PDA

View Full Version : [SOLVED] This is outrageous!



eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 09:32 AM
WTF!?

this is on 8.10

I installed ubuntu-restricted-extras. rhytmbox plays mp3's fine, just like always. However, every time I open it, I get a pop-up "required codecs not installed. You need to install codecs to play this file" or something like that. When I click on search, the only option I get is to buy licensed codecs! Look in the attached screenshot.

And indeed, there are a few songs that always work fine, and still play in amarok, but don't play anymore in amarok, if I don't buy a codec that isn't necessary! :mad:

this song is a good example, it gave an import error when I imported my music library (always worked fine before):

"file:///home/eragon/Music/Music/nightwish/onbekend/Nightwish - Asgard....
The GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found."

What the hell!? this is really irritating :(

Sorry for the rant, but I don't like ubuntu not playing my music, or only with annoying pop-ups, if I don't pay money for unnecessary codecs! :mad:

Jim!
October 31st, 2008, 09:38 AM
That's pretty dodgy considering you wouldn't need to pay a cent, or go through much trouble to play the same media on a Windows machine or even Ubuntu for that matter. Why it doesn't provide you with the free codec is a mystery - perhaps it's illegal in your Country?

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 09:39 AM
It does, I installed it! Almost all mp3 play fine! It just continues to nag me with that ****ing popup to buy the commercial ones every time I play a song!

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 09:39 AM
I dunno why is this happening to you. But the codecs come fine in my Intrepid. But there is also an option to buy them, but I don't mind as long as I get the free codecs which are anyway legal where I live.

Giant Speck
October 31st, 2008, 09:40 AM
Heck, I wouldn't mind buying codecs (or any software for that matter).

All that matters to me is that it works properly. And from what I've heard, the codecs you have to buy work a lot better than the ones you get for free.

KiwiNZ
October 31st, 2008, 09:40 AM
Royalties for the codecs must be met

lisati
October 31st, 2008, 09:41 AM
Ik begrijp het niet!

Do you get the same message when you install gstreamer codecs through the add/remove programs menu?

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 09:42 AM
Royalties for the codecs must be met

But if I don't want to buy the commercial ones, I don't want to buy them!
It doesn't have to keep asking me to buy them every time I play a song!
It never did before, so if Ubuntu wants to keep their market share, I advise it not to start now!

clanky
October 31st, 2008, 09:42 AM
Just how much are these outrageous codecs?

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 09:42 AM
Royalties for the codecs must be met

Not really if in your country there is no such law regarding as such, which is the case in mine.

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 09:43 AM
Heck, I wouldn't mind buying codecs (or any software for that matter).

All that matters to me is that it works properly. And from what I've heard, the codecs you have to buy work a lot better than the ones you get for free.

The free ones work perfectly for me :)

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 09:43 AM
But if I don't want to buy the commercial ones, I don't want to buy them!
It doesn't have to keep asking me to buy them every time I play a song!
It never did before, so if Ubuntu wants to keep their market share, I advise it not to start now!

It doesn't ask me. Maybe a bug?

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 09:44 AM
just how much are these outrageous codecs?

30€

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 09:44 AM
30

Are you required to buy them according to laws in your country?

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 09:45 AM
Are you required to buy them according to laws in your country?

No.

Jim!
October 31st, 2008, 09:46 AM
The point is that it's stupid. You shouldn't have to pay for codecs to play media that can be played for 'free' on Windows or Mac.

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 09:46 AM
No.

I'm pretty sure it's a bug then.

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 09:47 AM
I'm pretty sure it's a bug then.

Which makes canonical a lot of money :mad:

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 09:49 AM
The point is that it's stupid. You shouldn't have to pay for codecs to play media that can be played for 'free' on Windows or Mac.
True. But tell that to MPAA or RIAA....
Actually in Windows, you actually pay for them without paying i.e.MS has license for WMP, Apple has paid for iTunes, etc.
Funnily this implies you can legally run music in Linux with WINAMP in Wine...

Giant Speck
October 31st, 2008, 09:49 AM
Wait.

Is this only happening in Rhythmbox?

If so, it isn't Ubuntu's fault. It's GNOME's fault, as Rhythmbox is developed by the GNOME team and not Canonical.

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 09:52 AM
Yes. Does this problem occur in Totem?

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 09:52 AM
it is ubuntu's fault, because conanical is offering the pay-for codecs.

No , it doesn't happen in totem, so it's probably just a bug. I will simply use amarok :)

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 09:56 AM
it is ubuntu's fault, because conanical is offering the pay-for codecs.
Calm down mate. I don't think Canonical is making money by the codecs.


No , it doesn't happen in totem, so it's probably just a bug. I will simply use amarok :)
Amarok FTW!!! :)

hellion0
October 31st, 2008, 09:57 AM
it is ubuntu's fault, because conanical is offering the pay-for codecs.

No , it doesn't happen in totem, so it's probably just a bug. I will simply use amarok :)Same reason why I stick to good old outmoded, obsolete XMMS.

Giant Speck
October 31st, 2008, 10:00 AM
Calm down mate. I don't think Canonical is making money by the codecs.

Actually, they could be making a small profit off of selling the codecs. I mean, they can't just rely on Mark Shuttleworth's fortune for too long.

Besides, it's not a bad thing to make money, is it?

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 10:02 AM
Actually, they could be making a small profit off of selling the codecs. I mean, they can't just rely on Mark Shuttleworth's fortune for too long.

Besides, it's not a bad thing to make money, is it?

Of course not. They deserve to make profit.

Giant Speck
October 31st, 2008, 10:02 AM
Of course not. They deserve to make profit.

It's a shame not everyone thinks that.

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 10:05 AM
Whatever you think, if they force me to pay, I will go and use another linux distro, probably linux mint. Mint basically is ubuntu, and it doesn't have this problem.

Giant Speck
October 31st, 2008, 10:07 AM
Whatever you think, if they force me to pay, I will go and use another linux distro, probably linux mint. Mint basically is ubuntu, and it doesn't have this problem.

But they aren't forcing you to pay. If they were forcing you to pay, they wouldn't even let you play the file in the first place.

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 10:13 AM
But they aren't forcing you to pay. If they were forcing you to pay, they wouldn't even let you play the file in the first place.

Exactly. Otherwise the same problem would have been reproduced in Totem.

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 10:15 AM
Okay, it's nothing more than a bug :) I removed a broken mp3 file and it kindly shut up.

One of my 896 mp3's, that example I used above, made it run into a codec error every time I started it, because it tried to import it. It's probably just broken. Now that I have deleted that file, it works just like it always has: without any problems.

I am very happy with intrepid BTW, it's fast and powerful :popcorn:

BigSilly
October 31st, 2008, 10:15 AM
No matter what anyone may think, it's a very Windows solution to introduce a nag isn't it?

If Ubuntu needs to be making money in these ways, then maybe they ought to charge people for downloading the iso? Maybe that would be better than nags in programs and OS's. I'm disappointed at this, personally.

EDIT: Gah! It's a bloody bug! You could have said before! :biggrin:

Giant Speck
October 31st, 2008, 10:17 AM
Okay, it's nothing more than a bug :) I removed a broken mp3 file and it kindly shut up.

One of my 896 mp3's, that example I used above, made it run into a codec error every time I started it, because it tried to import it. It's probably just broken. Now that I have deleted that file, it works just like it always has: without any problems.

I am very happy with intrepid BTW, it's fast and powerful :popcorn:

Well at least this problem is solved. :)

Canis familiaris
October 31st, 2008, 10:18 AM
Okay, it's nothing more than a bug :) I removed a broken mp3 file and it kindly shut up.

One of my 896 mp3's, that example I used above, made it run into a codec error every time I started it, because it tried to import it. It's probably just broken. Now that I have deleted that file, it works just like it always has: without any problems.

I am very happy with intrepid BTW, it's fast and powerful :popcorn:

Good. Now I think you should update the OP.
There are lots of Conspiracy Theorists who would love to pounce on this oppurtunity... :P

Giant Speck
October 31st, 2008, 10:20 AM
Good. Now I think you should update the OP.
There are lots of Conspiracy Theorists who would love to pounce on this oppurtunity... :P

Yes, but you have to think. Conspiracy theorists aren't going to pay attention to the fact it was a bug. They thrive on misconceptions. They're still going to try to make a big deal out of it.

:lolflag:

mikewhatever
October 31st, 2008, 10:21 AM
Good. Now I think you should update the OP.
There are lots of Conspiracy Theorists who would love to pounce on this oppurtunity... :P

+1. Mark the thread as solved too. Glad it was a storm in a tea cup, after all.


I AM the original poster, you idiots!

Wonder why you use plural, I can only see one. :)

eragon100
October 31st, 2008, 10:27 AM
Yes, but you have to think. Conspiracy theorists aren't going to pay attention to the fact it was a bug. They thrive on misconceptions. They're still going to try to make a big deal out of it.

:lolflag:

I AM the original poster, you idiots!