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."

Comments

Not just linux

[Pyrrus]

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.

Re:Not just linux

[plague3106]

This isn't the same; this is "by using this software you MAY in fact be breaking the law, and assume all responsibility." Not quite "copying this software is illegal."

Re:Not just linux

[Znork]

Of course, the proprietary software may very well be violating various patents as well, so technically they should pop up the same disclaimers. FLOSS just tends to be slightly more nitpicky about being excessively verbose and honest with these issues (not to mention that part of the intent is quite likely to make end users aware of the actual damage the patent system causes).

That said, I dont think I've even heard of any end-user of a product, ever, being successfully sued for any kind of patent infringement. With common licensing deals in the range of a few cents to a few percent per copy, lawsuits against end-users would be a massively unprofitable prospect.

Re:Not just linux

[ak3ldama]

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.

Re:Not just linux

[daem0n1x]

And I always pay royalties for my open-source MP3 players. How much is 10% of zero?

Re:Not just linux

[init100]

Royalties are frequenlt a fixed amount per product instance, not a percentage of the price.

I guess people learned not to do that from SpyGlass, which sold Internet Explorer to Microsoft for a percentage of the revenue. Microsoft gave it away and didn't pay a cent.

Re:Not just linux

[poolmeister]

If it's such a "deal breaker" he could do as I have done and buy a legal codec pack from Fluendo for properly licensed, good quality MP3, Windows Media, AC3 & MPEG support for GStreamer.

Can You Blame Him

[Luscious868]

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?

Shrug

[Durrok]

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.

Re:Shrug

[njfuzzy]

Summary: "The poster cares about running afoul of the law in these ways, but I don't have such compunctions."

That is only a problem for

[vivaoporto]

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.

Scared?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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...

Not a problem...

[Scooter's_dad]

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?

With whom the fault lies

[kerohazel]

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.

EULAs

[drooling-dog]

He's apparently never read the EULAs for his Microsoft ware. Now that is scary stuff...

The blame for this lies with Linux? How?

[Omnifarious]

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.

Re:Do Linux users care about using "illegal" codec

[BosstonesOwn]

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.

Bad title

[Virak]

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.

Then pay for the Fluendo codecs

[GauteL]

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.

Ubuntu developers are fools

[Locutus]

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

AAC and MP4

[goombah99]

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?

Re:AAC and MP4

[squiggleslash]

AAC players do require the payment of royalties, unfortunately.

If you want a free, royalty-free, codec comparable to AAC or MP3, the only choice right now is OGG.

Re:The blame for this lies with Linux? How?

[kiwimate]

Way to be defensive by going on the attack, mate. By the way, did you read the article? It seems not.

The bigger story is you (Linux community) *still* don't get it.

• The vast majority of the population neither know nor care who or what the RIAA is or does.
• Same with DRM.
• This same vast majority actually doesn't think Microsoft is evil. They might complain about Windows or Word, but that's a far cry from the vitriolic hatred spewed forth by so many in the Linux community.
• Which, by the way, often seems united more in their hatred for Microsoft than in their passion for Linux. Think about it.
• And, unlike the majority of the posts I've read so far, many many people actually do possess a shred of respect for the law, whether it's convenient to them or irritating. One of the hallmarks of sociopaths is they think they have an absolute right to pick and choose how they act in the world without regard for laws which annoy them or they think are silly or unfair.

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.

Making excuses not to use Linux..

[LingNoi]

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.

Re:Maybe that is the answer

[Jon_S]

This totally misses the point. Winamp's (for example) EULA may be long and tedious and nobody reads it, but it doesn't say that using it may be illegal. Why? Because winamp (AOL) paid fruanhofer for a patent licence to decode MP3.

Amarok (again, for example), hasn't paid Fraunhofer for a MP3 patent licence, hence you may actually be breaking the law by using a patented technique without a licence.

Of course, I think this is totally ludicrous and algorithms shouldn't be patentable. But for now at least, that is the law in U.S.

And that's why your comments are off the mark.

My Rant

[ImaLamer]

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.

Re:Do Linux users care about using "illegal" codec

[cyclop]

* Download legally-questionable open-source codec

Legally questionable in the USA, please. In my country it's perfectly legal.