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.