think it would work.
How can you on the one hand advocate that the LOTR movies could be made with donation-based funding yet claim that license fees can't be paid the same way?
I think donations could never cover Hollywood movies or patent licenses on open source software.
Besides, the required donations would be a drop in the bucket to OSS-backers like IBM, Red Hat, Google. Why don't they step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are and pay for the license fees?
Now there's an idea, but maybe paying for patent licenses would distract from the message of patent reform that these companies are pushing.
Yes, it can also use binary codecs. But it need not to use them for all widespread formats, most common ones, and some rare and obscure too.
If you'll sort that "mplayer codec status" by format/fourcc, you'll see that most format that can be decoded using questionable .dll, also can be decoded by unquestionable (by copyright law) GPL'ed ffmpeg code.
If there were no patent problems, most linux distribution would happily play and encode (even without distributing any questionable binary x86-only dll's) at least mp3 (lame started around 1998, free mp3 players - even earlier), [s]vcd (mpeg 1/2 video supported natively more than 6 years ago), divx (mpeg-4 asp supported natively more than 5 years ago), (unencrypted) dvd (mpeg-2, 6 years), and (unencrypted) hd-dvd/blue-ray (h.264 and vc-1 supported natively for about year), asf/wmv (four years for {wmv,wma}[12], about year for wmv3).
But they cannot. Even mp3, that has open source codecs for decade. Why? Because of patent problems.
Linux is not free. What you might not pay in money, you end up paying in having to deal with crap like this on the one hand, and becoming part of the collectivist nightmare of a userbase that think they own you, body, mind, and soul, if you use Linux at all on the other.
Think of this as "Reason to Say No Thanks to Linux, No. 702,409,312,867." Keep XP and be happy. Your life will be a lot less complicated.
If being a member of a cult is something you really feel you need, there are plenty of other options available where even though you'll get shafted to an equal or greater degree, most of the others also try and make the process more pleasurable than in the case of Linux.
what i meant was that to a normal person, something that exists completely for free sounds like a trap or something untrustworthy. I know its weird logic but think about it this way. If a product is given for free then couldnt one think that this producer does not think his product is worth even money? Hence, the product has no monetary worth so it is in effect worthless. Even though we know it isnt worthless. It's the old way of thinking about trade and money between consumers and companies. I hope that clears up my point.
Balderdash!
I happen to have linux installed on one PC and XP moth-balled. There is a restriction on distribution by vendors, but as far as I know, there is no restriction on use. Moving the codecs to the linux platform is not illegal for me. And in Canada, it is not illegal to download from livna or freshrpms.org websites, the codecs to make linux fly.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
You don't get it do you? You don't have the right to remove parts of the software you purchased to use them on another computer. He's not running a licensed copy of Windows (he HAS one, but it is not installed anywhere), so he has no right to run a part of said software.
Bullshit - you have the right to break up the software into its distinct files and use them as you will. What you don't have the right to is to make multiple copies (that's what copyright is about) without permission. How you use your legal copy is entirely up to you. Its like those bogus licensing provisions that Microsoft wants you to think are legally binding - like "you must install this sticker on the computer to which the OS is installed." You don't have to. Anyone who says otherwise is a sheeple.
Kevin Smith on Prince
You forget that copying from the CD to the harddrive counts as making a copy. The license agreement grants you the right to do this, if you install Windows. It doesn't permit you to copy just the bits you want though, which would violate copyright laws. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Copyright gives me the right to make 1 copy onto the medium of my choice - the hard drive - of each file. So I can copy the codecs to one drive, the fonts to another, and the wav files to a third. All legal. What I can't do is then install the software - that would be making a second copy of the fonts, etc., which is not permitted under copyright.
There is nothing in copyright law that obliges me to actually install the software.
Kevin Smith on Prince
Pft. EULAs have been found wanting in more cases, and in the ones that upheld the EULA wasn't the strongest part of the case.
If you really want to see proof of this, sell something to a big company (say Walmart) and then remotely disable to product on day two due to some technicality in your post-sale contract. When their lawyers spit you out you'll understand that the contract is what was agreed upon. In the case of a contract of sale, that gives you full rights to use whatever was being sold. If this is ever different (famous art could include a right-of-first-refusal to the next sale, for instance) it's a major infringement on the free rights of the buyer and would need to be negotiated for specifically.)
At one point there used to be no explicit permission to use software (it requires copying into ram/etc) in the copyright law. This caused some genius to think you couldn't use software. However, this would have been ridiculous as everyone with this view would have been intentionally selling something they didn't intend for their customers to be able to use. Obviously, this was nobody's intent, so the law was clarified to explain that using software is not a copyright violation.
Of course, with that, went the only leg that EULAs stood on. The proponents used to say that only with an explicit license was software use legal, but now it's very clear that this is mistaken.
By the time I buy a piece of software and open it I've already spent time and money, and purchased a product. To insist that I should be required to return it at this point because it's unfit for purchase as advertised is sheer lunacy.
For a legal professional, or business person who should know better, to push EULAs as having force is tantamount to fraud. Lies (or what a reasonable person should know to be untrue) resulting in the financial injury of others.
I'm sorry if I'm out of place, but this guy is a complete douchebag. WTF? Scared of using codecs of a legally sensitive nature? F#ck This Guy!
Pft yourself.
Your wal-mart example is ridiculous, because Wal-Mart is not an individual with limited money to spend on lawyers. It's different when the company suing you for breaching the EULA is huge and has lots of money, and you can barely make your mortgage payment.
By the time I buy a piece of software and open it I've already spent time and money, and purchased a product. To insist that I should be required to return it at this point because it's unfit for purchase as advertised is sheer lunacy.
You're right, it is lunacy. But that doesn't mean it's not reality. It sucks, but that's exactly how it works.
There's lots of other laws that are really stupid, yet we're still required to abide by them.
Pft again. If we accept EULAs contract law is finished and no big corporation will accept that. Thus it'll never happen. Only a few software companies win, but everyone else loses including the rest of the politicians brib...lobbyists.
Ask why "they" pushed so hard for the UCITA if it wasn't needed. Until that's in your state, an EULA is as empty as any other post-sale contract.
No legal footing is required to sue, ruinously, look at the Scientologists. They're idiots and lie in court proceedings but they can push a baseless lawsuit till you're blue in the face... You'll be bankrupted by whichever corporation chooses to sue, regardless of what they say you did, and regardless of any guilt on your part.
DirecTV attacked thousands of people for merely buying smart-card programmers. There's *no* law against buying one, but they threatened ruinous legal damages to anyone who objected to paying them off.
Copyright does not give you rights to make any copies. Fair use does, but you'd be hard pressed to claim fair use if you copy an entire chapter of a book. However Windows is also licesensed and you must agree to that license to be able to copy it at all. Just as you couldn't legally copy an entire chapter, you can't just copy portions of software.
"Copyright does not give you rights to make any copies. Fair use doe"
That's where you're wrong. Fair use is part and parcel of copyright law. You don't have to take my word for it - take the governments'.
If you're just copying the codecs, and have no intention of using or installing the rest of the copy of Windows you legitimately obtained, you don't have to agree with any after-sale click-through EULA, since:
If I buy a car, there is nothing that obliges me to get it serviced at the manufacturer. I'm free to get it serviced elsewhere (and no, it doesn't void the warranty), or I'm free to rip out parts of it and use them in ways not foreseen by the manufacturer.
The license doesn't supercede copyright fair use, especially if you never agree to the license, and never use the package as a whole.
Next you'll be trying to say that Microsofts' attempts to gag people by forbidding them to post benchmarks about their products are legal, when they're just more bs from a cojmpany running scared.
Besides, some of those codecs were licensed to Microsoft by 3rd parties, who expect THEIR license to be passed through to end users of their codecs, not Microsoft's license.
Kevin Smith on Prince