PDA

View Full Version : ubuntu charity codec pack



hysteresis
July 29th, 2007, 07:31 PM
I know ubuntu is supposed to be free and everything, but wouldn't it be nice if a linux noob could get non-free codecs by making a donation to a charity? Could there be an agreement between all of the codec owners and ubuntu (or any flavor of linux) that "buying" the codecs would amount to a donation to a charity. they would be helping others, and they wouldn't have the illegality of the codecs hanging over their heads. (standing in a circle holding hands and singing "kumbaya" optional). Some people say that I'm a dreamer...........OK, I'm a dreamer.

juxtaposed
July 29th, 2007, 07:45 PM
Or you could do what everyone does now and opens up a file and then click a few buttons and it automatically installs the codecs for you...

And then donate to charity anyway :)

tgm4883
July 29th, 2007, 07:53 PM
Or you could do what everyone does now and opens up a file and then click a few buttons and it automatically installs the codecs for you...

And then donate to charity anyway :)

I think the key part of his thought was "they wouldn't have the illegality of the codecs hanging over their heads"

:EDIT:

As to the OP, I think many of us wouldn't have a problem paying the codec owners to use the codecs. It's just the matter of them offering.

Altarbo
July 29th, 2007, 07:55 PM
You can already buy them legally from Fluendo (https://shop.fluendo.com/product_info.php?products_id=42&osCsid=2vc429oop3vhpnkr9e59s2ofa7). Why do you want to donate to charity?

euler_fan
July 29th, 2007, 08:13 PM
You can already buy them legally from Fluendo (https://shop.fluendo.com/product_info.php?products_id=42&osCsid=2vc429oop3vhpnkr9e59s2ofa7). Why do you want to donate to charity?

But unless I missed it somewhere, they don't sell them for VLC nor any other system (like MPlayer) people might prefer . . . ](*,)

Whether it's a payment to the company or to a charity, I would prefer one of two schemes:

1) if you buy a license to use the format to create content in that format and under which licensed users of that content gets an automatic "playback and fair use" license automatically--just so long as the price paid by content creators is not too high. Percentage of revenue seems pretty fair to me--the same way they used to do Internet radio.
2) An "anytime, anywhere, anything, as often as I want" playback license for a nominal fee for consumers and content creators can use the format at whim.

Both of those schemes (to me at least) seem reasonable and would address the desire of the OP to get legal codecs and is better than having to purchase plug-ins for a specific player while still making the format owners and consumers happy.

juxtaposed
July 29th, 2007, 08:27 PM
I think the key part of his thought was "they wouldn't have the illegality of the codecs hanging over their heads"

Oh, I guess I didn't see that part...

But it's the worst part about the linux community, definitally: The neverending obedience to the law.

smoker
July 29th, 2007, 08:51 PM
as a matter of interest, has anyone anywhere ever been prosecuted for daring to use an illegal codec?

maybe i lie awake at night worrying about the codec police kicking the door in at dawn when there's no need!

on topic, i give to charity anyway, so as long as i pick the charity, i wouldn't mind :-)

gerymate
May 18th, 2008, 12:15 AM
But it's the worst part about the linux community, definitally: The neverending obedience to the law.

Yeah. But the whole works much better as a whole... :lolflag:

I like to know the tough guys with uniforms and weapons definitely on my side. Same for codec inventors...

I think IF it can be done legally, and THERE IS NO UNREASONABLE OVERHEAD, then it's better (for me and for prop. codec inventors, at least) to do it legally.

Multimedia playback, recording & editing is a serious pain, however. There are the Fluendo codecs for playback, but where are codecs to record?

nick09
May 18th, 2008, 12:22 AM
Perhaps if ubuntu had a license for the non-free codecs which they pay for and we get the codecs for free legally.

Then for that we could send a $10, $20, $30, etc.. donation to Canonical.

LaRoza
May 18th, 2008, 12:30 AM
I think the issue is not who pays what, but the fact that such restrictions on consumers is wrong.

gerymate
May 19th, 2008, 01:52 AM
I think the issue is not who pays what, but the fact that such restrictions on consumers is wrong.

I have to disagree here. The issue is more serious on who pays what. You can make moral judgments saying this or that behavior is wrong, but those judgments will not let you see a DVD movie, however X dollars for a DVD player software will do. Or would. Or should.

But in fact there are not too much DVD playback software for linux, or there is, but not available for the individual user - which I can't understand, why the hell is so. Maybe I have to update my bookmarks, and there is one...

The DVD is a complex issue, because it involves both codecs (MPEG-2, AC-3) and the infamous CSS encoding. The codecs involve plenty of patents - but there are the Fluendo codec pack, for example, to solve that problem. However, if you have the codecs, you still can't legally view DVD-s, in the U.S., at least, and probably in other countries - it is even hard to get accurate information on where and what is legal and where and what is not. I have bad concerns with the European Union.

I would be very happy with a gstreamer plugin, that would - legally - descramble DVD-s.

It is stated, that this will not happen, because the purpose of the CSS is to stop others and me from copying DVDs.

But I don't want to copy DVDs, I want to legally watch them.

Others who want to copy DVDs, can and do so with already available illegal software. There are plenty of such code out there.

Stupid, isn't it?

I also would like to edit video... I can do it illegally in many ways, but it is extraordinary hard to do it legally with custom software. I wanted to do so, therefor I contacted MPEG LA, a patent pool company. They sent me a 50 pages license contract. The amount of money we speak about is some 5 (five) dollars. Understanding 50 pages legal text is... huhh.

"The neverending obedience to the law." - yes, maybe this is problem, but I see illegal codec and media issues the no. 1. blockade on the growth of linux. Moral statements does not seem to solve this.

cardinals_fan
May 19th, 2008, 02:17 AM
1. RealPlayer supports Windows Media files now. Real has had its share of nasty business practices (bundled adware, etc.), but the new Linux version is pretty decent and plays most media "legally".

2. The codec police are real! One day, my friend (who we'll call Bob) lost his tinfoil hat. The codec police zeroed in on his brainwaves and discovered that he had been thinking about gstreamer-ugly plugins. He was never seen again...

So be good kids, and never 'steal' codecs... OR THEY'LL DISAPPEAR YOU!!!!

frup
May 19th, 2008, 02:37 AM
What I don't understand is how you can buy a DVD drive (which has premium on it for hardware patents etc.) and a DVD (which has copyright premiums etc. on it and still be expected to pay more for the codecs etc.

I also think is unfair how in our house we have 4 DVD players and we have to often switch among them because one won't play this DVD because it has this DRM and another one because it has this.

etc. etc.

EarloftheWest
May 21st, 2008, 03:28 AM
I understand that Intervideo is no longer supporting their LinDVD project. It appears that Fluendo will have a DVD player out and the Linux Distributions that want to bundle it with their paid packages will have it with their bundles.
I wonder if companies like Intervideo are afraid that they won't make money on a Linux DVD player because it could be pirated and no one will buy it. The funny thing is that the folks who want to actually buy a DVD player for Linux are doing it simply so they can be compliant with local laws. If that's the motivation for purchasing a DVD player for Linux, those folks will certainly not be the one's sharing it.
I still think it's funny that in 2008, I still can't purchase a DVD player for Linux.
There is a market for a DVD player for Linux.

UPDATE:
I may not be correct that Intervideo will not be supporting LinDVD. I read that on the Freespire forum. The topic there was that folks were unable to purchase the DVD Player from CNR.

Yesterday, I spent time installing 5 different legal Windows DVD players under Wine. None of them worked - but there may be some dependencies that were needed. Perhaps working toward getting something functional under WINE is a good option worthy of effort rather than waiting for another company to release a DVD player for Linux.

gerymate
May 28th, 2008, 10:59 PM
It appears that Fluendo will have a DVD player out ...

...

Perhaps working toward getting something functional under WINE is a good option worthy of effort rather than waiting for another company to release a DVD player for Linux.

This is quite possible, 'cos Fluendo is usually do things slow. I asked them about the DVD Player half year ago, and they replied they work on their streaming server as a priority. It was to come out in April or such, but as I can see, that not happened.

In fact, making a proprietary DVD Player for GNU/Linux systems seems quite easy. The open source code is out there, most of it probably available on BSD like licenses. Coping with the codec patent owners seems possible - MPEG L.A. does not care about the platform until the code is proprietary. The last thing to do is coping with the CSS folks - if my memory serves me, it is called the DVD-consortium, or such. Probably that is hard - it were not, we would long had have a widely available, multiplatform DVD-Player solution.

Look for it in the stores near you!:)

lisati
May 28th, 2008, 11:04 PM
Why do you want to donate to charity?

Watch the news on TV some time - the bad stuff could happen to any of us.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. Rewarding the developer for their work has its place too.