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!
Streaming media and web stuff: USD$40. DVD playback: USD$50.00.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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!
If you're getting Photoshop for free, too, then you shouldn't have any problem with the free Linux codecs. :->
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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.
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
Microsoft does not support DVD playback for free but most PCs sold with DVD drives have playback software installed by the OEM.
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?"
At that point, people distributing Ubuntu to friends need to specifically say that it costs $90. Unless they believe that said friend doesn't want streaming media or dvd playback.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Let's test your theory. Put DeCSS up on a website hosted in the US with your name and address on it, then mail a link to the FBI.
On purpose? Did you go to jail?
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?
Do other dvds work? If so, then it's the discs, stupid.
Yeah, I'm that stupid. Thanks for pointing it out.
Yes other discs work in linux. Guess what though, those SAME DAMN DVDS work great in the SAME DAMN HARDWARE, booted to Windows.
Thanks for the snarky comment, though.
Or, like me, they will say "fuck that" and use "illegal" codecs, laws be damned.
I'm not creating content with your proprietary codecs, so you can fuck off with your royalties.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
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.
Splorf! When you can get a cheap new DVD player for $20 to $30 at $BIGBOXSTORE, $50 to enable the codec on your computer is a /bit/ excessive.
They're pricing themselves out of the market. If I started feeling guilty about installing ubuntu-restricted-extras and not paying the intellectual-property tax, I might consider paying $10 to $15 to play DVDs and media files, but not $90.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
Those prices are higher than fluendos. You can get a complete bundle that plays everything for €28 which works out at $40.
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 ?
strange, that is the same DVD drive that I use with my linux box. Didnt I already pay for the codec then?
No, the fact that the computer costs the same with or without windows means that I didn't pay for windows.
That assertion is just patently false.
If you bought a machine without windows for the same cost, then you paid the OEM for some additional profit/overhead.
If you bought a machine *with* windows for the same cost, then you paid MICROSOFT for WINDOWS.
*Your* money flowed from your credit card, to the OEM's bank, and then on to Microsoft's coffers. It doesn't matter whether you "give a shit" about it. Facts is facts.
We cannot ship codecs through the distro, as they are not free to redistribute. So we have built a restricted download area that is accessible through the store.
They don't bother to inform users of different legal requirements for non-US countries.
Effectively this means they try to milk users from all over the world for charging for totally unnecessary codex.
This is rather nasty as they are incorporated in the UK, not the US.
Or even better, on their own site they proclaim:Founded in late 2004, Canonical Ltd is a company headquartered in Europe.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
At that point, people distributing Ubuntu to friends need to specifically say that it costs $90.
Those in the know will use the free drivers (and tell their friends where to get them).
Free-as-in-speech software purists need proprietary codecs like a vegan needs a steak-knife, so they have nothing to complain about - unless they think that Joe Potential-Switcher, given the choice between (a) sticking with Windows/Mac or (b) converting their entire media collection to open formats (which you can't do without a codec for the source format anyway) is going to choose (b).
...if you do decide to fork out $90, that isn't a lot if you offset it against the metric shitload of OS and application software you just got for free, and if that includes a nice little something for Canonical on the side then, well, they deserve it.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
DMCA prohibits merely accessing scrambled content (and trafficking in tools that help you do that). It doesn't say anything about saving/copying.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Illegal? exactly how?
Copyright? No, the code was written from scratch.
Patent? we all love software patents, but I don't think there are any for DVD playback or DVD encryption, they wanted to keep these secret, and patents are public.
Trade secret? There is no secret remaining.
Anti-copy-protection-circumvention legislation (DMCA)?
CSS does not prevent copies. DVD's can be copied without unencryption.
Also, the primary use of libdecss is the same as a commercial DVD player. To play movies. All DVD player software decrypts DVD's to play. Is all DVD playing software illegal, since it can be used to circumvent copy protection?
Or is the general rule that the only legal DVD decryption software that which is approved with the DVD-Video logo? Perhaps it's a trademark issue.
Imagine three people: Bob, Tom, and Joe.
Bob pays $XXXX to see the official DVD-Video spec and CSS spec, and writes DVD player from scratch. Bob decides to give the DVD player away for free. He cannot give away source code, as he agreed to a license when he saw the specification.
Tom also writes a DVD player program. Tom, however uses only specification published on the internet for DVD-Video and CSS decryption. Tom publishes the source code to the player he wrote, and releases as open source.
Joe like open-source as it is more reliable and contains less viruses. Joe uses Toms DVD player to play movies that he bought.
Did any of the three violate any law? If so, which law?
I wish they would sell wireless drivers there too.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
No. I'm sure they're making a pretty penny here. The highest single codec license fee I know if is MPEG-2, which was $2.50 last I checked. VC-1 and H.264 are less than a dollar each.
Lots more about codec licensing than you'd ever care to learn can be found at http://www.mpegla.com/.
My video compression blog