To register for an Internet.com membership to receive newsletters and white papers, use the Register button ABOVE.
To participate in the message forums BELOW, click here
General IT ManagementDiscussion of challenges facing IT management including articles published throughout the Earthweb IT Management network at Datamation, eSecurityPlanet and CIO Update.
You know, reading this article about Ubuntu and Linux in general, I couldn't help wondering if he expected everything in Linux to be free. MP3 players are bundled with most distros, so music playing isn't an issue. So the only problem I have had, and the one noted is DVD playing. There are US legal DVD players available. They simply aren't free. I find it quite odd that since you can't legally get a free DVD player in Linux, he is consoling people to buy a non-free OS to play DVDs. Occam's razor would suggest that if you like Linux, pony up the small fee to buy the software you need that isn't free. I'm not going to do the research for you here, after all I wouldn't want to give you some information free that people are getting paid to give you.
RealPlayer 10 for Linux comes with a legal mp3 plug-in just look under Tools / plugins and you will see this. As for wma/wmv/QT ...... Just use Crossover or Wine to install Quicktime player 6.5.1 and WMP 6.4 and install the codecs into the players. If you own a windows licence this is legal.. Codeweavers even supports people doing this and you can play wma/wmv/QT files.... whats left a legal DVD player? well if people want this they should start a petition and ask Real to support DVD's in there next Linux player.
--
Microsoft's patent protection scheme is the equivalent of bailing water with a sieve.
An interesting overview. I have been running Linux for some years now and the "problem" of illegal codecs come up. As far as I understand, when you buy a PC you generally get it with MS Windows installed. This includes the "fee" for all the codecs. Then when you install Linux, either fresh install or dual boot, you have already paid for the codecs (cos you've paid MS for them) and therefore it is ok to install them on your Linux box. This may be a simplistic view, but as far as I am aware correct but I could be wrong. I live in the UK so laws in different countries could be different, worth checking out. I am not a lawyer so please dont quote me or take this as an absolute.
Instead of giving your money to MS or Apple, you could give some to Fluendo and purchase the rights to play content stored in closed formats. https://shop.fluendo.com/
Note that MS & Apple only include the capability to play these formats because they have paid the licensing fees on your behalf, hiding the legal complexities from you and everyone else.
Obviously, a free software system such as Ubuntu cannot do that for their users, nor are they trying to hid anything. You can, however, go ahead and buy legal codecs on your own.
The problem with codecs in Linux is not a problem with Linux, It is a problem with software law in the United States, which lags well behind the rest of the world. For most of the world, the installation and use of these codecs is straightforward and legal.
It is not only the questionable liability for illegal codec use that troubles US patent law. It is the entire US system of vague patents on the "look" and "feel" of software that complicates development and use of software here. Our inability to fix this morass is and will cause the US to lose its primacy as the foremost developer of software worldwide.
Well so much for the idea of the "Land of the Free". I just guess that the lads in China just have some rights that we in the "Free World" will never have.
I initially sent this to the author, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, before I realized there was forum for comments. Here is my letter:
You are completely wrong here. Codecs are not illegal on Linux. Using codecs without paying for them is illegal. Guess what? The exact same can be said for Windows and Mac and every other OS. Fortunately for some, the price of Windows and Mac *includes* the licensed codecs to play DVD's, etc. But you can easily find free, illegal codecs for Windows and Mac just as you can Linux. And how can Linux come with legal codes when you aren't paying for Linux? No matter what OS you are using, someone has to pay for the codecs. In the case of Windows and Mac, Bill and Steve are paying for the codecs and passing the cost on to you (with a healthy profit on top, if I might add). You can buy perfectly legal codecs for Linux here:
The basic idea that you aren't aware of is this: How can a *free* operating system contain any non-free peices legally? It can't. Someone has to pay those license fees. This is why Linux only ships with free software--so that it can be downloaded for free! Understand?
Now, I'd appreciate it if you would correct your article since we've got plenty of FUD as it is with Bill Gates playing propaganda wars against FOSS.
I do not blame open source software for not providing support for all the proprietary formats. I feel strongly that the world needs open standards to prevail, not proprietary formats. Many patent encumbered formats have open source implementations (e.g. mp3) and some patent holders have stated they will not enforce fees for open source decoders or end users (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 - licensing and patent issues section). I do not use Microsoft supplied codecs (copyright does apply, restrictive MS licensing). I boycott what I cannot use freely (why pay more than once?), and send complaints when suitable formats are not available.
Last thing we need is for monopolies and oligopolies to dictate to us how we can and cannot consume media we purchased legally, files we create (MS claims patents on Office software and some of their file formats), etc. This may be a chicken and egg problem where the industry will ignore the requests from Linux users to have legal access to their media until there is critical mass. This is not a problem with open standards, as anyone can implement them. See a good paper on this at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy/ . Then you can decide to pay for value added, not just for the right to consume.
You should be mad at companies that will not support open standards or open formats when they exist (e.g. ogg - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg), not put off by those who are trying to free us from vendor shackles.
to answer one of your questions ("I’m left wondering: who are these codecs aimed at?")
Maybe for those 'few' people who just happen to live outside certain countries where software is usually patentable. ( As far as I know most of Europe, for example).
The patents around mp3 are (in my unprofessional opinion) a total mess.
And you might even (technically) infringe patents if you use purchased software from Microsoft.
Regarding libdvdcss according to wikipedia.org its legality has never been tried in court (unlike DeCSS), so the status is uncertain. Thus, if you want or need to use DVD playback, you either have to take the risk or pay someone to take it for you.
This is something that needs to be seriously addressed.
I don't want to be a criminal, but I am, and have been for a while.
I bought my first computer four and a half years ago, a year later someone introduced me to Linux.
Man, what a lot of WORK! I'm just a user (Linux+user=Luser?). I installed Debian 'Woody', and wiped out Win95; and haven't gone back, except at work.
So, I got 'Woody' working (bastard, gave me something that wasn't much more than a kernel); then I went through two versions of Mandrake, two versions of Mandriva, spent almost a year with SimplyMepis; recently installed Xubuntu (I love it! My Pentium IV, rocks).
Immediately after installing Xubuntu, I loaded Automatix (I heard about it on CrankyGeeks) bitchin'!
I don't want to be a criminal. I'm poor but willing to work; and Linux has been hard. I'll pay for the codecs, but I don't want to pay M$ type money (a new computer every 3 years!).
The Linux user distros, need to give us Lusers the opportunity to be honest; and either include the codecs we need; or direct us where to pay for them, 'When we install the OS!'.
I have never heard of https://shop.fluendo.com/ before, I'll look for it the next time I install a new OS.
This is something that I have hated since I became a Linux user; feeling like I was participating in a criminal society but, I've accepted it (unhappily).
When I installed Xubuntu I was excited 'feeling that Linux had arrived' it was so easy; but then, I went to Automatix and was disappointed when they didn't ask me for money (that is hard to say, but it's true).
Linux isn't hard anymore. Now, it's probably time to look not seeming so 'creepy'. Different is great, weird is fine; creepy - well, it's creepy.
I know there are a lot of really good people involved in Linux, and I believe it won't be long before the Microsoft users (Musers'?) are shy about their OS.
While I could live without DVD support on most of my systems, not having legal support for other common proprietary file formats (especially MP3, MPEG and WMV/WMA) is a total deal breaker.
The next generation realplayer, which I'm assuming will be available soon as the Beta version for Windows is already out, will include support for Windowsmedia audio and video.
In fact I believe it will support all the the formats mentioned above except DVD. The Linux version of the player has not been the ad-machine that the Windows version is.
I don't necesarily call this ilegal. For god fricken sakes (I'm a Slackware user by the way), Somone, a programmer like me decided to write libraries that would read data from an mp3 file or whatever. big woop. What are you going tro do, sue us? now what the heck. If these companies don't like us looking at their crap, they better suck it up. after all, We've made better use of it. and remember codecs arent portable nesesarily if you know what I mean. You know, So many do not realize that Linux has brought huge discoveries within the possibilities of computer hardware. Leave poor Linus Torvalds alone!
Thanks for taking the time to make some posts - it's been good reading them.
On the subject of https://shop.fluendo.com/, yes, there is an option there for getting legal support for formats such as MP3 and DVD, but I still believe that my point is a valid one - there absolutely zero mention of Fluendo or any other method for getting legal codecs. The only advice it to download restricted codecs and then accept or decline the license agreement. Period.
Now I guess that some of you are probably saying that there's no need for this information to be made available because "everyone knows about Fluendo" ... I don't buy that, and if that was the case, why point to the restricted codecs because surely everyone knows about them too, no?
To those who say that software patents are a mess, I agree, but unfortunately things don't seem like they're going to change.
---
@devhan: You said:
"The basic idea that you aren't aware of is this: How can a *free* operating system contain any non-free peices legally? It can't. Someone has to pay those license fees. This is why Linux only ships with free software--so that it can be downloaded for free! Understand?"
OK, then when I try to play a DVD or an MP3 file aren't I directed to where I can legally buy them? Is this perhaps because the Linux community tries to maintain the illusion that software can be 100% free when it's not possible?
I think linux is great but, sometimes it seems that there are so many people dedicated to keeping it a fringe cult that, it will never be mainstream. I hate the idea that 50 years from now windoze will stillbe the mainstream.
I think maybe it is the FSF, dictating moral standards that are so high that the common user feels like a criminal before they break any laws.
Legal non-free Linux needs to be easily attainable. I respect the FSF, but their goals will never be mainstream (and nor should they be), but may forever put Linux out of reach to the ordinary computer user.
Every entity is either growing or decaying; and Linux has so very much room to grow.
Land of the Free????
Linear Mode
