Do "Illegal" Codecs Actually Scare Linux Users? 510
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."
Not just linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not just linux (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not just linux (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but doesn't commercial software provide indemnification against lawsuits directed at the end-user? That was a big part of the whole SCO/Linux fiasco. SCO was saying that because all Linux distros are distributed with the "all bets are off/use at your own risk" caveat (with a specific denial of indemnification), that anyone who uses Linux can be sued for pirac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO basically just said "if you sign up for our 'Linux license', we won't sue you for copyright/patent/whatever infringement" (despite, of course, not being able to demonstrate that they'd have any shred of a case if they actually did).
Take a look at your average EULA, it basically contains the same disclaimers as the GPL or the BSD license, but without any of the nice aspects to them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, but isn't that usually limited to the amount paid for the product? So if you buy Windows for $100, and you are sued for patent infringement, Microsoft at most supplies $100 for your legal defense.
Re:Not just linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not just linux (Score:4, Interesting)
The laws of the US and the UK on software patents are extremely different I don't know where the hell you figured otherwise because of some lame AT&T case to do with the exporting of patents outside the US doesn't change the laws outside of the US.Irrelevant since a media codec is a purely software invention anything on an operating system is purely software. You can not hold a patent on software alone in the UK.I know you're trying your best to FUD this up, but just stop trolling. Its lame that you have gone to these lengths.
Software patents don't exist in the UK. Software patents don't exist in the EU. I know you want them to for the sake of "winning" an internet argument but they don't. They will never reverse this decision in the UK so whatever bullshit you want to reply to this go ahead but the US doesn't dictate patent law to the world just because of some courtroom case on American soil.Help with what? There is no problem at all. Its all just a lame excuse just so the author of the article can go "see, Linux is still not good enough".
This isn't the first negative Linux article written by the author.
Re:Not just linux (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not just linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not just linux (Score:5, Informative)
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.
IE is a "Windows component" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Inviduals may or may not be concerned with possible legalities, but companies are and the potential for a lawsuit is enough to be a deal killer. That is what drives the BSA tactics, no?
Not ad hominem (Score:3, Informative)
Since when are ad hominem arguments "Insightful"?
The grandparent did not use ad hominem. Ad hominem is where you attack the person and credibility of your opponent in an argument when it is irrelivent. An example would be: "your argument is wrong because you are stupid/are ugly/have a promiscuous mother". The falicy being that if an argument is advocated by a highly flawed person, it is flawed itself. However, if the argument is about someone's reaction to a stimulus (such as a legal warning) and the author cites his own response, his bravery IS part of
Re:That is what Ogg is for (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not just linux (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a tool. It will empower you. There are lots of you out there who live in fucked up countries where that's illegal. I'm going to show you the power you're not allowed to use, and I'm going to let you choose... respect your laws and sit there powerless, change your laws so they're not grinding you under, or engage in civil disobedience until you're obligated to choose from options 1 and 2.
There's two ways someone can go when they're empowering people.
Look at Google.
One choice, set up the Great Firewall of America, the Great Firewall of China, etc, and don't let the user do anything illegal.
Other choice, have a link that says "Here's all the stuff your government doesn't allow you to see. It's illegal to click it, you probably shouldn't click it cause you'll get into trouble, and we won't protect you if you do click it, but we'll allow you the possibility to act against your government and leave the enforcement to them."
Open source software will generally take the second choice of the two. Let you see what your government is taking away from you, and let you have the tools to resist if you wish.
If you're afraid of your government, that's not the fault of a piece of software.
Maybe that is the answer (Score:2)
Re:Maybe that is the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
AAC and MP4 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AAC and MP4 (Score:4, Insightful)
What cant have DRM installed on it silently? MP3.
what tries to hijack your music? Media player 9,10,11 add DRM silently and pisses off everyone the first time they try to move their music and are told their music is unauthorized.
Mp3 survives because it was non DRM from the beginning has the absolute widest compatability and got a foothold so stron in the beginning that not even the superior OGG can touch it. WMA and AAC lose because they are late comers and certianly dont have the recognition.
Ask anyone on the street. "whats an mp3" they will answer you. Ask what's an AAC and they look at you like you are wierd.
mp3 - it's what's for dinner and will be the standard long after apple, microsoft and the others try to shoehorn in their "better" codec.
Can You Blame Him (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm talking about is creating a package for more Linux distros to work with several apps, installing all the Codecs they can get resale licenses for and selling them to people who wish to "remain legal."
A slight profit might come of it and satisfy all the worried people out there. Additionally, these packages could be included with "commercial" (bought off the shelf) Linux distros and managed in the same way.
The point is, why
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it the fault of Linux that they have to click through a simple warning written in plain English to take care of their legally mandated duty because of the way that certain laws are written, particularly in America?
Have you seen a EULA? Most people don't read it but scroll to the bottom, click accept and then they're done, but they're signing away much more than what you agree to when you click on that codec acceptance. We don't notice a EULA becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait Microsoft already did that didnt they?
Shrug (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shrug (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it to be a good thing. It can save money. Gotta think of my shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is no legal (or affordable) way for me to obtain [a PS3] I would likely [build my own PS3, with blackjack, and hookers].
Re: (Score:2)
hardware =! software/media
If I really want a device sold only in Japan I can have it imported and minus some electrical issues I can use it. If I want to watch a TV show that is only in Japan I can't buy the DVD and watch it unless it's region 0 or 1.
That is only a problem for (Score:4, Insightful)
The third option (Score:2)
Actually, there is a third option [wikipedia.org], the one that is actually most often used here, the one that the MPAA doesn't want anyone to acknowledge exists. Yes, it can have some dire consequences, but it doesn't change the fact that it's worked numerous times throughout history.
Here's the way I look at it. I've paid good money fo
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with stupid laws --- It erodes respect for the law in general.
Re: (Score:2)
I condemn laws allowing software to be patented and I support legislation to prohibit it. I would gladly write my MP (I'm Canadian) to express my concern if the iss
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the clauses ... (Score:3, Informative)
You can't patent a mathmatical/logical algorithm. It's part of the paperwork in what is/is not patentable. A patent is supposed to be on an implimentation of a solution, not the concept of how to solve the problem. Thus, you can patent your design of an electric motor, but you can't patent the concept of an electric motor. The only reason software patents are allowed now is because the USPTO & The Fed court that governs patents don't read anything.
How many patents are there on razor blades? I count 8 o
Scared? (Score:5, Funny)
apt-get install w32codecs
Wow that was super scary. I'm so glad it's over...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just checked on a Debian Lenny box that didn't have w32codecs already installed, and no, it does not. No muss, no fuss, no scary language. Didn't even need to cross my fingers or invoke executive privilege.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Does that even work on a stock Debian install? I don't think so.... You first need to change your /etc/apt/sources.list to include "non-free" repositories.
Not a problem... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to detract from the humor of that, I think you more fairly should have received an "insightful" mod...
Other than media I personally encode (basically ripped CDs and DVDs, which I own and have the right to format-shift) and Creative Commons material - Both of which would use an open codec anyway - I don't think I've ever encountered a legally-obtained sound and/or video file. Not even indirectly as a request to help someone else play something.
Seriously.
Sure, plenty of people ask me how to open videos received via email, or compressed music a friend gave them on CD, but those don't actually count as legal. Arguably they both could; Someone could have asked a friend to rip their music collecion, or they could send home videos to a relative. But no one does. Such content unwaveringly comes from (copyrighted) websites, or "sharing" a collection of music that frequently neither person actually owns.
Not to say I consider those uses in any way immoral (illegal, whole different ballpark) - Fair use, IMO, exists so people can mail cheesy video clips to friends. I also don't have a problem with installing free codecs on the "wrong" OS simply because the EULA has the word "Windows" somewhere in it.
But we delude ourselves by thinking that we actually have any legal right to such content; Indeed, we hurt fair use by not standing up and demanding both the right and the ability to share such content.
With whom the fault lies (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The average end user doesn't care "whose fault it is" ("they started it!" "don't make me turn this car around.") Assuming we care about Linux adoption, the ONLY relevant question to an end-user is "does it work out of the box". If it doesn't, the user won't stick around to follow the argument and finger-pointing as to why it doesn't work.
Not that the article's argument is particularly objective..
EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)
The blame for this lies with Linux? How? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
"...no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00..."
Re:The blame for this lies with Linux? How? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bigger story is you (Linux community) *still* don't get it.
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.
Re:The blame for this lies with Linux? How? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a very dangerous point of view you have there. I have the unshakable belief that my government exists at my whim. If my government makes laws that I don't approve of, I will happily break them. I do it all the time. I also work where I can to change bad laws by communicating with my governmental representatives. That does not in any way make me a "sociopath." (It seems certain you don't know what sociopathy is.) This is, in point of fact, the long-established tradition of American behavior. If government starts acting in ways you don't approve of, and in addition starts to feel quite unrepresentative, our general solution is to stop following those laws.
I'm sure if Slashdot was around 40 years ago, you'd have been saying "coloreds" don't get it. All this "front of the bus" lawbreaking is positively sociopathic.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One of the hallmarks of a sociopath is implying that other people are by putting words in their mouth then telling people that anybody who feels that way is displaying one of the hallmarks of being a sociopath.
Oh, wait, I have no idea what I'm talking about and am just spewing vitriol in a pathetic attempt to
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad title (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a EULA to me (Score:2)
Codecs are about format not about content (Score:3, Insightful)
What is important is the content - ie not ripping off someone's copyright for the piece of music, film, ... That I don't do. If I can't obtain it legally then I won't play it -- I might not like the copyright on music (being for so many years and all that) but I will respect it.
See what I mean about the different between format & content ?
Then pay for the Fluendo codecs (Score:5, Informative)
If you want peace of mind and avoid being a criminal in countries with silly laws, then these may be something for you.
and for "legal" DVD viewing... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I will gladly pay for this option.
Re:Then pay for the Fluendo codecs (Score:4, Interesting)
If I buy the Fluendo codecs but don't download them, and install my distro's version instead, is that still legal?
Is there an IP lawyer in the house?
Re:Then pay for the Fluendo codecs (Score:4, Insightful)
I see it as civil disobedience. (And no, I don't want to have a discussion about how much risk of discovery and punishment there has to be to qualify as civil disobedience, which is not necessarily part of the definition - look it up, including the original source. Thankyou.) Only with a government completely beholden to corporate masters is it possible to have a situation in which you are prevented from playing the media for which you have legally acquired a license.
I don't want to tell anyone else what to do (exactly) :) but I do think that if you believe a law is unjust, then you should do your best not to follow it. There's a lot of ways that can go wrong, of course, but I don't believe that you should do what you are told simply because you are told. I have to have a good reason.
You can take our software, but (Score:2, Insightful)
=p
Re: (Score:2)
"Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."
WTF??? I thought Slashdot was cared about freedom of speech/expression. Guess not!! Fucking nazis.
Since when (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as long as they pay the appropriate patent license fees to all the necessary parties.
This is why you hear complaints about software patents - they make it so that some standard file formats can only be legally implemented in software as payware.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_SA [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since always?
Check out the wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] or the patent licensing page [mp3licensing.com] for more info.
Why would you assume it's an ANSI standard and freely available?
MP3, RanD, OOXML and some more acronyms. (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, anyone is allowed to take the standard, write a codec for it, and play mp3s as much as they like, legally, for either a royalty fee per copy or US $50 000. The license fees are here [mp3licensing.com]. (When it says US $2.50 - $5.00 per unit I presume it's per copy of the codec, not per song).
I believe the technical term is "RAND" (Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) licensing: Thomson S.A and the Fraunhofer Institute are playing nice, they don't refuse anyone who wants to license th
can get license (Score:2)
This doesn't take care of mp3, but my understanding is that Thomson doesn't mind people using free mp3 decoders (they said something about that years ago) as long as they don't sell them (that's GPL incompatible, I know).
Ubuntu developers are fools (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame on the Ubuntu developers for putting in such a simple and clearly understandable dialog box.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
MP3 patent expires 2011 (Score:3, Informative)
The various patents claimed to cover MP3 by different patent-holders have many different expiration dates, ranging from 2007 to 2017 in the U.S. [9]. However, U.S. patents can only last up to 20 years, and MP3 was released as a specification in 1991, so if U.S. courts applied U.S. law, no patent could apply beyond 2011 to MP3 itself.[10] In the U.S., any patent claiming to cover the fundamentals of MP3 after 2012 should (by law) be struck down as an invalid patent, due to the existence of published prior art (the MP3 specification) more than a year before the patent's filing. If it had been published earlier (such as in public drafts), the latest date would be even earlier. However, it is unclear if U.S. courts would enforce this. The situation in other countries that permit software patents is similar.
--From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds right. Software patents expire once the technique involved is blatantly obsolete. The only exception that I know if is the RSA patent - that just set back computer security by 20 years outright.
distro dependant problem (Score:2)
This issue is actually a distro dependent problem. Linux cannot fall short as Linux is just a kernel, not a company or a distribution. Some distro's (such as Turbolinux) do pay the fees to legally distribute the proprietary codecs in question. These fees may be too high (overpriced) for many distributions to afford so many will find an alternative way
Why is it "illegal"? (Score:2)
If it's morally questionable then say that. If it's yet to be tested in the courts then say that.
But if it's illegal but you don't think it should be then don't muddy the issue by putting the world in speech marks and calling it "illegal" because that does nothing to move the discussion forward.
Say it's illegal but an example of a bad law (and one that's perhaps yet to be tested) and move on.
Yes, it would be nice if the DCMA, draconian licensing agreements
Wow, people read EULAs? (Score:2)
Basically, all EULAs are are non-binary DRM - a text file that tries to tell you what you can and can't do with the software.
I ignore them. It's in my possession, I'll do whatever I want with it, thank you very much.
It doesn't scare me... (Score:2)
But it does keep liability-conscious companies from adopting Linux.
If you're going to make inroads into the proprietary-license software world, you've got to do it legally. Granted, we might not like software patents and draconian copyright terms, etc... but for now it is the law, at least in the US. To make Linux compelling, it has to give back to the community, rather than just piggybacking on the hard work of others. Implementing a copy of a popular product isn't innovation; producing a better cod
No real established case law (Score:2)
As far as I know, using a codec for personal use to decode media is not easily (and certainly not routinely) punished, though I may be mistaken. Obviously commercial software has been pulled off the shelves for illegally using codecs, like the DVD backup software a few years back, but I don't recall ever hearing about end users of it being sued, let alone convicted. Decoding MP3s with LAME or installing the Win32 codecs on a Debian system is probably not going to land you in the slammer, and I've never be
Ironic since Linux has fewer EULAs (Score:2)
When do I bring up Ogg Vorbis? (Score:2)
I see basically the exact opposite (Score:2)
Making excuses not to use Linux.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just making excuses not to use Linux because they can't think of any real ones.
Re:Do Linux users care about using "illegal" codec (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't want to see stuff like this when they load up software , it does scare them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do Linux users care about using "illegal" codec (Score:5, Insightful)
* Download legally-questionable open-source codec
Legally questionable in the USA, please. In my country it's perfectly legal.
My Rant (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why are you doing it?
"am not making or denying any profit to any organization"
Except Microsoft. I guess they don't count because they are 'evil'.
"It is wrong and invasive, therefore the issue is moot."
Right, 2 wrongs always make a right.
"How many feds know a thing about Linux anyway?"
This matters because... ?
In the end, it doesn't matter whether you think it's 'right' or 'wrong', it's illegal and you take a risk by using the codecs in this fashion. I happen to thi
Re: (Score:2)
"Copying them from your Windows machine is pirating the software." If he removes them from his Winbox to his linbox he's not pirating ... I'm sure a lot of us have legit copies of older versions of windows that we don't use any more, but that we can use the codecs, fonts, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a really good article on the MS XP EULA called "Windows XP EULA in Plain English" by linuxadvocate.org but that site seems to be gone and I can't find a mirror or PDF of it. Just a small hint
Re:OSS devs should pay the license fees, not the u (Score:3, Insightful)