Do "Illegal" Codecs Actually Scare Linux Users?

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

[Pyrrus]

Almost all software (especially proprietary) requires you to click through a EULA that threatens to assult you with lawyers if you don't play nice.

That is only a problem for

[vivaoporto]

That is only a problem for countries that enforce software patents, that is, IIRC, the USA. If he admits that Linux is better than the alternative, but he feels somehow constrained by the warnings and restrictions, he can either vote with his money (that he does) and buy a software that doesn't "put him off", or vote with his feet and move from the country that imposes such restrictions on him. He can also join the choir and try to change this absurd legislation that allows people to patent algorithms instead of implementations, but I'm trying to keep it real, for once.

With whom the fault lies

[kerohazel]

From TFA: "...it's a perfect example of what's wrong with Linux and the concept of free software. Free software is great in isolation, but as soon as you have a situation where you're trying to integrate it with modern proprietary file formats, the idea falls apart at the seams."

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.

EULAs

[drooling-dog]

He's apparently never read the EULAs for his Microsoft ware. Now that is scary stuff...

The blame for this lies with Linux? How?

[Omnifarious]

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:Shrug

[njfuzzy]

Summary: "The poster cares about running afoul of the law in these ways, but I don't have such compunctions."

Re:Do Linux users care about using "illegal" codec

[BosstonesOwn]

I beg to differ. If I am thinking of using linux in an enterprise and I need my people to play with media , it does indeed scare the users to see a disclaimer like this. Unfortunately this is another blow that stops adoption.

Most people don't want to see stuff like this when they load up software , it does scare them.

Bad title

[Virak]

Should be "Do 'Illegal' Codecs Actually Scare Potential Linux Users?", because that's what the article's about. I don't think most actual Linux users (myself included, though I don't live in the US, so it's not even illegal for me) care about the legality of the codecs. They just want to listen to the music and watch the movies they paid for.

Codecs are about format not about content

[Alain Williams]

All a codec is is a way of encoding some content, so as long as the codec decoding s/ware is legal (ie not ripped off someone's copyright) then I cannot see what the problem is. Oh, I suppose that if you live somewhere like the USA where people can patent a format then you may need to think about it.

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 ?

You can take our software, but

[TheDarkener]

You can never take....our freeeeeeeeeeeeeedooooooooooooooom!!!!

=p

Re:Do we care?

[Aladrin]

"I am not gaining anything out of it"

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 think it's stupid as well, but it's still the law.

Has it ever actually stopped anyone from using them? There's probably someone, somewhere that's paranoid of the government and thinks it's a trap, so yeah... Maybe.

Don't try to rationalize that this activity is not illegal just because it's not immoral or unethical in your eyes (or anyone else's). The 2 are completely unrelated.

Re:Shrug

[Rob the Bold]

Its (sic) called rationalization and its (sic) not a good thing.

I find it to be a good thing. It can save money. Gotta think of my shareholders.

Ubuntu developers are fools

[Locutus]

why would they put up such clear and understandable dialog boxes which just end up scaring the user. They should follow Microsoft's lead and put all that in 5-10 pages of legalese and call it an EULA. Then, their users will see that, maybe read one or two lines before hitting the [OK] button.

Shame on the Ubuntu developers for putting in such a simple and clearly understandable dialog box. ;-)

LoB
   

Re:Not just linux

[Znork]

Of course, the proprietary software may very well be violating various patents as well, so technically they should pop up the same disclaimers. FLOSS just tends to be slightly more nitpicky about being excessively verbose and honest with these issues (not to mention that part of the intent is quite likely to make end users aware of the actual damage the patent system causes).

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:Can You Blame Him

[Etrias]

Yeah I can blame him. This is a ludicrous argument.
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 because it's so filled with legalese, no one takes the time to read what you, as a consumer, are giving up.
But this guy is complaining that he has to make an agreement about not using the codec illegally? THAT scares him off from making the switch?
I am simply amazed that a EULA gets a free pass because no one bothers to read it but in Linux, choosing accept on the codecs because you actually can read the damn thing freaks out someone. All that proves to me is that he's an idiot that doesn't read what he's agreeing to unless it's under ten sentences.

Re:That is only a problem for

[mhall119]

so far, I've not encountered a commercial vendor for a particular software with the relevant licenses to legally allow the playing of .wmv/.aacs/.mp4 etc.

I believe Linspire and Xandros have the relevant licenses for this. Additionally, Fluendo [arstechnica.com] will be selling native linux codecs for these formats with the proper licensing.

Re:With whom the fault lies

[Z0mb1eman]

I don't mean to single out your post, and I agree with it in principle, but that's a somewhat puerile argument.

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... but neither is getting defensive.

Re:The blame for this lies with Linux? How?

[kiwimate]

Way to be defensive by going on the attack, mate. By the way, did you read the article? It seems not.

The bigger story is you (Linux community) *still* don't get it.

• The vast majority of the population neither know nor care who or what the RIAA is or does.
• Same with DRM.
• This same vast majority actually doesn't think Microsoft is evil. They might complain about Windows or Word, but that's a far cry from the vitriolic hatred spewed forth by so many in the Linux community.
• Which, by the way, often seems united more in their hatred for Microsoft than in their passion for Linux. Think about it.
• And, unlike the majority of the posts I've read so far, many many people actually do possess a shred of respect for the law, whether it's convenient to them or irritating. One of the hallmarks of sociopaths is they think they have an absolute right to pick and choose how they act in the world without regard for laws which annoy them or they think are silly or unfair.

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:Not just linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, Yes. The author is a pussy and you are such a brave man. I am in awe in front of your bold and fearless attitude. I mean... it certainly takes a lot of courage to break the law when you are almost certain that you'll never get caught. Not a lot of person would dare to click on "I agree". You are a hero.

Making excuses not to use Linux..

[LingNoi]

I laughed when I saw this article.

This is just making excuses not to use Linux because they can't think of any real ones.

Re:Not a problem...

[pla]

If your entire collection of mp3s is illegal to begin with, who cares if the software you have to install to play them is illegal too?

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.

Re:Not just software

[Anonymous Coward]

I said music.

Re:Not just linux

[ToiletDuk]

Not every company uses computers solely for data entry. Some jobs in the tech industry actually require people to read media files on their work PCs. What if you need to share data with colleagues? Download voicemail messages? Watch video captures of software bugs occurring? At my job all our bugs come in with WMV files attached. If I couldn't view those videos, it would significantly impede my ability to do my job.

Re:Then pay for the Fluendo codecs

[drinkypoo]

If you want peace of mind and avoid being a criminal in countries with silly laws, then these may be something for you.

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.

Re:Maybe that is the answer

[Jon_S]

This totally misses the point. Winamp's (for example) EULA may be long and tedious and nobody reads it, but it doesn't say that using it may be illegal. Why? Because winamp (AOL) paid fruanhofer for a patent licence to decode MP3.

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.

That is what Ogg is for

[sadler121]

if the company is sending custom audio/video clips, just use Vorbis and Theora respectively.

Re:AAC and MP4

[mabhatter654]

I knew about ACC, but I though H.264 was like MP3 with "submarines" all over the place. Much like MP3 originally was part of an open standard group, but clever companies withdrew their patents from the pool after the sharing was agreed so they could get more royalties... and it's happened AGAIN in the case of mp3. Ogg's formats were patented and officially granted to the program writers.. so it's 100% legal. If Apple would put it on iPods we'd be all set for a universal format. The source code is even BSD based for just such a purpose.. there's no legal reason not to include the format.

Re:Do Linux users care about using "illegal" codec

[cyclop]

* Download legally-questionable open-source codec

Legally questionable in the USA, please. In my country it's perfectly legal.

Re:Not just linux

[immcintosh]

Well, there's also the point that companies like Microsoft generally indemnify their users from potential patent/trademark/bullshit infringement incurred while operating the software, which means that they really don't have much of a responsibility to notify you when that might in fact take place. Not so with most open source deals. Especially, now that I think of it, considering the fact that you the USER produce the actual binary most of the time with open source, meaning that you might be seen differently in a legal sense from somebody using a pre-packaged binary from a third party. Just some thoughts on the matter.

Re:The blame for this lies with Linux? How?

[Wylfing]

And, unlike the majority of the posts I've read so far, many many people actually do possess a shred of respect for the law, whether it's convenient to them or irritating. One of the hallmarks of sociopaths is they think they have an absolute right to pick and choose how they act in the world without regard for laws which annoy them or they think are silly or unfair.

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:Not just linux

[sorak]

Of course, the proprietary software may very well be violating various patents as well, so technically they should pop up the same disclaimers.

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 piracy.

Some company at the time (either SCO, redhat, or Microsoft) was using indemnification as their selling point, making the claim that they take legal responsibility if any of their code turns out to e pirated.

Regardless of the legal status, one can usually assume that the entity with the most money and biggest liability will get sued. In the case of commercial software, this is often the software producer, because it make more sense than suing each and every customer. In the case of OSS, it is quite possible that a copyright owner can get more money from customers who can't afford to fight the case in court.

Of course it helps when the company sends you a letter saying "You have 200 mp3s on your hard drive. Federal copyright laws says we can fine you $700 per song, which comes out to $140,000. But, because we're reasonable people, we'll accept $10,000, paid in installments, and an apology". (Yes, I did change the subject from mp3 decoders to mp3 files, but the point is that, it may be hard to stand up for principal when you could slink away in defeat for a fraction of the price.)

Re:Making excuses not to use Linux..

[mapsjanhere]

Your post that shows that you have no idea whatsoever of legal realities in the US business world. My company does business with government agencies. For this, we have to allow the government to audit any aspect of our business at any moment, and a DCAA audit is not pleasant, and the people know what they are doing. Having once gone through a 20 person network to "legalize" everything, basically a wipe, reinstall, lock process - I would never risk the jobs of all my employees by installing questionable software for something as basic as listening to MP3s. As bad as MS products are, at least I have someone to hold responsible when commercial software turns out to be "legally defective". With a 5 year upgrade cycle for OS and Office, that's less than $100 per year per machine. So I'm spending 0.1% of my government revenue on being compliant with their rules. And I'm not hip, cool or geek. But I sleep better.

IE is a "Windows component"

[tepples]

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.

But given that IE is distributed only as part of Microsoft Windows, no longer for Mac OS or any other platform, wouldn't the royalty be a percentage of the price of a Windows license?

Re:AAC and MP4

[Lumpy]

?Actually most people shun Anything other than Mp3. Have a nice high end digital jukebox at home? Mp3 is what it supports 100% most car stereos support mp3 100%. portable players? mp3 based outnumber the others 90 to 1 in different brands and types.

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.

Isn't it legal if you have a copy of windows?

[bytta]

IANAL and all that, but if you have a legal copy of the codecs (e.g. a Windows license), you can use w32codecs and all the other ones without any legal issues. At least that's how I understood the mplayer codec pack disclaimer a few years ago.

So going back to Windows because of this is just plain dumb (unless it's a pirated version of Windows, which would be even dumber...)

Re:Not just linux

[ShieldW0lf]

The purpose of all these scary warnings is simple:

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:OSS devs should pay the license fees, not the u

[Wesley Felter]

You're talking about millions of dollars in licensing fees; donations will never cover it.

Re:Not just linux

[asuffield]

The law as it currently stands interprets this as meaning direct use of a patented method (such as a business method or industrial process patent), not use of a product created using a method covered by a design patent. As usual, one cannot read the statute literally and apply any interpretation that one likes, it is necessary to reference common and case law. In this case, the 'whoever' does not include end-users and the 'uses' does not include mere use.

Re:Not just linux

[nevali]

No, they were just indemnifying them against any action they were thinking of taking.

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.