Slashdot Mirror
Canonical Offers Sale of Proprietary Codecs for Ubuntu
ruphus13 writes "Playing DVDs on Linux that required proprietary codecs has been a source of much pain. Ubuntu (or anyone else, for that matter) is not legally allowed to redistribute these codecs. So, users were left with sub-optimal choices. Convert the multimedia to an open format, acquire new media, or use a codec 'found' on the web, which may be illegal. In its continued effort to have a seamless and slick user experience, Canonical made the hard choice to offer the sale and support for proprietary codecs that users had to actually purchase for Ubuntu. This is not a fight Canonical can fight alone, and they are sure to get some grief for the decision."
Every time I convert someone to Ubuntu, the first thing I always do is download and install the "illegal" mplayer codecs. Otherwise, the poor user will click on some multimedia file and get that god-awful "search for codecs" dialog, which is usually enough to freak them out. It makes them feel they are dealing with a lesser OS, because it doesn't "just work" like they've come to expect (of course, they usually didn't install Windows either or they'd know better).
I hope Canonical will just sell the install media (and download) with the codecs already in it. That would work really well for a lot of people. A boxed Ubuntu with all codecs on the store shelves for about $30 - $45 right next to the Windows Vista boxes (on sale for JUST $199!) would probably do quite well. Plus the word would start getting out how much easier it is to install and live with than Windows.
Yes, I wish we lived in a world where all formats, protocols, and standards were Free, but they never will be so long as capitalism remains our official state religion. Meanwhile, we still want to watch our movies and play our music.
Caveat Utilitor
The big thing here is not that they're offering them for sale, but that they're streamlining the process of the sale. The codecs have always been available for sale through fluendo's store, canonical is just making the process of sale slightly easier. The only thing I'm concerned about is that users will get the wrong message. New convertees to ubuntu (and there are a lot of them) might think that this whole "linux is free" thing is just a scam. Time will tell.
...this actually makes sense. (What that says about the legal structures in place, of course, is a separate question.)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
otherwise Linux would always be viewed sceptically for it's need of illegal software. My only question is, how much will it cost?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Not the fact that Gstreamer doesn't support DVD Menus?
(Which, in all fairness, is fixed, hopefully for the next Ubuntu release: http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2008/08/04/gstreamer-dvd-support/)
New convertees to ubuntu (and there are a lot of them) might think that this whole "linux is free" thing is just a scam. Time will tell.
It depends how the streamlined process puts it.
If it is clearly stated that mostly all of linux is free, but in some legislation, there are patent fees applying for some technologies needed to access media.
If its clearly worded, the convertees could even better understand why everyone is making such a fuss about the patent system with this concrete example : There this nice thing called Linux, should be free for anyone to use, but no, because of some obscure patent, you're forced to pay.
Of course this problem is mainly constricted to English language where the word "free" collides two separate ideas of "freedom" and "costs nothing".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Whatever you may think about software patents, the fact is that Canonical only has three choices here:
0) Not offer this software
1) Include the software for free, and break the law in some countries
2) Offer legal software, and pay the licensing fees
Ubuntu is my favorite distribution, and I'm happy to see legal, supported DVD playback.
I'm really tired of reading reviews that say "Great distribution, but it can't play back any of my media."
Now let's get Dell, Gateway, etc. to start pre-installing Ubuntu with the extra media options. It will be a better out-of-box experience than Vista.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
One of the things I've always liked about Ubuntu is their decision to give the users the choice between running completely free and open source software or accepting proprietary [(though often still free (as in beer)] software on their computers.
While I think it shameful that the DVD producers have decided that I need to pay extra to run a DVD that I already own, I applaud Canonical for giving me the option to do so easily.
It looks like the final piece has dropped into place for Linux! Linux is getting preinstalls from major vendors (in Netbooks especially, but moreso in general too). Wine had a 1.0 release quite awhile and is still improving rapidly. Now, the multimedia perplex is also solved.
For those of you not already familiar, World Domination 201.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Not only does this move make it easier for newbie end-users to adopt Ubuntu, it should make it more palatable to corporate types who are used to paying for products. ("It can't possibly be good if it's free, can it?") Users not wishing to pay can always get these codecs the old fashioned way.
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.
I know you're just trolling, but for those who actually feel this way, look at it like this:
Canonical knows that a large proportion of Ubuntu users download and use the "illegal" codecs without paying the license fees (either directly, where it applies, or indirectly by using the programs that the codec can be legally used for). Canonical does not own these codecs and cannot legally provide or create free alternatives due to all of the craziness surrounding patent law. So they offer an option for their legally-conscious users and business users: fully-supported, license-fee-paid codecs that will not put their users in legal jeopardy.
Please tell me what the evil in this is.
Unless Canonical signed an agreement not to distribute DVD player software, there is no lawful prohibition of that for them.
There is no default restriction on DVD player software, only on copy circumvention, and even a default Ubuntu system with the css decoding component will not copy a DVD - you must install or write some copying software or alter the product to make it do something which it was not capable of doing.
This has been true since CSS technology stopped being a trade secret.
So? It's a better product at a better price than windows. I don't see any astroturfing. When people ask me to install linux because they're sick of windows and not computer savvy, I give them ubuntu and after about a week they stop bugging me until their hard drive fails a few years later.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Just get a Mac. Bam, problem solved...
The Ubuntu lovers will espouse the greatness of this move, and the lack of any other options. Hardcore FOSS advocates will note that this will slow adoption of open codecs, which happen to be the cure for this situation. I personally don't care either way, since I don't use Ubuntu, and don't really accept the concept of illegal software. What I am curious about is what is the profit margin here. How much can an entity stand to make selling this kind of software to people.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
This is a great step in legitimizing Ubuntu as an alternative OS, however it is a give and take. If Ubuntu is going to suggest people pay for something, they had better get "Compatible with Ubuntu" stamped on every single piece of software they endorse. The fact that the corporate world has forced the issue this far is a very good sign. I hope Canonical knows how to play the game to their benefit now.
'Cos, y'know, it's not like you can just install VLC from Synaptic.
(VLC is also my favourite media and DVD player on Mac.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
A little while back there was a supreme court decision about patent exhaustion. (I think that was the term.) It basically said that if company A licenses a patent to company B, and company B produces a product utilizing the patent and sells the product to company C, C does not need to pay A for the patent.
I wonder if this is a useful defense against "illegal" codecs. I mean, the patent holder license the patent to the media creator and the media creator sells us the product. Shouldn't the patent obligation been handled between the licensor and the media company? Aren't we in fact, entity "C?"
"the hard decision" to sell proprietary codecs? What's so damn hard about that? If they sell well, Canonical makes a profit. If they sell poorly, Canonical discontinues their sale. No significant loss.
The decision is of the "no brainer" variety. Linspire already did this with tepid results. Novell and Red Hat should have been doing it from the start. It is an obvious course of action for any Linux company!
What will actually be interesting is how well it sells. There is little reason to pay for these codecs when enforcement of the codec licenses have been non-existent. Will people actually start spending money on what they have all been taking freely all along or will they continue as they have been and force Canonical to give up the idea?
My bet is that the home user and "community" types will continue to use the codecs illegally but, Canonical does have a chance in the corporate world where companies will gladly pay a token amount to enjoy full functionality and legal compliance. But, does Canonical sell to a large enough corporate market. Only time will tell. We should have an answer by Christmas.
I have about six DVD's that don't play well on my MythTV boxen. If I add these, will they then play correctly?
Anyone? Anyone?
This is good for Ubuntu. I'm not sure how it is good for anyone else however. But I may be blinded her.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
On purpose? Did you go to jail?
Most moral/ethical issues seem clearcut to me. This one really doesn't.
As a libertarian I am reluctantly forced to concede that it can be acceptable to sell ones and zeroes, and to forbid the buyer, as a condition of that sale, from redistributing those ones and zeroes without the seller's permission. This is acceptable because all things that are not forbidden are allowed, no matter how repugnant we might find them, and the only things that are forbidden are those which violate people's rights (namely, initiation of force and/or fraud).
But such arrangements cannot be enforced against innocent third parties without initiation of force. Those third parties were not parties to the original deal. They never agreed not to use the ones and zeroes in question. They can be prevented from doing so only by use of force, typically through some type of government-enforced "copyright" scheme. Libertarians don't, or at least shouldn't, condone this type of force.
The only libertarian-friendly recourse the original seller may have would be to go after the person who wrongfully redistributed the ones and zeroes. Copyright allows them instead to go after third parties who were never party to the agreement in the first place.
Does Canonical violate libertarian principles by selling software that is encumbered, whose owners forbid it to be redistributed apart from its agreement? My take is that it does, albeit only indirectly, and in a way that can be arguably justified by saying that while it does not directly infringe anyone's freedom, it does form part of a strategy that will ultimately expand freedom, by increasing the adoption and popularity of free software, i.e. software that clearly does respect the rights of its users. This is an argument the FSF itself has used in the past, when it acquired proprietary UNIX code for the explicit purpose of creating free replacements for that code. So it should not be dismissed lightly.
But the same argument could be (and frequently has been) used to justify things like pre-emptive military invasions. "We are using violence to make the world a less violent place in the end." It rarely works that way. In reality, violence almost always leads to more violence, not less. That is true regardless of whether the violence is "legally" sanctioned by a government or not. Indeed, the former kind is usually on a vastly larger scale, and hence vastly worse, than the work of random thugs or smaller groups of people.
There is something a bit sad about the state of affairs where Canonical, in order to increase the adoption of Linux, feels compelled to even temporarily participate in another party's use of unjustifiable aggression and violence (via government's enforcement of "copyright") against innocents. I am not sure I am smart enough to say for sure that Canonical is wrong to do this. But I do feel pretty strongly that only in a really screwed up world is it necessary for them to even consider it.
In a more sane and free world, you would not be able to use violence against party C just because parties A and B agreed to a restrictive sharing arrangement. You might need to do a better job of making sure party B doesn't violate his or her agreement. You might need to require him or her to purchase a bond or insurance or some other instrument by which party B could make party A whole again. And, while even this goes too far for me, you might need a mechanism to make the ones and zeroes useless to party C or any other third party who did not acquire them via authorized means. But you would not be able to justify violence against him or her just because your business model was too fragile to allow for the fact that some people will make unauthorized copies whether you want them to or not.
Nonaggression works!
http://spie.org/x26516.xml
So, if patent exhaustion is more expansive than previously thought.
If we purchase a DVD, should we not have also (included with the purchase) rights to the patent used in the product, i.e. the compression algorithms?
The used the "IP" to produce the product and paid the license to do so. Why should we be further encumbered? It isn't as if we are creating new content with the codecs, we'd use free ones for that.
Any lawyers want to start a class action for EVERYONE that owns a DVD player?
They have additional anti-copy stuff on them and they don't usually play or rip well under Linux.
VLC may be able to play them but no guarantees.
translation:
Canonical knows that criminals are making use of stolen codecs, and is attempting to get more money from the honest side of the tiny tiny market of linux users that are too cheap to have a fully functional system that can be used out of the box by ANYONE.
They should be saluted for trying to correct this thieving practice by zealots.
Download and install PCLinuxOS 2007.
Go into the Synaptic package manager.
Takes about a minute to install win32-codecs.
Screw anybody who worries about using these codecs
for free.
While you are Synaptic, you might as well install
libdvdcss2 so you can play ANY dvd.
Tex , you are the man !!
All dell ubuntu boxes that have DVD drives come with the software. Even the mini 9" has MP3 codecs already installed.
How can anyone see this as bad? Canonical is giving you a CHOICE - *not* vendor lock-in. You can still install codecs in any other fashion suitable for your situation - but for those who don't WANT or have the knowledge of HOW to install them illegally, manually, or what have you - this is a new option.
Go Canonical! Go choice!
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
My codecs were included with my Optical Drives, IIRC. Yes, that was WinDVD, so I'd assume Windows Only, but there has to be a manufacturer out there that has a Linux compatible codec included with their drives.
I don't think I've ever specifically paid for a DVD codec, it's always been included with some hardware. I don't see why it has to be different with Ubuntu.
Ubuntu (i.e. GNOME) had network-manager before Kubuntu had their client for the same thing. In fact, it was originally a big pythonic blob that only worked with GNOME, until someone split it into a daemon and different front-ends. Brought to you by the kind folks at Red Hat, for full disclosure.
I thought this was already an option in Fedora (others??). You try to play something you don't have a codec for, a util pops up offering to let you buy and install what you're after. Your choice. Easy enough to opt-out.
Oh, and Fedora has had 'zero-conf' wireless for some cards for a bit now too.
Sorry, I just don't seem to understand all this Ubunutu fanboyism when so much of what folks say is 'great' about it has already been done, elsewhere. But then it's promulgated like some revelation unique to Canonical's efforts.
Don't get me wrong - Ubuntu has it's place. But, it's not "The Source" itself. There are many, many distros doing new things, breaking ground, developing facets we ALL benefit from. Hoisting one distro up as "the one" only leads to inevitable disappointment.
until someone tests it in court...
Well... it's good for those of us who prefer not to break the law.
But, you know, there aren't many of us around...
How is anyone else Ubuntu's problem !?
Fedora 9 already has the option to buy codecs built into the media player.
After paying $39.95 for the codecs, it turns out that it does not install at all on a 64-bit system. If you force the install with --force-architecture, the files get there but DVDs still won't play: the DVD player application still says "An error occurred Could not read from resource".
The CyberLink Linux software DVD player(32 bit systems only) from Canonical costs ~$50
I can buy a 20X DVD writer drive with Lightscribe that includes Nero 8 Essentials(Windows only) for ~$35
Canonical will act surprised that their sales fall short of "expectations". Seriously though, a software only DVD player should not cost more than $10
I'dd be happy to pay if they'dd be using this money to pay developers rather than the patent fee.
When you buy Windows a tiny fraction of the cost is actually forwarded to vendors from which Microsoft licenses codecs and what not. Since I've already paid for Windows I've also paid for all those patents so why pay again? How often should each person pay for the same codec? Perhaps MPEG-LA wants me to pay them again and again for every piece of MPEG software or hardware or whatever. Maybe MPEG-LA wants me to pay them every time I play an MPEG movie or maybe they should get some $$ every time I take a breath? Seriously, we should gather outside of the MPEG-LA offices and just do a blockade or something.
The evil is that doing so validates the evil concepts of proprietary codecs and DRM encumberance.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
One my patients would like to start using Ubuntu on her PC but her
main concern is if there are any media players that offer the same
capabilities as Windows Media Player 11? As she is handicapped she
would like to use just one program to handle both music and videos,
ripping (which is very n00b-friendly in WMP 11) and playlists.
I personally use Xmms and VLC but she didn't like either one of them.
She is very adamant that everything should be legal so this move from
Canonical came at the right time.
The evil is that doing so validates the evil concepts of proprietary codecs and DRM encumberance.
Does it? Or is it simply that the focus of Ubuntu is to provide an operating system and not an alternate array of data formats and codecs?
I am very glad to see this software available. It is about damn time.
OTOH, I have to say the way this is being done pisses me off no end. First off, why only 32 bit? I have 64 bit computers so no codecs for me...
But, that is OK... After seeing the prices I lost interest. I was flat assed shocked at the price. The total cost for DVD play back and a complete set of media codecs is $90 US. $50 just for the DVD player. I can buy a complete stand alone DVD player for under $30. How is $50 reasonable? $90 is just a few bucks less than the upgrade price for Vista. It is a long way toward the full price of Vista.
One must wonder why the price of a set of codecs for Ubuntu is nearly the same as the price of an entire OS from Microsoft? A quick google search shows that the royalty rates for these codecs is measured in cents per user per codec. Looks to me like a reasonable rate for these codecs is more like $9 than $90 dollars. Who is ripping off Canonical?
I actually trust Canonical... I run Ubuntu on all my computers. So, I have to believe that they see this as the only reasonable solution to the problem. But, instead of pushing a set of **gossly** over priced commercial software packages why don't they just sell the "illegal" packages for the royalty rate plus a few bucks to support cleaning them up?
What am I missing here?
Stonewolf
My Fedora 9 installation offered me direct links to Fluendo for codecs, and Firefox also has direct links to Fluendo for plugins.
So is it just that ubuntu has woken up that makes this news ?
This is actually great news! Very exciting. And the ability to reinstall your codecs is very useful, can't wait to give it a try!!! And for those who focus on ethics alone, I hate to tell you this, but Ubuntu is not an ethical OS. There other other FOSS software and versions of Linux that are focused on this philosophy. But Ubuntu is focused on what so many people want, a version of Linux that works. It tries to remain as free of proprietary formats as much as possible, but most people are rational enough to realize that ease of use (and realistic competition to Windows) will only come with a compromise. For example "IF" Linux became popular and mainstream in the future. I think most of us would still pay for video games, the DVD's we watch, or much (or some) of the music we listen too. The OS itself is free to use, the 3rd party codecs and some apps/games are not. And honestly, thats ok.
I'll keep my eye out for it on TPB. ARRRR!
Only losers play DVDs on a PC or laptop. What is the point ? They are meant to be played in a DVD player on a nice large screen, not on a crap screen.
I am not a lawyer, but what about a button that would launch a script that would download the sources from some country where keeping the source code to the "illegal" codecs is legal, then compile and install?
You could have a window showing after the button explaining that this is illegal in some countries and to check with your lawyer, with continue and cancel buttons.
Then it would be your own responsibility if you happen to be in the wrong country and you decide to install such software.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
YES! But they could do it even better than the iTunes store. Imagine something like the IMDB: you search for the type of software you're looking for using keywords or tags, you see user ratings and read user reviews. You decide you like said software, and click a link at the top of the screen that says install now, and the thing takes care of dependencies, patches, everything.
You could even merge Synaptic with the new universal package manager: just give users check boxes, as in Display: [] Free Open Source Software, [] Commercial Software (requires UbuntuShop account), and [] Free Proprietary Software.
Seriously, combining user reviews and tags to sort software into Synaptic would be a huge improvement.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
Ubuntu is not about free software. It is about power and money.
Not quit, it's about Microsoft loosing power and money.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
1) If I spend 57 euro (that looks like quite expensive) then I will bea ble to watch streaming videos with DRM? Or wmv files with DRM?
2) So Dell and other manufactures are going to ship computers with these codecs preinstalled? Probably yes, so the cost of a computer with Ubuntu will increase and will be less competitive.
3) Probably only companies will buy these codecs, like only companies and professional users buy proprietary fonts. But if there are some technical advantages with the fluendo codecs private users will download them with emule or bittorrent
Are they planning to keep the free codecs (ubuntu restricted extras etc.) available? I'm not in America and I guess that a lot of people who are aren't going to be bothered about how legal the free codecs are anyway.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
It may be worth noting that these codecs of which you speak are perfectly legal throughout most of the world.
This is just one of the times I'm proud not to be a US American. (Is there a less-clumsy word for people from the US?)
I have never had to pay for a DVD playing software in Windows, I used the player installed with the video card or the bundled stand alone player like PowerDVD etc....
Why not Bundle a Linux player with the new DVD drives?
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
US laws are wrong, and we, Canonical users from the rest of the world should not suffer from these pay-$90-for-what-should-work-for-everyone-but-americans-out-of-the-box options. I support you.
Those codecs should be preinstalled and be available gratis by default. Americans and only americans should have an option to either disable them or go and pay the fee.
Well want to take it a step farther? Offer GPL software for sale as well. GPL software doesn't have to be free as in beer. Say you use Gimp a lot. You could buy a copy of Gimp from the store and the money would go to pay for Gimp development.
Sort of an easy way to contribute to FOSS development.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
... in the US only. It is perfectly legal where I live.
I think, there should be just two kinds of mirrors and ISO images of Ubuntu. For US and for the rest of the world. It is OK to offer sale options in the american version. It is an extortion attempt to even mention these pay-$90-to-play-mp3-and-dvd options when the user has clearly stated to be outside of the US.
And yes, the mp3/dvd should play out of the box in non-US version. No codec download.
Lets say I buy a DVD drive it comes with a WINDOWS cd that includes the codec and whatever media player they bundle on it. I paid for that codec it just happened to be bundled into the price of the DVD Rom, isn't it completely legal for me then to install the 'restricted' DeCSS codec on my linux machine since I already bought a license for it, just the one that came on the CD didnt work -- I'm still the only one using it though.
Playing DVDs is not a pain at all. Ubuntu says,"Hey, what's this? Can I figure out how to use it, please?" Windows just says,"That isn't supported" and offers no further information or help.
Do these codecs work in Kubuntu with Kaffeine and Amarok? I seem to remember that applications these use the xine backend -- is it compatible with Gstreamer codecs?
Do these proprietary codecs mean no source code, DRM, phoning home and region locking on DVDs? It's really disturbing that Canonical announces this a few days after we came very close to having to endure an EULA dialog. I wonder whether I should better switch to Fedora right now.
I've bought 5 or 6 DVD players over the years that have subsequently broken. Since I don't get a refund for the perfectly good mathematics that the patent on MPEG2 covers when that player breaks, I feel completely morally justified in continuing to use mplayer to watch DVDs.
The format and encoding of DVD's is well known.
Open source players like mplayer, vlc, xine or others are a perfectly acceptable way to play DVD's. Yes, using libdecss.
There is no need to purchase a license for software for which a well tested, independently written, free alternative exists.
In Ubuntu, you use the medibuntu repositories.
In Fedora, you use the livna repositories.
If you really think to need to purchase such a license, may I ask if you also paid empty licenses for GIF, Linux(SCO $699), and "Happy Birthay to You" (Time-Warner).
US laws are wrong, and we, Canonical users from the rest of the world should not suffer from these pay-$90-for-what-should-work-for-everyone-but-americans-out-of-the-box options. I support you.
I can't figure out why its $90. If I can buy a cheap standalone DVD player, complete with drive electronics, rca outputs, and a remote control, and all the codecs to decode dvds, mp3s, aacs, kodak picture discs, and a string of other formats all for $20.00... why exactly does it cost $90 to add just the small software piece to linux??
Oh, but how quickly we forget...
Cheers,
Q
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
These aren't propritary codecs, they just have patents on them.
The codecs themsleves are standardized by entities like ISO and SMPTE, and typically have full reference source code freely available.
"open but with royalty bearing patents" is a very common circumstance, really.
Also, whether or not you're authoring with the codec or decoding is immaterial. There are different patents for encoding and decoding, and a product that does both typically has to pay more than a product that only does one.
My video compression blog
Microsoft does not support DVD playback for free but most PCs sold with DVD drives have playback software installed by the OEM.
Vista Home Premium and Ultimate also include Microsoft's own DVD playback for WMP and Media Center on-disc.
My video compression blog
Charging more for DVD support than an actual DVD player itself, perhaps?
This is a good thing and what Canonical needs to do is market it on their site so people would know about it and have Dell and System76 point to it as well. If they really want to become an true alternative to Windows and OS X then this would taking steps in the right direction.
Why do these have to be proprietary? The open source equivalents are far and away better, and you don't have to pay to reimplement them, and increase the price for the users.
There's nothing illegal about libavcodec, used by MPlayer, VLC, Xine, etc. The only issue is whether you've paid your patent license fees. Just nearly all popular codecs are licensed on RAND terms, so anybody can send in a check to make themselves legal, no matter what software they use.
So why isn't someone just selling a copy of Xine, with only a few of the most popular audio and video codecs enabled, and setting the price just above the price of license fees?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I still cannot figure out what the whole fuss is all about, so I will try to Ask Slashdot here and now, in the form of ehm..asking it by my post:
Is it like you HAVE to have some proprietary software to play a DVD? Why? Can't someone write a FOSS MPEG decoder software? I am not good at this, the software patents, and what exactly is forbidden. Here where we live, we don't have software patents.
They charge a license for codecs....
This is exactly the problem. Why do I have to buy the movie and the permission to view the movie separately? Can't they sell both together? Or better yet, they could offer versions of their movies using free codecs to customers who do not want the added "features" of their proprietary codecs. Of course, they will not do this because the whole point of licensing is not to provide a better product but to make sure that customers get screwed from both ends. Society should not tolerate this.
I wish they would sell wireless drivers there too.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Exactly. It's the same evil as those who "look away" in any context, such as with Hitler (Godwin, sigh, I know, I know), or with Yahoo or Google facilitating censorship in China.
Some things, such as proprietary codecs, should simply not be facilitated and thus tacitly supported. Doing so is evil.
Canonical has placed a large amount of pride in building something for all of humanity and promised to keep the base distribution for free.
In legal terms, my wife already paid for whatever IP licensing fees to use codecs/proprietary drivers when she bought the Windows bundled with her computer.
We don't use the Windows anymore. My wife and I will give the finger to those fees and use the illegal codecs thank you very much.
Having Canonical turn-around and hold the users hostage to pay for codecs/proprietary drivers is unethical and encourages everyone to pay for something twice. We paid for the hardware. We need the device drivers/codecs to ship with the hardware at no cost with no vendor lock-in. It's the right thing to do. Canonical should not concern themselves with any liability regarding this. They should provide the codecs at no cost.
Except Cannonical made the right choice! It's putting in what users want in a way users can get it. People would rather have a paid option than no options at all - and it's reall a small price to pay considering they get the whole operating system for free.
Ubuntu might still have some flaws, and maybe even some rough edges still, but I honestly believe they're going in the right direction. This is how we get Linux on the desktop - by giving people what they want to do what they want. Not through ideologies which limit choice.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
If you live outside of US, you don't have to pay for proprietary codecs. Most countries don't push patents for algorithms :-)
My first Linux distro was not unlike my first car.
See my first car was a run down VW that I salvaged and got going through my desire to learn about cars.
I thought I was way ahead of the game and would save buckets of money relying solely on my own ingenuity and resourcefulness.
However at some point, I had to spend money for trivial items like a ignition coil, brake pads, oil, filters, etc etc.
Years later, I thought the same with my first adventures with Linux. I wanted to learn about Unix, I didn't have the money for a new system, my old system received a new lease of life, etc etc.
However as time went on, I did spend money. At first it was to replace items that just had worn out, eventually it was a new board so I could take advantage of new technologies.
I think many here have the same do it yourself mentality. However at some point you have to expect you WILL spend money on your rig. Whether it be on books for education, better hardware, or even a codec.
There people and businesses that provide a service at a price.
I think Windows users have been insulated from this and expect it's all packaged. Linux expect to be able to find it on sourceforge, freshmeat, etc.
Ultimately it's the end user's decision on how they want to run things and what they want to pay for.
Just my .02
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
I purchased and installed the two packages right away, without blinking an eyelid. :-) FINALLY this is possible (I have another license for Fluendo codecs on Fedora, BTW; for Fedora, they've been available since last year). And PowerDVD just rocks!! Crystal clear and smooth video, definitely worth every cent! (and nice user interface too!) I've been waiting for this for years!! :-) Finally, another reason less to use Windows! :-D
Look, Canonical picking up something else Mandriva did two years ago. Well, that's a huge surprise.
"So, users were left with sub-optimal choices. Convert the multimedia to an open format, acquire new media, or use a codec 'found' on the web, which may be illegal."
They inexplicably left out Option 4 - buy the commercial editions of Mandriva Linux 2007 or 2008, both of which came with a legally licensed copy of LinDVD. The commercial edition of 2008 also included Fluendo gstreamer codecs (as does 2008 Spring, and as will 2009).
to kiss my hairy ass.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
My guess is that if it costed $20 you may actually buy the thing instead of sending a strongly-worded letter to your representative about the idiocy of the US' patent law, and as much as Canonical likes money, they probably believe the latter option is the best one for them, long-term.
Plus, extorting money from OEMs is never a bad thing, unless you're Microsoft ;)
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
It keeps asking to install a codec for anything it doesn't know about. Worse, that codec isn't checked to see if it really is a codec, so you can hose someone's computer by sending a movie/song that requires a trojan to run.
Windows will then download the trojan to the host computer.
Which is nice.
You could even merge Synaptic with the new universal package manager: just give users check boxes, as in Display: [] Free Open Source Software, [] Commercial Software (requires UbuntuShop account), and [] Free Proprietary Software.
Bad. Very bad. Using package managers in Linux systems has two major advantages: ease of use (why is this argument so sparsely used?), and security. As long as the package repositories of my distro are based on source code, i can trust them. When they start to offer software which is supplied in binary form only, i can no longer trust my distro.
Seriously, combining user reviews and tags to sort software into Synaptic would be a huge improvement.
This could be an interesting thing to try.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Yep, install the codecs and it will be a better out of the box experience... for those who couldn't care less about open source and free software. If we relied on them, Microsoft Windows would now be compulsory for all of us.
If this had been the attitude of those who started the open source projects right from the start, there would be no open source, and no Linux. Ubuntu wouldn't even have even been a notion in someone's head, and Mr Shuttleworth would never have made his millions off the back of the Apache web server.
It takes people like Richard Stallman and his ilk, who stand their ground on the principles, to make open source work, and people like Shuttleworth to fritter it all away in the interests of profit ( if you don't think that profit is the main part of the plan, you're fooling yourself ).
Not explaining it clearly. That's the evil.
"Dear User,
Codecs to play DVDs and MP3s are available online for no cost from http://notadirectlink.org/. However, in the United States and select few other nations (see list on the right), your government may have patent laws which make it illegal to the download the free codecs.
For your convenient compliance with your local patent laws, we do offer an easy method for you to an acquire a license for the same codes for only $40. Click here to continue purchasing a license which complies with patent laws in your nation.
Love, Ubuntu."
Sounds more like a pre-emptive legal move to me. There are two things happening here:
1. Ubuntu makes it easier for everyone to do something legally.
2. Ubuntu heads off any lawsuit on the grounds they encouraged illegal downloading of codecs by offering a legal alternative (Very similar to the RIAA BS with the colleges in the US).
I have a feeling #2 is a stronger motivation.
i realize this is a good idea what with the choice and all.
but one thing that bugs me is that when i purchased my dvd burners, they came with software to play dvd's on windows.
doesnt that mean i have the right to use the codecs to view dvds legally even if it happens to be with different software? the price of the patent for viewing dvd's was rolled into my dvd burners
the way i see it, those 'illegal' methods of gaining the proper codecs to view my dvds is now 'legal' to me
or i'm entitled to a refund of the cost of the software that was rolled into the dvd burners i bought.
am i wrong?
Wouldn't DVD codecs, if they include decryption keys, require a special DRM-enabled kernel which enforces restrictions on decrypted media? Last time I looked, the DVDCCA licensing terms specifically required the license holders to prevent persistent copies of content from being made. I can't see how anyone could legally (in the US and/or WIPO signatories) offer a DVD decrypting codec which interoperated with any software the user might throw at it. Is Ubuntu silently replacing its Linux with a locked-down version if you buy the DVD-enabled version?
The sensible option would be to simply check the location, and if location != US, install "illegal" codecs. If location == US (or any other country where the open source codecs are illegal), gouge for "legal" codecs.
It doesn't make any sense to make rest of the world suffer because of idiotic US laws.
Like your comment, I believe in proving improved options instead of telling people "here use it or die". Plus formats and codecs are like the wild west.
Please tell me what the evil in this is.
There are exactly 90 evils in that.
Selling any software for opensource platforms is wrong! Especially Codecs that are readily available from othe manufacturers... Like movie player in fedora 9, Why should I have to pay to play movies on software that I could once play for free and still can using alternative software !