Re: Why Linux has problems with proprietary multimedia... (was: Interesting article)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com wrote: Apple and Microsoft have paid up royalties on these things ... ... which has me wondering: how does Ubuntu get away with shipping all of the stuff necessary to do DVD-authoring!? While I've never touched Ubuntu's DVD authoring stuff, I can add some additional speculations, in addition to maddog's very cogent points: At a lower level, a DVD is just a filesystem. They don't have to be restricted using anyone's special crypto, nor do they have to use any particular codec. In order for them to play in a consumer appliance which implements DVD Video and *only* DVD Video, the files have to have particular names and use particular codecs, but they still don't need special crypto. Many consumer appliance these days implement additional codecs, meaning the files just have to particular names if you don't care about broad compatibility. Your DVD will not meet DVD Video studio requirements, but presumably you're not interested in that, you just want the damn thing to play. It's *playing* the discs from the big studios that requires all the encumbered crypto and codecs. Legal technicalities may also enter into play. Sometimes the originator is technically in a non-US jurisdiction where they can publish something without paying fees. Sometimes it's legal to distribute but not to use. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why Linux has problems with proprietary multimedia...
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com wrote: Apple and Microsoft have paid up royalties on these things ... ... which has me wondering: how does Ubuntu get away with shipping all of the stuff necessary to do DVD-authoring!? While I've never touched Ubuntu's DVD authoring stuff, I can add some additional speculations, in addition to maddog's very cogent points: At a lower level, a DVD is just a filesystem. They don't have to be restricted using anyone's special crypto, nor do they have to use any particular codec. In order for them to play in a consumer appliance which implements DVD Video and *only* DVD Video, the files have to have particular names and use particular codecs, but they still don't need special crypto. Many consumer appliance these days implement additional codecs, meaning the files just have to particular names if you don't care about broad compatibility. The particular GUI-level package at which I was looking is called DeVeDe. A Ubuntu-using co-worker of mine pointed it out to me and basically described it as `exactly what you want, if you want to create DVDs to play on TV'. -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why Linux has problems with proprietary multimedia... (was: Interesting article)
... which has me wondering: how does Ubuntu get away with shipping all of the stuff necessary to do DVD-authoring!? Ahhh, what does it meant to do DVD-authoring? Moving encoded bits on a DVD? No problem! Taking video bits from my video camera (encoded into Mpeg) and putting it onto my DVD? No problem! Making a DVD of Ogg Theora? No problem! Encoding? Depends on the patents involved, the licensing around the patents, and so forth. The results of the encoding? The H.264 patent group has recently released yet another wave of grace over mpeg-4 streams free to end users would not have to have royalties paid on the *streams*. Of course what free to end users is creates another whole bag of worms. I looked into making DVDs with one of my Debian machines at one point, and quickly accumulated a long list of things that had been intentionally left out of Debian due to clear-and-present patent dangers, and that I decided against pursuing *not* out of fear for the *technical* issues involved (pshaw!) but out of fear that I end up setting myself up for some patent-troll to `pursue a cross-licensing relationship with' me (did I get that euphamism right?) in the future. You have to watch those relationships with Trolls.they create really ugly offspring. Now I think I am going to have a beer.I need a beer md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why Linux has problems with proprietary multimedia...
Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com writes: Jon 'maddog' Hall mad...@li.org writes: [...] H.264? Mpeg3/4/2? Have your friends send you Ogg Vorbis stuff. Plays fine. Apple and Microsoft have paid up royalties on these things (or at least Microsoft thought it had paid up royalties on mp3 until Alcatel/Lucent raised their hand a couple of years ago), so they can ship as many royalty-bearing codecs as they want. ... which has me wondering: how does Ubuntu get away with shipping all of the stuff necessary to do DVD-authoring!? I looked into making DVDs with one of my Debian machines at one point, and quickly accumulated a long list of things that had been intentionally left out of Debian due to clear-and-present patent dangers, and that I decided against pursuing *not* out of fear for the *technical* issues involved (pshaw!) but out of fear that I end up setting myself up for some patent-troll to `pursue a cross-licensing relationship with' me (did I get that euphamism right?) in the future. And, actually..., I saw came upon these interesting articles the other day: http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/ http://www.wedding-day-beauty.com/tag/final-cut ... which reveal that even Apple and Microsoft have paid up royalties... is only really about half-true: While Apple and Microsoft have paid so that *they* can *distribute* the codecs, it turns out that they have *not* paid for *the users* to be able to *use them* in all cases. In the first article, Ben Schwartz explores the prohibitive language used in the EULA for `Final Cut Pro', ultimately deciding that Final Cut Hobbyist would be less misleading. And after looking at the the EULA for Windows 7 Ultimate, he says: Doesn't seem so Ultimate to me.. In the second article, the (different) author actually follows-up and asks the various involved parties (Apple, Microsoft, MPEG LA): Schwartz's contention caught my attention: my SLR shoots 1080p video encoded with H.264, and I'm in a position both to publish some videos online for my main job and sell others on the side. and with bubbling controversies regarding how HTML is reshaping online video, any troubles with H.264 constraints take on new interest. It seemed like a good time to call Apple, Adobe, and the MPEG-LA, the industry group that licenses the H.264 patent portfolio to the likes of software companies, optical-disc duplicators, Blu-ray player makers, and others who have need to use H.264. After a bit of run-around, it seems, the determination is made that yes, many individuals *do* need to pay their own added licensing-fees, for use of legitimately-obtained the codecs: When I heard back from Allen Harkness, MPEG LA's director of global licensing, though, I was relieved to learn that Final Cut Pro isn't just for making YouTube cat videos. But H.264 use isn't all free all the time--the wedding videographer might need to pay 2 cents per disc they sell, for example--and even experts can be thrown off by the complications. It's worth reading both of these articles in their entirety. Ben Schwartz ends, I gather, in agreement with maddog: My advice: use a codec that doesn’t need a license: _Q. What is the license for Theora?_ Theora (and all associated technologies released by the Xiph.org Foundation) is released to the public via a BSD-style license. It is completely free for commercial or noncommercial use. That means that commercial developers may independently write Theora software which is compatible with the specification for no charge and without restrictions of any kind. Me too. -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why Linux has problems with proprietary multimedia...
On 3/5/2010 6:27 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote: Joshua Judson Rosenroz...@geekspace.com writes: And, actually..., I saw came upon these interesting articles the other day: http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/ http://www.wedding-day-beauty.com/tag/final-cut ... which reveal that even Apple and Microsoft have paid up royalties... is only really about half-true: So what it really comes down to is not who is in compliance with the patent but who the patent-holders permit to violate their patent, how well the patent holder was compensated to look the other way, and whether at some future date the organization in this state of grace manages to irritate the patent holder enough that the patent holder goes after them anyway. A near-perfect state of the eternal absence of real freedom for all players involved, no matter how much they pay for it. Dispensing injustice with consummate fairness. :) Ralph ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why Linux has problems with proprietary multimedia...
Ralph, So what it really comes down to is not who is in compliance with the patent but who the patent-holders permit to violate their patent, how well the patent holder was compensated to look the other way, and whether at some future date the organization in this state of grace manages to irritate the patent holder enough that the patent holder goes after them anyway. A near-perfect state of the eternal absence of real freedom for all players involved, no matter how much they pay for it. Dispensing injustice with consummate fairness. :) This is what happens when an idea is thought of as a piece of property and the patent is the recognition of the ownership of that property. If you own something, you can do anything you want with it. It is your right to sell a piece of property, or to burn it, or give it away. With patents you can even chose to prosecute some people and not others, as long as you can prove that it is not based on some bias that is illegal under the law. For example, it probably is not legal to prosecute only women based solely on their sex, or only blacks based solely on their skin color. The fact that the IP belongs to you whether or not you defend it is what allows submarine patents.patents which are not acted on until the patented item is in wide use, the person (perhaps innocently) violating the patent has invested millions in bringing out their product and the owner can get a lot of money in damages. Or, as in the case of Apple and HTC, the holder of the patent simply blocks them from doing business altogether. As to the freedom that is allowed or disallowed by patents, please refer to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution..the part that starts To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Artsit comes quite a bit before the Bill of Rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiyU2tiEB1g Warmest regards, md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
