Info regarding open vs closed media formats

[Ebuntor]

Hello Everyone,

My first post on the forums.

I'm currently writing an essay about various multimedia formats, their advantages and disadvantages. I'd also like discuss the open source formats such as .ogg and I would like like to end with conclusion that open source media is better/superior to it's counterpart. (or at least say something positive about os media)
Just to give open source, linux and Ubuntu a positive image.

Google search results are somewhat lacking on the subject of closed vs open source media, more than enough about software, and I couldn't find anything about it on the forums here.

I was hoping you guys could give me some idea of the pros and cons of each and maybe why open source media (I assume/hope) is better. Or a website I might have missed.

[Tomosaur]

Much of it is just common-sense, but there are very valid technical reasons too. Here's a list (by no means complete) of the pros/cons:

Open Source Formats
PROS:
1) An open specification means that anyone can implement that format. This means, ultimately, that there is more choice of how you can use the format (ie, more software available to you).
2) You are not forced to use a particular application to open the files and get at your own information. This is closely related to the first point - anyone is allowed to implement the file format in their own software, so you have choice in which software you use.
3) If the developer of that format goes out of business / disappears / ceases development, then other people can pick up where they left off, and continue to develop it.
4) You can send your files to someone else and be sure they will be able to get at the information inside. Up until a few years ago, if someone sent you a .doc file, then you absolutely REQUIRED Microsoft software to open it. The situation has improved lately, but there are still issues which need to be ironed out. If you send someone an .odt file, then although they may not initially have the required software to open it - there is a much greater chance that the software is easily available to them. A Linux user, for example, would have needed access to both a Windows machine, and MS Word. Anyone without MS Word would have to buy it, even if they were already using Windows. With free formats, this problem is all but eliminated.
5) Corporations have no leverage over you. With propietary formats, you rely on whoever created it to 'play nice'. Software updates must not stop you from opening/editing old documents, and, since you're tied to that company, you rely on them not to force prices upwards, or any of the other 'bad things' they could conceivably do. If you work in a government agency, or some other place where security is paramount, you're relying on that company to keep you and your information safe and secure. You can't get at the underlying code, so you don't know exactly what is happening behind the scenes. With open-source, you have at least some guarantee that nothing bad is going on. Although you personally may not understand the code - you can get someone who DOES understand to take a look and reassure you. Same deal with propietary formats. You can analyse and understand what happens during the encoding process, and thus be reassured about the safety, integrity, and confidentiality of the encoded files.

Cons:
1) It's open. This is a tricky one to explain. Given that open formats are open for all to understand, there is at least a small risk of somebody writing malicious software which can decode your files and thus compromise the security of the information. It's a bit of a double edged sword. On the one hand - being open means that literally thousands of people can analyse the code, suggest improvements, close security holes, etc etc. On the other - you run the risk of all of those thousands of people missing something. For the most part, open source software is very secure, if not entirely perfect, for the very reason that security risks and other problems are noticed and patched very quickly. Propietary formats and software have the dubious advantage of ensuring that very few people understand how it all works, but you can see for yourself the massive number of viruses / security holes etc, in propietary stuff. There's no clear cut winner - but most people here will probably say that open software / formats are more secure than propietary.

Propietary
Pros:
1) Large financial backing (usually). This can theoretically lead to better quality, but whether it actually does is debatable.
2) Responsibility. Since you paid for something, you can at least hold the company responsible, demand fixes, improvements etc. This is a common 'plus' spouted by propietary companies - yet if you read most of their EULAs, you'll find that the company disclaims responsibility for anything that goes wrong 90% of the time. Still, many companies do actually take responsibility, If your files suddenly won't open in the latest version, you can demand that the company fixes the problem (within a reasonable time, or otherwise issue a downgrade). You can't really do this with the majority of open-source stuff, although most developers will fix the issue as soon as they can, they're just not really legally bound to do it.

CONS:
1) Restrictive licences. How many propietary software packages have you seen which offer a 'home-use' and a 'commercial' version? If you create a song using some audio software for example, then the 'home-use' version forbids you to make money by selling that song (usually because it uses samples or whatever). Restricting you in what you can do with your own files sucks, plain and simple. DRM falls into this point - and since DRM is currently only available with propietary formats (at least as far as I'm aware), then it should be considered.
2) Messy legal issues. Related to the above point, but you also should consider that companies are forever suing each other, or threatening to sue, for using format .x in 'unauthorised' software etc. This is also related to point...
3) Reliance on one (or a very limited number of) software. If a new, free, audio editor comes out, and gives you the option to encode your files in .mp3 format - then chances are that that the developers going to get sued sometime soon. The end user generally doesn't realise the whole mess propietary formats cause to the software industry, but you can be sure that it DOES affect them one way or another.

[TravisNewman]

one thing to keep in mind, ogg isn't a format. Vorbis is the format for audio and theora is the format for video. ogg is just the container really.

Other than that Tomosaur gave a lot of great info!

[Ebuntor]

Other than that Tomosaur gave a lot of great info!

I'll say! And a very quick reply too, thank you Tomosaur, that will be very helpfull, you practically wrote my essay for me. :)


one thing to keep in mind, ogg isn't a format. Vorbis is the format for audio and theora is the format for video. ogg is just the container really.

Yeah I knew that, my mistake, thanks.

EDIT: At first I didn't realize .doc and .odt are actually types of media file too. That sure broadens the subject.

[Tomosaur]

I'll say! And a very quick reply too, thank you Tomosaur, that will be very helpfull. :)



Yeah I knew that, my mistake, thanks.

EDIT: At first I didn't realize .doc and .odt are actually types of media file too. That sure broadens the subject.

Well technically they're just document formats, but I made the mistake of assuming you meant 'media' as including that ^_^

In any case, the same principles apply. The only reason we use formats of any kind is to contain information, so all of the arguments are basically the same.