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."
Not new, just streamlined. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
This was the big problem people had? (Score:1, Interesting)
(Which, in all fairness, is fixed, hopefully for the next Ubuntu release: http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2008/08/04/gstreamer-dvd-support/ [gnome.org])
Good for them! (Score:2, Interesting)
Can Canonical play the sales game? (Score:2, Interesting)
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?"
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.
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:Can Canonical play the sales game? (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 gaps in software for Linux might close. I know that the idea of actually paying for software is to some on Slashdot outrageous but it is totally legal.
Add to that the ability to by DRM free media as well and you would have a very nice infrastructure that would make Microsoft just nuts.
I've already paid for the rights to the codecs (Score:2, Interesting)
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: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: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:Free codecs? (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.
Re:Finally! (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:not illegal (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.
Re:uh huh (Score:2, Interesting)
It can't handle the save system in the DVD version of the visual novel Phantom of Inferno. (But you are right in general; this fact is a bug in its dvd navigation support).
I'm not convinced VLC is actually illegal. I'd like someone to show proof that bundling a proprietary codec in your open source software is actually a violation of the TOS for that codec. I think if it were illegal, Quicktime, RealMedia, or one of the proprietary video player makers would have sued them already.
It's illegal based on some rather dubious patents. At the moment the cost/benefit isn't worth suing over - it's not like videolan have a lot of money, and if their patents were ruled invalid their whole business would collapse. You can bet that if someone started making serious money out of it they would sue, and I believe this has happened before.
The DVD stuff, on the other hand, is clearly illegal in the USA, based on the good ol' DeCSS case. You'll notice that VLC isn't hosted in or distributed from the US.
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:Unencoding DVD to allow playback is NOT illegal (Score:2, Interesting)
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?