The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 18:08 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263)
In reply to: The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit by davide.del.vento
Parent article: The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

The rest? I see no other problem than MP3, which isn't great, but not bad enough to make me not want to buy music from them.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 18:20 UTC (Tue) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (40 responses)

Sorry, I wrote the sentence badly.
I do agree that every single "choice" that Canonical is making is small and might be ok by itself. But Canonical is making too many of these "choices" and each one of them can be the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 18:48 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (33 responses)

I think you misunderstand me: I think that a music service using DRM-free MP3s is better than no music service.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:05 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (4 responses)

Canonical is not really offering a new music store but signing a deal with
Amazon to get some revenue in return for offering a frontend to the
existing music store via a existing music player which by itself is not a
big issue but this negotiation should have involved discussions with Amazon
offering it's content in a non patent encumbered format

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:15 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (3 responses)

Amazon is not involved at all?

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:22 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

All the reports I have read so far claim that but if you have more
information feel free to disclose it

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:27 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (1 responses)

Among the partners evaluated, we chose 7digital because they had the largest selection of songs available without digital rights management (DRM) for the most regions around the world.

Ubuntu Music Store FAQ

It was widely reported that Amazon would provide the backend for the Music Store, but it now looks as though 7Digital will be handling things instead. I'm not surprised, as 7Digital is actually available in more countries. Amazon has, for example, been promising to deliver downloads to Canada for more than two years, and still hasn't come up with the digital goods.

Ubuntu One Music Store pictured, will be powered by 7Digital

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:43 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Regardless of the partner all my points still stand

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:06 UTC (Tue) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (27 responses)

I don't get your point, indeed. Isn't there already great music services like magnatune and jamendo? Why do we need the Canonical's one?

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:12 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (26 responses)

For starters: It's not the same artists.

Since when was more choice a problem?

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:30 UTC (Tue) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (25 responses)

Well, depends on the choice. Suppose that Microsoft releases a (closed source, patent-encumbered) version of MS Office for Linux. Would you be happy to have "more choice" and have Canonical include it by default in Ubuntu? I wouldn't.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:56 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (24 responses)

What does this have to do with anything?

Ubuntu adding a GPLed plugin to Rhythmbox by default is not even remotely related to Ubuntu adding a huge closed source office application by default.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 20:13 UTC (Tue) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (23 responses)

It's not only being closed sourced, there's also the patents issue. I don't know where do you live, but in the US software patents are a big problem.

IMHO, Canonical is doing bad choices for patents. First, they install Mono by default. Now, it's the "blessing" of MP3s.

As I wrote in my other comment (and on the blog I linked), any single issue by itself may be small, but their sum is not. And worse, it's growing and growing.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 21:31 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (19 responses)

I guess we should throw out the Linux kernel then. After all it is covered in hundreds of patents, according to an old "friend" of ours.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 21:49 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

There is a difference between encouraging the use of patent encumbered
formats with a detailed list of patents and using the Linux kernel and
trying to equate all patent situations is deceptive

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 21:52 UTC (Tue) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (17 responses)

The kernel is covered by patents only according to that "friend", who never elaborated more. There is not any evidence that the statement is true.

Mono and MP3 use well-known patents: it's a fact, not an alleged claim. Mono is covered by Microsoft "Community Promise" (just a promise, without any legal binding) of not suing for patent infringement. MP3 is even worst, because is not covered by anything, and the patent holders might sue at any time, especially if there will be money involved (like it is for the music store we are talking about).

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 22:28 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (16 responses)

There is absolutely no doubt that more than a few patents stick to the kernel, and probably also Ogg Vorbis. Hell, patents will probably stick to any piece of software more advanced than an eggtimer.

The MP3 patents are expiring in a year, and no one has come after the most successful encoder of all time: Lame.

- And if anyone gets their ass sued off it will be Canonical, how is that a problem for you?

- Oh... Why aren't you complaining about the mp3 player being installed by default while you're at it? In regards to patents, it is more a problem than actually giving you access to mp3 files.

In regards to Mono: Though IANAL, a promise is more or less legally binding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#American_law

While there is issues with the coverage of the Community Promise for parts of .Net, core Mono is covered (no, I have no idea if Ubuntu ships the uncovered database or Forms parts by default).

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 22:34 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (15 responses)

Patent holders don't usually go after implementations of decoders but those
distributing them especially if they can sue for damages and they certainly
have done that repeatedly in the case of MP3 and the all the patents don't
expire in an year either and yes encouraging the use of mp3 encourages the
use of a mp3 decoder to be installed by default which is indeed a cause
for concern

Btw it is not merely a concern for Canonical but for every end user since
patent holders can sue for usage of patented technology

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 22:48 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (14 responses)

Encoding will not expire until later. That is not the end users problem.

The mp3 are not covered by patents, while the decoder might be.

- Anyway, end users will not get sued for playing mp3s (not for patents anyway, the contents are at your own risk). Claiming otherwise is just BS.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 22:59 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (13 responses)

End users might very well want to encode their content as MP3 as well so
let's not assume that only decoding is the end user problem and you might
want to refer to the actual dates for decoding related patents as well

Yes I am very well aware that MP3 itself is not patented but since you
need a decoder to do anything useful with it you are exposed to the
additional liability

You might call it BS but if you are using a patent encumbered technology
without any license you might very well be liable as a user of the
technology and your claim that only distributors are liable is wrong

One example

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/h264_...

"In other words, if you're an end user in a country where software
patents (or method patents) are enforceable, and you're using software
that encodes or decodes H.264 and the vendor is not on the list of
licensees, the MPEG-LA reserves the right to sue you, the end user, as
well as the software vendor or distributor."

The same applies but to all patents and while it is unlikely that a
patent holder will come after end users it is definitely possible and
very much legal for them to do so

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 23:16 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (12 responses)

I don't claim that only distributers are liable, I claim that no end user will be sued.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 23:20 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (10 responses)

If I get sued by a patent holder I cannot go to court and possibly say
"My Lord Los_D in LWN claimed I won't be sued if I infringe on this
patent and that's why I did it"

End users remain liable regardless of whatever you claim unless you get it
in writing from the patent holder

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 23:50 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (9 responses)

And there is a chance that an airplane might crash on my house while I'm in bed.

That doesn't make me sleep in the bomb shelter.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 23:56 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (8 responses)

Sure you might wave off the liability as meager and I would agree but you
have no right to assert that no end user will be sued and more importantly
end users do need to consider the impact of patents and promotion of patent
encumbered codecs regardless of whether they will be sued or not

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 3, 2010 7:34 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (7 responses)

It is of course up to the single user to assert the risks, and make up their mind about what they would like to use.

The problem I had with this, was the pretending that this will is a real danger for end users.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 3, 2010 8:16 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (6 responses)

The real danger is the assumption that we don't need to care about patents
as end users because we wont get sued and that is very short sighted view
of how patents affect end users as well

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 3, 2010 8:55 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (5 responses)

I agree to a point, but that is no excuse for FUDing about users getting sued.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 3, 2010 8:59 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (4 responses)

I am pointing out the legal reality and if accepting that reality offends
you so much I can't do anything about that and the simple fact is that the
users CAN get sued even if it is improbable and it is all depends on the
cost of the lawsuit vs the expectation of revenue

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 3, 2010 9:36 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

see the RIAA lawsuits as examples.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 3, 2010 9:51 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (1 responses)

I am pointing out the legal reality

Do you have any specific pointers to cases where end users were sued?

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 19, 2010 2:35 UTC (Fri) by AndreE (guest, #60148) [Link]

being sued isn't the legal reality. The legal reality is what law dictates.

You may not get picked up or even ticketed for speeding, but the legal reality is that speeding is an offence.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 3, 2010 13:12 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Users can get sued *anyway*, over any sort of invented rubbish a big
corporation wishes. Since the end result whether there's a law in place or
not is the same (the user runs out of money almost at once), I'm not sure
that end users are really affected (they go from screwed to screwed).

In the UK things might be different because we have legal aid, so there
isn't *quite* such a feeling that the law doesn't matter, all that matters
is which party can keep going the longest.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 3, 2010 20:24 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

The concept of "end user" is incompatible with free software. An "end user" is someone who will not be involved with distributing, selling, modifying, etc. the software further, but the whole point of free software is to allow and encourage users to do that.

So if only "end users" are safe, then the software cannot be free.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 4, 2010 20:30 UTC (Thu) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link] (2 responses)

> It's not only being closed sourced,

It's not closed source. Here's the source code: https://code.launchpad.net/rhythmbox-ubuntuone-music-store

> there's also the patents issue.

Patents are a non-issue in this case. Fluendo provides a fully-licensed MP3 decoder as a GStreamer plugin for free. As they state on the web page, they have paid the license fees to the rights-holder be able to distribute this. So download and install it and you are fully legal. http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 4, 2010 20:49 UTC (Thu) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link]

> Patents are a non-issue in this case. Fluendo provides a fully-licensed MP3 decoder as a GStreamer plugin for free. As they state on the web page, they have paid the license fees to the rights-holder be able to distribute this.

The fact that they've paid the license means that's legal, not that's right. IMHO patents are wrong and we should refrain to use any software that's patented (because patents limit our freedom on what we can do with that software).

*Especially* when we have good alternatives, as in the case of the MP3.

I can go even further and say that paying the patent-holder is "blessing" them and giving them more power, and thus it is double-wrong.

Now if you don't care, that's ok, but that's your personal choice, you cannot say that everybody should agree with you. You can choose to buy and use Microsoft Windows. Perfectly legal, but to me (and many other free software advocates) that's a wrong choice. Like several of the ones that Canonical is making.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 4, 2010 20:50 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

The patent rights granted are very limited and it is still a issue for
anyone who is in a region that enforces software patents and cares about
software freedom

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 4, 2010 20:16 UTC (Thu) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link] (5 responses)

> But Canonical is making too many of these "choices" and each one of them
> can be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Exactly what back is being broken? All of these complaints seem to have a common undercurrent: "The default install doesn't operate exactly how I want it to." The complaints listed in blog post you link to are all default settings that are easily changed.

* Installing GIMP is just a few clicks away.
* The existence of the Ubuntu Music Store in no way prevents someone from using another music store.
* The default search engine can be changed with just a few clicks. If you are upgrading then you are still using whatever your existing settings dictate.
* If there are proprietary applications in the Ubuntu repositories, no one is forcing you to install them.
* If you don't like Mono, then uninstall it or use a derivative distro like Gobuntu or Kubuntu.
* If you don't like the new default theme, then it can be changed with a few clicks.

Canonical has been very clear and consistent about Ubuntu's goals. They want to offer the best user experience "out of the box" for the user. Providing a means for users to easily and legally purchase popular music furthers those goals and ultimately helps all Linux users. The objections to migrating to Linux are being toppled one by one.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 4, 2010 20:39 UTC (Thu) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link]

>> the straw that broke the camel's back.
> Exactly what back is being broken?
Mine (see below).

> They want to offer the best user experience "out of the box"

I have 10 Ubuntu installations (Hardy) at this time. I took the time to remove Mono from all of them, and that's was not fun, but was ok. If I'll have to do all the changes you mentioned, then my "out of the box" user experience will be bad. In fact, unless a major change will happen, I will not use Ubuntu anymore. Which is unfortunate, because I liked Ubuntu very much and because with me they are losing not only my 10 installation, but also the hundreds of "use Ubuntu!" recommendations which I gave to family, friends and mailing lists (and I know that a large percentage of them led to actual Ubuntu installations).

Canonical's defaults in Ubuntu, free software for profit

Posted Mar 7, 2010 18:43 UTC (Sun) by jpnp (guest, #63341) [Link] (3 responses)

> All of these complaints seem to have a common undercurrent: "The default
> install doesn't operate exactly how I want it to."

I think it's a bit more than that. This is a series of changes that don't meet the values of members of the Ubuntu community, not a question of choosing a colour scheme which some people don't like (another, somewhat more facetious, criticism often leveled at Ubuntu).

> They want to offer the best user experience "out of the box" for the
> user.

It seems to me that some of these decisions are motivated by what generated most revenue for canonical, not what is the best experience for Ubuntu's users. How can switching from the most popular online search provider to a competitor who pays more be construed as improving end-user experience? What next, switching browser from firefox to chrome(ium) if Google offers to pay more? That it is a changeable default doesn't alter the fact that it was done for commercial not user experience reasons.

If these decisions are not made solely on technical merits how can they be justified? It worries me that an Ubuntu install is steadily becoming like a PC brought from many OEMs: full of extras and settings which bring revenue to the vendor and which need removing or reconfiguring. What galls me is canonical invoking the concept of ubuntu and pushing forward the idea of an Ubuntu community while making decisions for the good of canonical.

Just the view of one rather disillusioned Ubuntu user.

Canonical's defaults in Ubuntu, free software for profit

Posted Mar 8, 2010 9:46 UTC (Mon) by amit.kucheria (subscriber, #59246) [Link] (2 responses)

> What next, switching browser from firefox to chrome(ium) if Google offers > to pay more?

If you put aside the money argument for the moment, Chrome is proving to be a faster browser in everyday use and is being used by a lot of developers as it is. So it might make "out of box" user experience better.

Canonical's defaults in Ubuntu, free software for profit

Posted Mar 8, 2010 10:54 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

You do release that Chrome is a proprietary browser? Chromium which is the
open source version has its own set of issues as well

http://spot.livejournal.com/312320.html

Canonical's defaults in Ubuntu, free software for profit

Posted Mar 8, 2010 11:27 UTC (Mon) by amit.kucheria (subscriber, #59246) [Link]

I have to admit my constant confusion between Chrome (the browser), Chromium and Chrome (the OS). I was implying the open source version.

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:06 UTC (Tue) by whiprush (guest, #23428) [Link] (1 responses)

The music format is out of Canonical's control. Here's the FAQ:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuOne/MusicStore

The Ubuntu One music store and free software for profit

Posted Mar 2, 2010 19:25 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

The FAQ merely makes an assertion without offering any explanation and any
real explanation would involve details of what was attempted and what is
required to change this