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 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: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:Shrug

[njfuzzy]

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

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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.

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.