markwolfe Veteran Posted July 19, 2007 Veteran Share Posted July 19, 2007 Source: itmanagement.earthweb.com OK, I?ll be honest with you, the more I use Linux, the more I?m warming to it. In fact, the more exposure I have to the latest Ubuntu distro (7.04, Feisty Fawn) the more I want to integrate it into my existing ecosystem of PCs. I?m especially interested in rolling out Ubuntu onto older PCs and notebooks where installing Windows will put too much of a strain on the hardware. But there?s one aspect of Ubuntu, and Linux in general for that matter, that?s putting me off. This is the fact that to play a DVD or use WMA/WMV files I have to install codecs that are technically illegal to use.Linux has a number of really strong points that go beyond the price (reliability, ease of use and low hardware requirements to name but a few), but the operating system falls short when it comes to legally supporting file formats such as MP3, WMA/WMV and DVDs. It?s not that you don?t have support for these formats available, it?s that adding support means entering into some really shady legal territory. Here are some examples. Let?s say that you have Ubuntu and you try to play an MP3 file using Totem Movie Player. The long and the short of it is that you can?t because a codec is needed. What?s good is that Ubuntu goes off and figures out which codec you want and makes it available to you. The problem is that the codec falls into a category called ?restricted software? and you are faced with a dialog box containing the following wording when you tThe use of some of this software may be restricted in some countries. You must verify that one of the following is true: 1. These restrictions do not apply in your country of legal residence. 2. You have permission to use this software (for example, a patent license). 3. You are using this software for research purposes only.esearch purposes only. You verify that you are allowed to install the codecs by clicking on a button marked OK, or decline by clicking Cancel. Now I don?t know about you, but every time I?m faced by that dialog box I have an urge to call my lawyer to find out whether the codec is legal in my country of residence or whether my use of the codec can fall neatly under the ?research purposes? umbrella. OK, I?m fully aware that this dialog box is an example of legalese sleight-of-hand where the liability for using the codec is passed from whoever is offering it to the end user, but 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. Sure, steer clear of MP3/WMV/WMA/DVD and you?re fine. But it?s difficult to defend the concept of open source to someone who?s trying to find a legal way to get their MP3 collection to work on Linux. These legal stumbling blocks put Linux at the opposite end of the spectrum to the Mac OS, where most file formats simply work (OK, I?m choosing to ignore any kind of DRM-protected file formats ? but the kind of person who goes out and buys DRMed content is unlikely to be interested in Linux). Things are no better if you choose to take the route that Michael Dell takes with his own personal Linux-powered PC and install Automatix in order to get support for restricted formats. (No matter how much Michael Dell likes Automatix, he doesn?t like it enough to bundle it on Ubuntu-powered Dell systems.) Automatix presents me with a warPlease NOTE that downloading and installing w32codecs, libdvdcss2 and other non-free codecs without paying a fee to the concerned authorities constitutes a CRIME in the United State of America. constitutes a CRIME in the United State of America. The message continues like this for a couple more paragraphs and I?m left wondering: who are these codecs aimed at? People who just don?t mind breaking the law (like file-sharers) or people who never read EULAs and dialog boxes and simply click the OK button? Again, we?re faced with a reason why Linux is aimed at geeks rather than the average home user who simply want legal built-in support for modern file types. For me, this is a pretty good reason to keep giving my money to Microsoft (or Apple, I?ve started giving money to Steve Jobs lately) rather than making a switch to Linux. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niccos Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Oh cry me a river, we dont need people like him using linux anyways. Let him keep wasting his money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3xis Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I don't understand people like this. I guess it's great that he wants to be a good boy and not install "illegal" software on his machine but come on, nobody is going to know. People have been doing this for years and it wouldn't be gaining the acceptance it has among home users if it didn't allow the installation of illegal codecs. I don't think calling file-sharers law breakers is correct, either. If he's so damn caught up on using free audio codecs then why doesn't he just convert everything to OGG? I guess it's about ethics, but imo I have no problem using illegal codecs on a free OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Oh cry me a river, we dont need people like him using linux anyways. Let him keep wasting his money So you don't want law abiding linux sers then ? it's funny how that such a common defense for linux users when faced with opposition "yeah we dn't want his kind anyway". Linux needs all kinds of users, that's the reality of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Blue01 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I'm not bothered by this resturction because its ridiculous -a market standard can't be logically restricted by only "legal use" because the need for it is so widespread, the courst should open these codecs up like they did PDF. Not playing my content isn't an option, and I have it all sorts of formats that even my Windows machines don't play without downloading a codec. Does he know of distroa that license them legally like Linspire? Or that vender who sells them for other Linux distros? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Doesn't everyone love the united states patent laws. Doesn't everyone love the united states patent laws. It's a CRIME in the US to play your mp3 file! It's so ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 If you're concerned about the legality of the codecs, buy a license to use them or pick a distro that already paid for such license. That is, if you live in the USA... else STFU because you're just being an ass ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 If he has a problem with this, then he should not be using Ubuntu but should instead use one of the distros that includes licensed codecs. They DO exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betasp Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 If people actually read EULAs they would find the same sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diffused Mind Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Talk about a crybaby... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Doesn't everyone love the united states patent laws. Doesn't everyone love the united states patent laws. It's a CRIME in the US to play your mp3 file! It's so ridiculous. Too bad this has nothing to do with patents. in fact most of the codecs can't e used because linux insist on using the GNU licence instead of BSD. since BSD would allow to integrateclosed sourcecomponents into open source programs. While GNU shoots itself in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ap0x Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I don't understand people like this. I guess it's great that he wants to be a good boy and not install "illegal" software on his machine but come on, nobody is going to know. People have been doing this for years and it wouldn't be gaining the acceptance it has among home users if it didn't allow the installation of illegal codecs. I don't think calling file-sharers law breakers is correct, either. If he's so damn caught up on using free audio codecs then why doesn't he just convert everything to OGG? I guess it's about ethics, but imo I have no problem using illegal codecs on a free OS. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d4v1d05 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 How about using them for research purposes... "Researching" how you can convert all your mp3s to OGG or flac, and get smaller files with better quality :) Hawkman, integrating codecs into the code would still be using those codecs without proper authorisation from the owner, thus it would still be illegal. It has nothing to do with GNU/BSD, just that Linux actually tells you that it will be illegal ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Too bad this has nothing to do with patents. It has ALL to do with patents. Hence why it's only illegal in the US, and why there're distros that pay for a license in order to include those codecs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstanov Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 How about using them for research purposes... "Researching" how you can convert all your mp3s to OGG or flac, and get smaller files with better quality :)Hawkman, integrating codecs into the code would still be using those codecs without proper authorisation from the owner, thus it would still be illegal. It has nothing to do with GNU/BSD, just that Linux actually tells you that it will be illegal ;) Flac files are huge compared to OGG and MP3, you do realize that, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 ... This guy will never get laid until he's 90. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robgig1088 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 How about using them for research purposes... "Researching" how you can convert all your mp3s to OGG or flac, and get smaller files with better quality :) Hawkman, integrating codecs into the code would still be using those codecs without proper authorisation from the owner, thus it would still be illegal. It has nothing to do with GNU/BSD, just that Linux actually tells you that it will be illegal ;) I would totally use OGG if there were a decent hard-drive based music player that would support them. Right now I have to use Rockbox to play them =\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Flac files are huge compared to OGG and MP3, you do realize that, don't you? If he "knew" there would be no need to perform said research, would it? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 How about using them for research purposes... "Researching" how you can convert all your mp3s to OGG or flac, and get smaller files with better quality :)Hawkman, integrating codecs into the code would still be using those codecs without proper authorisation from the owner, thus it would still be illegal. It has nothing to do with GNU/BSD, just that Linux actually tells you that it will be illegal ;) The thing is that because of the nature of the GNU license they can never integrate these codecs into any distro's or programs because the codecs themselves would have to be opensource. And none of the codec owners are itnerested in making closed source linux players, since all the linux users would just install these illegal codecs instead. as for patents, this isn't about havign a product that does soemthign similar to what a vaguely defined patent says. This is abotu directly copying the functions and code of another program/encoder/decoder. directly copying what someone else spent a significant amount of money developing. Software patents needs to go away for many reasons, this is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowRanger13 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 What about if you install VLC are you still breaking the terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I would totally use OGG if there were a decent hard-drive based music player that would support them. Right now I have to use Rockbox to play them =\ Both iRiver and Asono makes very good DAP's that support OGG. they're more expensive than regular Creative's and such though, more like a iPod. ut both of those provide high quality products with ecellent audio quality. http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/PortablePlayers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 To all those called "Cry baby" and "Who needs him", think about it for a moment before you spout off. Linux fans would like Linux to become a mainstream contender to the likes of Microsoft and Apple; but that will NEVER happen unless a user can do everything a user would espect of a modern computer without breaking the law. As it is, unless you can source a distro that already has all the codecs built in and licensed, that's just not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 The thing is that because of the nature of the GNU license they can never integrate these codecs into any distro's or programs because the codecs themselves would have to be opensource. And none of the codec owners are itnerested in making closed source linux players, since all the linux users would just install these illegal codecs instead. http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/217266...prietary-codecs You can use proprietary codecs with mplayer just fine. The only reason they're not included on most (not all) distros is the license (read patents). There's absolutely no need for the codecs to be opensource, as the previous example and the codecs bundled with linspire (used with LSongs, which is GPL software) prove. Linux fans would like Linux to become a mainstream contender to the likes of Microsoft and Apple Do we? Being on par with Apple's marketshare on the desktop would make linux a mainstream contender? If so, it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shof Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I used fedora core 4 and played my mp3,flac and ogg files without a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous_user Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I just click OK. Voila! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts