Comments on: The codec dilemma http://ossguy.com/?p=233 Ideas on how we can make the world a better place, with a technical bent Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:33:20 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9-rare hourly 1 By: makc http://ossguy.com/?p=233&cpage=1#comment-5940 makc Tue, 26 May 2009 12:33:07 +0000 http://ossguy.com/?p=233#comment-5940 You _do_ realize that, as a user, noone is willing to be unable to view some content just because they dont have $10-worth of codec in their system, dont you. And if I am mad enough, and have all the videos encoded in theora, how would I share any of this with friends who only have patented codecs? There is _no_ reason for user to use obscure but free format, neither for audio/video, nor for anything else. You _do_ realize that, as a user, noone is willing to be unable to view some content just because they dont have $10-worth of codec in their system, dont you. And if I am mad enough, and have all the videos encoded in theora, how would I share any of this with friends who only have patented codecs? There is _no_ reason for user to use obscure but free format, neither for audio/video, nor for anything else.

]]> By: ossguy http://ossguy.com/?p=233&cpage=1#comment-3175 ossguy Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:53:50 +0000 http://ossguy.com/?p=233#comment-3175 Assuming you had not received explicit permission from the patent holders, then most likely yes. This does depend a bit on whether the particular patents are registered in your country, though. To be clear, you will probably not be sued for doing this. It is usually not worth the patent holders' time to go after individual infringers. I'm not aware of any cases where a patent holder sued an individual for infringing. But the point is that they could, so it is always best to use royalty-free codecs. As a side note, AVI is not a codec, it is a container format. It can contain audio and video data using many different codecs, including MP3 and H.264. I assume in this response that you mean an AVI file containing audio encoded with MP3 and video encoded with H.264 or some other royalty-requiring video codec. Assuming you had not received explicit permission from the patent holders, then most likely yes. This does depend a bit on whether the particular patents are registered in your country, though.

To be clear, you will probably not be sued for doing this. It is usually not worth the patent holders' time to go after individual infringers. I'm not aware of any cases where a patent holder sued an individual for infringing. But the point is that they could, so it is always best to use royalty-free codecs.

As a side note, AVI is not a codec, it is a container format. It can contain audio and video data using many different codecs, including MP3 and H.264. I assume in this response that you mean an AVI file containing audio encoded with MP3 and video encoded with H.264 or some other royalty-requiring video codec.

]]> By: Abhiroop Basu http://ossguy.com/?p=233&cpage=1#comment-3172 Abhiroop Basu Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:48:40 +0000 http://ossguy.com/?p=233#comment-3172 So, in short if I were to use VLC to watch something using the MP3 and AVI codec, I would be doing something illegal? So, in short if I were to use VLC to watch something using the MP3 and AVI codec, I would be doing something illegal?

]]> By: Andrew http://ossguy.com/?p=233&cpage=1#comment-2371 Andrew Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:10:31 +0000 http://ossguy.com/?p=233#comment-2371 Mozilla gave a $100K grant towards open codecs: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/26/mozilla-gives-100000-grant-towards-an-open-video-format-for-the-web/ Mozilla gave a $100K grant towards open codecs:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/26/mozilla-gives-100000-grant-towards-an-open-video-format-for-the-web/

]]> By: ossguy http://ossguy.com/?p=233&cpage=1#comment-2340 ossguy Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:15:46 +0000 http://ossguy.com/?p=233#comment-2340 <blockquote>I’m not sure this is true in Canada, though it’s probably true in the U.S. I heard that in Canada it’s legal to download copyrighted material, but not to provide it.</blockquote> This is, for most interpretations of a recent court case, true. For more information, see: http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/08/05/unauthorized-music-filesharing/#comments However, I still don't believe it's right; future court cases may overrule this pseudo-precedent. In any case, that ruling has nothing to do with patents (only copyright) so it doesn't really influence the issue of distributing implementations of patented codecs. <blockquote>The providers of such software may be breaking the law, but I don’t consider it immoral for me to use that software, because I don’t believe in patenting software.</blockquote> Usually, the software that Ubuntu users use to view patented codecs is "free software" in the sense that it is licensed under a free software license (such software includes FFmpeg and mplayer). However, it is not "free" in the sense that you are free to redistribute it without fear of litigation from patent holders. I recommend reading the FFmpeg FAQ on the issue: http://ffmpeg.org/legal.html I'm not entirely sure if the onus is always on the distributor to pay royalties or whether it is sometimes on the user. The VLC FAQ claims the onus is on the user when the distributor doesn't pay: http://www.videolan.org/doc/faq/en/index.html#id365856 In any case, I would rather steer clear of patented codecs to avoid forcing anyone to break the law.

I’m not sure this is true in Canada, though it’s probably true in the U.S. I heard that in Canada it’s legal to download copyrighted material, but not to provide it.

This is, for most interpretations of a recent court case, true. For more information, see:

http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/08/05/unauthorized-music-filesharing/#comments

However, I still don't believe it's right; future court cases may overrule this pseudo-precedent.

In any case, that ruling has nothing to do with patents (only copyright) so it doesn't really influence the issue of distributing implementations of patented codecs.

The providers of such software may be breaking the law, but I don’t consider it immoral for me to use that software, because I don’t believe in patenting software.

Usually, the software that Ubuntu users use to view patented codecs is "free software" in the sense that it is licensed under a free software license (such software includes FFmpeg and mplayer). However, it is not "free" in the sense that you are free to redistribute it without fear of litigation from patent holders. I recommend reading the FFmpeg FAQ on the issue:

http://ffmpeg.org/legal.html

I'm not entirely sure if the onus is always on the distributor to pay royalties or whether it is sometimes on the user. The VLC FAQ claims the onus is on the user when the distributor doesn't pay:

http://www.videolan.org/doc/faq/en/index.html#id365856

In any case, I would rather steer clear of patented codecs to avoid forcing anyone to break the law.

]]> By: Adam Richard http://ossguy.com/?p=233&cpage=1#comment-2337 Adam Richard Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:57:18 +0000 http://ossguy.com/?p=233#comment-2337 <blockquote>If a person chooses not to purchase an operating system such as Windows or Mac OS that includes patented codecs, but instead downloads a free operating system such as Ubuntu, they cannot view any content using patented codecs unless they obtain the codecs illegally or purchase them</blockquote> I'm not sure this is true in Canada, though it's probably true in the U.S. I heard that in Canada it's legal to download copyrighted material, but not to provide it. The providers of such software may be breaking the law, but I don't consider it immoral for me to use that software, because I don't believe in patenting software. But I agree that we should fight for royalty-free codecs by avoiding the use of patented codecs, and I wasn't aware of much of that stuff. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

If a person chooses not to purchase an operating system such as Windows or Mac OS that includes patented codecs, but instead downloads a free operating system such as Ubuntu, they cannot view any content using patented codecs unless they obtain the codecs illegally or purchase them

I'm not sure this is true in Canada, though it's probably true in the U.S. I heard that in Canada it's legal to download copyrighted material, but not to provide it. The providers of such software may be breaking the law, but I don't consider it immoral for me to use that software, because I don't believe in patenting software.

But I agree that we should fight for royalty-free codecs by avoiding the use of patented codecs, and I wasn't aware of much of that stuff. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

]]>