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.
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.
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!
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.
'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?"
On purpose? Did you go to jail?
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...
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.
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
strange, that is the same DVD drive that I use with my linux box. Didnt I already pay for the codec then?
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