Canonical Offers Sale of Proprietary Codecs for Ubuntu 427
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."
Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a big fan of Kubuntu, but I suspect you must be talking about some other system. I have had nothing but problems with the knetworkmanager over a wide range of hardware. As we speak I have to run a custom script whenever I want to connect to the wireless WPA network at work on my laptop, and another for my PC on the WEP at home.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
You should look into wpa_supplicant, on Debian/Unstable (so I guess ubuntu should have this also) it couldn't get any easier: /etc/network/interfaces: /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf
allow-hotplug wlan0
iface wlan0 inet manual
wpa-roam
iface home inet static
address 10.0.1.67
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 10.0.1.254
iface elsewhere inet dhcp /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf:
network={
ssid="myhomessid"
id_str="home"
scan_ssid=1
key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
psk="areallytopsecretpassphrase"
}
network={
ssid="FON_AP"
id_str="elsewhere"
scan_ssid=1
key_mgmt=NONE
}
But you are using WEP at home? I hope you know what you are doing.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
WPA supplicant is a mess. I should be able to type in a network name and passhprase at a prompt, and be done with it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
For many it's the only way to get a reliable WPA connection.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
http://ipw3945.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
intel wireless chipsets are NICE. I bought a dell laptop with ubuntu pre-installed that came with an intel wireless chipset, I have no problems whatsoever.
the big thing for ubuntu would be to pressure other hardware makers to go the same route as intel, guess it hasn't been working out. as a customer I prefer to support intel and other hardware manufacturers that provide support for Foss drivers.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Informative)
No they aren't. My laptop came with an ipw2100. If in the presence of more than a few APs the card will hang and the driver will restart it, hanging everything for a second or two. This is a bug that has been known about for years [launchpad.net] and still isn't fixed. I gave up waiting for them a while ago and replaced the piece of crap with an Atheros card. No more hangs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there's a lot of crap you have to do to get iPods working...
It doesn't actually conform to the USB Mass Storage spec, at least not for music. File storage, sure, but otherwise, no.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That has not been my experience. Just install gtkpod and you're good to go.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a separate USB Mass Storage spec for music?
Because as far as I know the iPod treats itself like a HDD, reads from an XML index, and loads files from a directory tree sorted according to a hash algorithm.
So... what is the problem? I thought this was solved years ago?
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the GP meant the DVD-ROM drive?
Re: (Score:2)
VLC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which contains one of these 'illegal' codecs. I think its all bullshit, and use it anyways.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is more appropriate to blame a broken patent system than capitalism itself. Patents impede competition which is an important concept in capitalism.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the other half of the market system is a legal framework that does not encourage socialism. That is, make producers liable for the products, and prevent the government from limiting those liabilities. Of course, in the name of public safety and stability, there is some benefit to some market meddling. Of course, the problem occurs when government socializes businesses while stil leaving them in large private hands, as has happened this week in the US. The executives reap huge rewards while the taxpayer takes a bath.
So, in this case, there is no simple legal and free way to get a driver for linux, so the market created one, in terms of gray market drivers. The market has also created a 100% above board driver. The only question remains, for a market point of view, is it worthwhile to prosecute those that use the grey market download. Certainly from a socialist point of view it is, because the government will pay the bills, and the right owner will reap the reward. Perhaps from a law and order point of view this is also prudent. But what it comes down to is that patents do not be defended to remain valid, the money lost through these grey downloads are likely not significant, and like MS Windows, the benefit of universal access probably outweighs any issue of lost revenue.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
The patent system is largely protecting the inventor.
Indeed and for me rightfully so.
But patents on Software (formulas you know) are not right.
Some sort of reward for a developer might be appropriate but it has to be tied to the industry.
And in software that means maybe only for 3 or 5 years max.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly, and well said. It's unfortunate that those of us who speak out against software patents are labeled amongst the tin-foil hat socialist crowd that is somehow against inventors, the free market, or demand government intervention (which is what patents are). As you suggested, software for specific purposes is very limited in duration (presumably because it becomes outdated within that time frame). I think patents are a very important protection for tangible inventions, but they're a horrible thing when it comes to software--or formulae, as you stated. As an aside, I love that simplification you offer, because it brings everything to the crux of the matter which is that software patents are oftentimes very narrow in scope and involve either an algorithm or a user interface that is so blatantly obvious, prior art has likely preceded any patent by years!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good call. Maybe one day North Korea will wake us up from our current state.
Re: (Score:2)
> ...right next to the Windows Vista boxes (on sale for JUST $199!)
Isn't that the upgrade price?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree they should definitely box up Ubuntu (Shuttleworth has got the funds) and start selling it right alongside Windows Vista. Even I might buy it just to support more GNU/Linux/FOSS development (Ubuntu is just one facet in the whole thing). $30-$45 is definitely a reasonable price for an OS that is 50x better than Windows and with that, free upgrades (I am assuming). People may not flock immediately, but with word they will.
Re: (Score:2)
1) What makes Ubuntu great and cheap is precisely the fact that it resists putting copyright protected software. This is a bad move. It would be much better if the codec were sold separately by a different entity than canonical.
2) Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, not about government enforced laws of copyrights. Many radical advocates of capitalism oppose IP laws.
3) Where do you see capitalism being the state religion ? Are you joking ? As we speak the state is bailing out t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As we speak the state is bailing out the whole economy. The state hates capitalism
Yeah, about since Monday right?
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problems experienced can be traced back to the 1913. No, not just since Monday.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's just like what Redhat did in the early days.
Ubuntu has never been about Free Software Purity.
We have Debian for that. I don't see what the big
deal is here. Are you people forgetful or just
haven't been around long enough?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free, but they never will be so long as capitalism remains our official state religion.
I'm no poly sci major, but I think patents constitute government interference in the free market.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm no poly sci major, but I think patents constitute government interference in the free market.
Sure, and telling you what side of the road to drive on is interference in Darwinism.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
You do realise, of course, that such places do still exist, and as far as I'm aware Canonical is in one since they are a UK-based company, and is not bound by retarded US laws like the DMCA and pretty much all software patents?
From your use of dollars to describe prices, I assume you're American and were previously unable to get these legally, except directly from Fluendo, but I think it is a slippery slope for a UK business to willingly bend over before the laws of another country. Firstly in not offering
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes the easiest way to give something away "for free" after no one will take it is to put a price on it. It's a little disturbing to see how often this is necessary at yard sales. People ignore the 'free' sign on the little end table that has nothing wrong with it, but the second I put a "25c" sticker on it someone comes along and goes "Is that really only 25 cents!?"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Holy crap, that explains a lot. All these years I've been trying to give my body away to women for free.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Even Richard Stallman [wikipedia.org], hardly the high priest of capitalism (although he does look somewhat like an old testament prophet with that gnarly beard), does not deny the right of the creator(s) or even just the re-distributor(s) to charge money for their software or even GNU programs (provided that they adhere to the terms of the General Public License which makes charging money and getting away with it difficult in practice, but not expressly forbidden). The free in free software means free as in freedom and no
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
This is why I gave-up on proprietary OSes.
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently tried Fluendo's free version and it didn't sound right and seemed to have artifacts. I instead went to pacman and downloaded their mp3 codec and things sounded much better.
Maybe the Fluendo pay version is better than the free one. At any rate, I hope Ubuntu offers good codecs for sale so people still aren't turned off from Linux.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
No that is really really really bad, you now have free Linux and pay Linux. The free Linux will bw see as crippleware and 10 years down half of a Linux system will be closed source paid apps with shinny DRM. This is a dangerous precedent.
And wireless too (Score:4, Insightful)
Not new, just streamlined. (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends. (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:Not new, just streamlined. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the real win for Canonical... OEM pre-installs.
Its doubtful that anyone who downloads Ubuntu for free will pay for these things... they will find the no-cost alternatives and use them.
What this does do however is give OEMs who want to pre-install Canonical a legal way to include these encumbered bits of software and roll the cost into the sale price of the computer/device the customer is purchasing.
So really this is a mechanism aimed at people buying computers with Ubuntu pre-installed, who won't be given a choice as to whether or not to spend the money on these things. The cost will be included in the price tag of the device.
It's actually a pretty smart move, and makes Ubuntu more attractive to OEMs.
OEMs and Ubuntu boxsets.
Given the legal structures in place... (Score:4, Insightful)
Somebody had to do it... (Score:2)
Re:Somebody had to do it... (Score:5, Informative)
Streaming media and web stuff: USD$40 [canonical.com]. DVD playback: USD$50.00 [canonical.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Somebody had to do it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:patented, not propritary (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [mpegla.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 $9
Re:Somebody had to do it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Somebody had to do it... (Score:5, Funny)
If you're getting Photoshop for free, too, then you shouldn't have any problem with the free Linux codecs. :->
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I don't believe you get DVD playback included in Windows, at least not in XP. You do get MP3 support included, but then, that's not the same thing as free, is it? Presumably you paid for your copy of Windows, either off-the-shelf or as part of a new computer purchase.
The problem is that these codecs have to be licensed by Canonical (for money) to be distributed, which makes it pretty impractical to distribute them in a free product. Look at it this way: for $40 you get a version of Ubuntu which can hand
Re:Somebody had to do it... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Somebody had to do it... (Score:5, Interesting)
strange, that is the same DVD drive that I use with my linux box. Didnt I already pay for the codec then?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd refute you but saw the "aesthetically pleasing desktop" with windows and decided not to bother.
Re: (Score:2)
You do NOT get professional third party software for free. What the FUCK are you smoking? Incidentally, didn't your mother tell you to share? An frankly, I find GNOME and KDE both *far* more aesthetically pleasing than the shiny shit of vista. And no, you do not get the same functionality for free; microsoft licensed it from them. That's included in your price, and probably amounts to ten bucks of it. Frankly, if you're that worried, get something like Sabayon Linux which, since it is based outside th
Re: (Score:2)
...at least using windows I get less functionality for $300+, I get an assortment of even more expensive third party software (eg Photoshop) and I get an ugly, barely functional desktop as well!
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that; at least using windows I get the same functionality for free,
No, you don't. You paid for it. It's just that you didn't have a choice not to. Your OEM installed it for you or Microsoft licensed it and passed the cost on to the Windows license fee. If you installed it yourself without paying, you broke the law.
Re: (Score:2)
> at least using windows I get the same functionality for free,
Oh, don't be naive. The cost is bundled into the OS. Unless you're stealing Windows?
Re: (Score:2)
My Linux desktop does all the same as well, and I don't pay anything for it. But my copy of WinXP Pro ran me $100. Guess which one I use for general purpose at home?
Well, if you're like most Linux users I know you'll proudly proclaim that you're a "Linux user" and how much Microsoft sucks but you'll still use Windows 30-50% of the time ;). I keed, I keed. :P
It's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case there's some confusion (since the standard WinXP Pro didn't have DVD decoders built in), Vista Home Premium and Ultimate do have DVD playback support out of the box.
Now if you were (which is more likely) refering to out of the box Vista experience being inferior, regardless of codec, thats fine. I just wanted to clarify in case it was because of DVD playback :)
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's get Dell, Gateway, etc. to start pre-installing Ubuntu with the extra media options.
They already do. At least Dell does. Not sure about HP.
Dell ubuntu machines already have them (Score:3, Informative)
All dell ubuntu boxes that have DVD drives come with the software. Even the mini 9" has MP3 codecs already installed.
Good on 'em! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good on 'em! (Score:4, Informative)
"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,..."
No, they have not decided this. They charge a license for codecs to DVD player manufacturers as well but those are built in to the devices out of the box so the costs are already part of the price set by the manufacturer. With computers, you do not purchase the ability to use your system as a DVD player simply y purchasing hardware, you purchase the codecs, and subsequently, through the OS or similar solution such as the one offered by Ubuntu.
Looks like the final piece has dropped into place! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [catb.org].
Good for them! (Score:2, Interesting)
not illegal (Score:2)
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.
Re:not illegal (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
DeCSS is a modification for a system to make it circumvent. the CSS component used in a linux player does not save anything. it only performs decoding for the players on the system.
You would need an illegal mod to turn an Ubuntu system with the CSS component into a circumvention device.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DMCA [cornell.edu] prohibits merely accessing scrambled content (and trafficking in tools that help you do that). It doesn't say anything about saving/copying.
Can Canonical play the sales game? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I have wondered for a long time why Ubuntu did create the software equivalent of an iTunes store for Ubuntu. I keep hearing about Linux versions of games but I can never find a place too buy them I admit that I haven't looked all that hard. I know this will tick off some people but if Ubuntu offered a place where people and companies could sell Linux software I think it would be a great thing.
People could have a choice between buying software and free software.
They would compete and frankly the g
uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
'Cos, y'know, it's not like you can just install VLC from Synaptic [ubuntu.com].
(VLC is also my favourite media and DVD player on Mac.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The version of VLC that is available in the official Ubuntu repositories does NOT have the necessary codec to go along with it, for legal reasons. To enable support for encrypted DVDs (i.e. the ones people want to watch), you need to install libdvdcss2 from something like Medibuntu, which is the whole issue due to its questionable legality. The alternative is to download and compile VLC themselves from the main Videolan site, but that takes even more work.
Patent Fees and Supreme court decision (Score:5, Interesting)
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?"
Patent Exhaustion -- continued (Score:4, Interesting)
http://spie.org/x26516.xml [spie.org]
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that the makers of a Free Software implementation, like LAME, will not get a license to use the patents because they are not the distributor, EVERYONE who gets it is a distributor. Apple can pay fees based on the number of iPods sold, but with Free Software a license fee for a single unit could be payed, then the recipient of that single unit can copy it indefinetly around the globe without paying anything.
If, on the other hand, the recipient had to pay for the number of copies distributed (a
But are they better? (Score:2)
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?
Re:But are they better? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
An attempted libertarian perspective (Score:2)
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, i
Woohoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
About time versus to many $ (Score:3)
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
ubuntu playing catchup ? (Score:3, Insightful)
So is it just that ubuntu has woken up that makes this news ?
Re:Canonical == Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...You blinded her? (Score:5, Funny)
On purpose? Did you go to jail?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.