Ubuntu and Multimedia

[poofyhairguy]

I'm going to repeat myself here, but since it took me a while to type this up I don't want it to die in the Breezy forum. Below is the reason why Ubuntu lacks media support for closed codecs "out of the box."

I'll just use one example- MP3's.

The group that holds the patent on MP3's demands that for each player with MP3 support a 75 cent fee must be paid:

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

It might not seem like a lot, but when the distro is free then even such a small fee is too much. The only other option is to pay a large one time fee that could otherwise pay a developer to work on Ubuntu for a whole year! So it costs money to distribute software that pays MP3s.

If Ubuntu ignored this, it could be sued in nations like the U.S. where this patent is valid. Either Ubuntu would have to pay up or the developers could never set foot in a country with such patent laws ever again (not reasonable). So because it costs money, Ubuntu has no MP3 support.

Now take this situation, and multiply it times every type of codec out there (that isn't a free one like OGG) and you see what the situation is. In fact, in some cases, Ubuntu couldn't even buy access to the codecs if the distro wanted to (windows media files come to mind).


So in order to spend money on developers, not laywers, Ubuntu has to avoid touching these codecs (even an easier way to install them such as "click here to install" would make Ubuntu an accessory to a crime).

This is why its important to support open codecs and standards. Of course, many people don't care about all this legal mumbo jumbo and they just want their codecs. For them, despite the truth, its Ubuntu's fault. In the future, to make these people happy the founder of Ubuntu recently aquired ImpiLinux:

http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=631

In the future, this distro will be based on Ubuntu. By buying it (its a pay-for OS) the user will also buy the rights to the codecs and such. Linspire is that way right now. The user must bear the cost of the codecs, not Ubuntu. Since Ubuntu is new, this situation is just developing- maybe all will be well by Dapper!

So to get that support now you must install codecs on server from nations that lack such patent laws. But Ubuntu can't provide them, or make it any easier because of the law.

Please use this write up as you see fit to defend Ubuntu and Linux in general. Long live open codecs!

[aysiu]

Don't forget this:

It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom, but you probably knew that already! Unlike many of the other commercial distributions in the free and open source world (Libranet, Lindows, Xandros, Red Hat) the Ubuntu team really does believe that Free software should be free of software licencing charges.

It's not just about money, but it's also about being committed to freedom. I think you hint at it, too, Poofy, but I just wanted to make sure people know it's not that Mark Shuttleworth is a cheapskate.

[poofyhairguy]

It's not just about money, but it's also about being committed to freedom. I think you hint at it, too, Poofy, but I just wanted to make sure people know it's not that Mark Shuttleworth is a cheapskate.

I was trying to write this in a way that would speak to a person that does not value Libre software. Us true Ubuntuheads know that Mark cares a lot about open source stuff (thats why the legal MP3 playing Realplayer is not bundled), but to some people that would just mark him and his distro as "some communist fantasy." For those people, I wanted to show them the bottom line- the only thing that is understood sometimes.

[poofyhairguy]

Speaking of Multimedia, not that backport extras is gone, are we back to using marillat to get these sorts of codecs?

[BWF89]

but to some people that would just mark him and his distro as "some communist fantasy." For those people, I wanted to show them the bottom line- the only thing that is understood sometimes.
I don't know why people equivilate open source with communism. I asscioaite it with capitalism.

In a communist country the government controls all the means of production, all the media, all the weapons, and the freedoms people are allowed to have.

In a capitalist country (although there are dictatiorships with a capitalist economy) business owners & people control the means of production and the media and people are allowed to voice their opinions even if it goes against what the government is trying to do. People are allowed to start a business and provice a service or product to people if they want to. Or they can pay someone else to make a product for them.

If you ask me open source & Linux have more in common with capitalism and proprietary software like Realplayer & Windows have more in common with communism because they deny freedom.

[aysiu]

For those people, I wanted to show them the bottom line- the only thing that is understood sometimes. Good point. Thanks for the clarification. Though, BWF89 has a point in theory, a lot of times the people who call stuff "communist" usually have no idea what communism really is. Senator McCarthy, will you please stand up?

[poofyhairguy]

I don't know why people equivilate open source with communism. I asscioaite it with capitalism.


Its because to many:

American Corporate Landscape as it is= Capitalism

Anything that challenges that= Communism

Business as corporations like it= free market

Anything that challenges that= socalist

Most people (I live near) don't understand what words like capitalism, liberal, conservative, facist, freedom, democracy, republic, etc. really mean. For many those words are all about their connotation.

Not that I am much better when it comes to some things- when I watch HGTV all of the terms for stuff confuses the heck out of me. It makes more sense to watch GCC compile stuff!

[darkmatter]

Most people (I live near) don't understand what words like capitalism, liberal, conservative, facist, freedom, democracy, republic, etc. really mean. For many those words are all about their connotation.

It's been mostly the same anyplace I've ever lived.

It's a pitty that society is so un-enlightened.

[rhodry]

I personally think we need a more effective push against the portable hardware manufacturers for the mp3 issue in particular. These guys understand one message only - SALES!

If, on mass somehow, there could be a strong push that says to them - "I want a player that plays ogg files as well as mp3 files or I buy elsewhere", there would be no reason for mp3 to continue. It would hopefully die a natural death against a free alternative (of better quality btw, remember vhs v betamax).

Anyway, that's what I did! I bought a portable that supports ogg. I have ogg files not mp3 on my hard drive - I convert any mp3's I am given - and I no longer care how much mp3 costs nor do I have to jump through hoops to support it in my Ubuntu.

My .02 cents worth.
Rhodry

[BWF89]

Like iRiver's multiemedia players.

[Kyral]

Speaking of Multimedia, not that backport extras is gone, are we back to using marillat to get these sorts of codecs?

Thats what I think. Not that I mind. I support Open Source software, but then again most of my multimedia is from before I became a GNU fan. Then again, most people that know me know that I don't mind smashing a law I feel is unjust. ( Case in point, I bought a damn DVD player for my TV, and my opticals can read DVD movies. I already paid for the license via the DVD player, and for the DVDs, so I have the right to watch them on anything I own :P)

[tseliot]

Speaking of Multimedia, not that backport extras is gone, are we back to using marillat to get these sorts of codecs?
Why should we?

I've made a guide about win32 codecs:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=70227

[poofyhairguy]

Why should we?
I've made a guide about win32 codecs:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=70227


Good job.

[Wolki]

This same situation applies to copyrighted DVDs.

As far as I know it's a bit different with DVDs. It's not only a missing license, it's that libdvdcss removes copyright protection which is illegal in several countries. An open-source implementation of a encrypted dvd player can easily be modified to rip DVDs, and thus will probably never be legal. Whereas mp3 support in itself is legal and possible to include as open-source as long as license fees are paid.

[darkmatter]

An open-source implementation of a encrypted dvd player can easily be modified to rip DVDs, and thus will probably never be legal.

Which is a stupid excuse, IMHO.

Just look at all the closed source implementations that can rip DVD's.

[cstudent]

I recently took advantage of the free coupon offer to download Linspire over the Labor Day weekend and installed it on my laptop. I plunked down the $20 for access to their CNR repository for the year just to try things out. $20 over 12 months is pretty cheap. I wouldn't have a problem with a premium subscription repository for Ubuntu that housed special packages like Sun Java and w32codecs, etc. I know that will probably rub a lot of Linux purist the wrong way, but Ubuntu is the best desktop Linux I have come across and I would like to see it stay as easy to maintain as it was when the Java and Codecs packages where available in backports.

Bill

[Wolki]

Which is a stupid excuse, IMHO.
Just look at all the closed source implementations that can rip DVD's.

And how many of these are legal?
It's not like there are no open source ways of watching and ripping dvds, it's just that it's not allowed.

[mstlyevil]

Its because to many:
American Corporate Landscape as it is= Capitalism
Anything that challenges that= Communism
Business as corporations like it= free market
Anything that challenges that= socalist
Most people (I live near) don't understand what words like capitalism, liberal, conservative, facist, freedom, democracy, republic, etc. really mean. For many those words are all about their connotation.
Not that I am much better when it comes to some things- when I watch HGTV all of the terms for stuff confuses the heck out of me. It makes more sense to watch GCC compile stuff!

People tend to over simplify these terms because they have been cheapend by the constant rhetoric politicians and the media spew forth. When Clinton was President, the far right called him a communist. Now that Bush is President, the far left calls him a facist. These words over time are losing their meaning and are starting to mean something totally different today. People just need to be educated what competition and open source really mean for a capitalist society.

[darkmatter]

I recently took advantage of the free coupon offer to download Linspire over the Labor Day weekend and installed it on my laptop. I plunked down the $20 for access to their CNR repository for the year just to try things out. $20 over 12 months is pretty cheap. I wouldn't have a problem with a premium subscription repository for Ubuntu that housed special packages like Sun Java and w32codecs, etc. I know that will probably rub a lot of Linux purist the wrong way, but Ubuntu is the best desktop Linux I have come across and I would like to see it stay as easy to maintain as it was when the Java and Codecs packages where available in backports.
Bill

Not a bad idea.

That would allow the distro as a whole to remain free, while settling the legal issues behind proprietary formats for those who would like to have them.

An extra repository with a one time subscription fee good for the license period, and covering the cost of the licenses for the formats supported within such a repository.

[darkmatter]

And how many of these are legal?
It's not like there are no open source ways of watching and ripping dvds, it's just that it's not allowed.

Should have specified in my earlier post.

I was referring to the legal versions. There may not be many, but they do exist.

[papangul]

I don't know why people equivilate open source with communism....
Actually it's more close to anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities#Free_Softwa re_movement

[Leif]

great writeup. any chance of adding it to the RestrictedFormats wiki ?

[occy8]

don't forget the Real player
plays mp3 and is legal and you don't have to pay for it


Originally Posted by BWF89
I don't know why people equivilate open source with communism...

I guess communism has something to do with community ....and since open source belongs to 'no one' it belongs to the community is made by the community is communism

[tageiru]

Don't forget this:
It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom, but you probably knew that already! Unlike many of the other commercial distributions in the free and open source world (Libranet, Lindows, Xandros, Red Hat) the Ubuntu team really does believe that Free software should be free of software licencing charges.
Yeah right! Lets just forget about the restricted modules that are availible by default.

Red hat at least creates a distribution that is entirly free (fedora) unlike half-free Ubuntu.

[papangul]

I guess communism has something to do with community ....
Sorry for getting offtopic, but I have to point out that, so far, it has been observed that communism has nothing to with community, because, slaves in a prison cannot form a community. Actually people are exploited in the name of community interest.
Only free people can form communities. and open source is all about freedom.

[aysiu]

Yeah right! Lets just forget about the restricted modules that are availible by default.
Red hat at least creates a distribution that is entirly free (fedora) unlike half-free Ubuntu. You obviously don't understand that there are different meanings of the word free and that Ubuntu fits all of them. I think the word you're looking for is automatic, as in automatically including all the nonfree codecs you want.

If that's the case, I'd go one step further--instead of Fedora, use Blag; instead of Ubuntu, use Mepis.

[John.Michael.Kane]

So the user would have to pay for the use of the multimeda codec repo. and all other repos would remain free. could'nt they just hunt down the codecs they wanted, and install them on their own.. if they really wanted the codecs that bad..

[tageiru]

You obviously don't understand that there are different meanings of the word free and that Ubuntu fits all of them. I think the word you're looking for is automatic, as in automatically including all the nonfree codecs you want.
If that's the case, I'd go one step further--instead of Fedora, use Blag; instead of Ubuntu, use Mepis.
Ubuntu fits all definitions of free?

Ubuntu is very clear about what freedom in the software context is. Read the Ubuntu manifesto! The software in restricted does not fit with that definition of freedom. Ubuntu includes a special clause for some proprietary drivers exactly because they do not fit that definition.

Perhaps i should have made it clear that I was refering to the "It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom" part.

[aysiu]

So the user would have to pay for the use of the multimeda codec repo. and all other repos would remain free. could'nt they just hunt down the codecs they wanted, and install them on their own.. if they really wanted the codecs that bad.. Nonfree means proprietary, not costly. It would be costly for Mark Shuttleworth to include them in by default, but it doesn't cost you anything to install the codecs yourself:

http://ubuntuguide.org/#extrarepositories
http://ubuntuguide.org/#codecs

[aysiu]

Ubuntu fits all definitions of free?
Ubuntu is very clear about what freedom in the software context is. Read the Ubuntu manifesto! The software in restricted does not fit with that definition of freedom. Ubuntu includes a special clause for some proprietary drivers exactly because they do not fit that definition.
Perhaps i should have made it clear that I was refering to the "It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom" part. I was, too. I don't get your point. It's dedicated to free software, so it doesn't include nonfree software (and I am talking about freedom, not cost--though it doesn't include costly software either). If it could somehow free the nonfree software, it would, but that's not within the power of Ubuntu or Canonical.

[Lovechild]

Another issue is that in some countries, like Denmark, it's actually legal to do stuff like crack the encryption on a DVD if it hinders you in playing it - this is directly a protection of DeCSS and Linux, and we don't have software patents so in theory we should be able to use mp3 and such legally. However, even if it's legal for me, I will continue to choose an open format because I don't want my choice inslaving others, just because I have the freedom to use convinient formats doesn't give me the right to force it upon others.

[tageiru]

I was, too. I don't get your point. It's dedicated to free software, so it doesn't include nonfree software (and I am talking about freedom, not cost--though it doesn't include costly software either). If it could somehow free the nonfree software, it would, but that's not within the power of Ubuntu or Canonical.
I misread your first post, I thought you were claiming that Ubuntu was more about free software then other distributors.

In that sense Red hat is more dedicated to free software since they actually have a distribution that does not include stuff that are non-free, unlike Ubuntu.

[aysiu]

In that sense Red hat is more dedicated to free software since they actually have a distribution that does not include stuff that are non-free, unlike Ubuntu. What are you talking about? Ubuntu does not include a single piece of non-free software? Can you give an example? If you want non-free software, you have to enable extra repositories.

[Lovechild]

What are you talking about? Ubuntu does not include a single piece of non-free software? Can you give an example? If you want non-free software, you have to enable extra repositories.

Launchpad integration depends on a currently none free product (launchpad) as I recall.

[poofyhairguy]

great writeup. any chance of adding it to the RestrictedFormats wiki ?

Done.

[aysiu]

Launchpad integration depends on a currently none free product (launchpad) as I recall. I don't know anything about Launchpad, but I know Launchpad's own webpage (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu) has a Ubuntu Linux write-up that includes this as one of the three things Ubuntu is committed to: "Licence Freedom. Ubuntu includes only Free Software applications. You are free to modify or change any aspect of your Ubuntu system."

[poofyhairguy]

They took my explaination out of the Restricted Format wiki disclaimer. I guess its not important to explain to people why Ubuntu does not do what people want it to do out of the box.

[Brunellus]

put it back, poofy. it's important enough to put it on there, and I totally support your persistence. or post the whole text here again, to facilitate drive-by wiki edits

[poofyhairguy]

put it back, poofy. it's important enough to put it on there, and I totally support your persistence. or post the whole text here again, to facilitate drive-by wiki edits


Hmmm. Maybe this should inspire me to make it a little better. Or another page perhaps with a link at the top to explain the many reasons why Ubuntu does not support certain things on the restricted format page out of the box?

[Rackerz]

I completely understand why codecs aren't implemented. It doesn't matter to me as long as i can still get them in some way. Even though Ubuntu doesn't come with them, they give guides on how to get them. That is ok with me. Why should Mark pay?

[BWF89]

What if some day some kind of hardware implemented DRM prevented *nix users from downloading codecs from countries where bypassing encrpytion is legal?