Why is EU using a closed, propertiary format from Microsoft after EU's action against Microsoft for not beeing interoperable is beyond me. This is pure hyppocracy in my eyes.
I don't see why it should be illegal for me to use Linux to view a video stream. Is it illegal not to pay large corporations for access to the council now?! This is absolutely ridiculous - government should be adopting open standards, not forcing people to pay US companies to see content.
The council should be adopting open standards, not a proprietary codec. By moving as it has done, it is not only ensuring a rapidly growing number of users is locked out, it is also ensuring that at some time in the future it will not be able to read its own files.
Sir/Madam
I use windows from time to time but i prefer my linux computer to be able to watch media online.
I humbly request that you consider using an open standard to play your media. By insisting on using the wmv standard you are creating an environment where you are implicitlely creating demand for one provider over another. The provider in this case being Microsoft. This is not inherently bad, but it may not be fair to other providers of software some of whom may be constituents of the European Union.
A way of avoiding any problem may be to select a format from one of the open standards groups. The ISO/IEC based MPEG standards come to mind.
If you were to select one of these standards you may find some advantages. The first would be that you will be able to get competition in service providers since many vendors will be able to support it. The second thing would be that most of the PR problems may disappear since you would be saying that you support open standards that, to the majority at least, are fiarer and "better"(whatever that means).
timmy
The problem is not so much that there are no free/open-source video codecs, but rather that Windows Media Player doesn't support them out of the box, and that's the player Windows users expect to use.
Per the EU's own dictum: The Official Journal of the European Union shall be published in the twenty official languages.
How can an institution that refers to languages as: "Europe's assets" accept using a technology that specifically prohibits legal digest of materials by some of it's members when perfectly acceptable alternatives exist that remove this restriction?
There is nothing illegal about Open Source approaches. The EU Council is ill informed.
The Council has a duty to provide information in a reasonable way. It is not reasonable to exclude all but high cost proprietary formats. Enduring records in archives in proprietary formats will be unusable in a few years time.
Governmental organizations should always provide media in free formats. Additionally, your law states that using illicit codecs to view your streaming service can only be considered a crime by the client, thus supporting Linux cannot be done in a non-"legal way". This is complete nonsense.
Something trivial as codec is just a sign of poor understanding and policy should be stablished to use only independent formats for all types of media.
A system that is founded upon the basis of open communication and transparent operation can afford no less than to carry its ideals with all manner and means into all its endeavors.
The council most certainly can support Linux in a perfectly legal way, by using one of the many streaming media formats that are based on open standards. What is the council, a subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation?
to only use the wmv codec is laughable. you are making a publicly available document encoded with a non-open format. the overall result is that the document is not truly publicly available. encoding using some other codec would be easy -- why only use a format which is not only technically inferior but also tied to a company?
On a global level, a lot depends on EU's taking a lead in interoperability and it is indeed a shame that EU should ignore this opportunity to provide access to the streaming services to users of linux platform. I hope this is rectified without delay
Google Video, Yahoo Video, YouTube. None of these standard video services will be able to display your broadcasts. Much of the open standard video codecs have been developed in Europe by Europeans, in an effort to promote freedom and openness and you're foolish enough to argue using a proprietary, closed-format developed by a convicted monopolist that's not part of the EU? As a matter of fact, isn't the EU currently fining Microsoft some outlandish amount each day that they willingly disregard a direct court order? What kind of kickback did it take to implement such a silly protocol?
As a public entity the EU should and as far as I know is required to make all information available to all inhabitants without discrimination. Unless Microsoft releases their proprietary WMV or apple their Quicktime formats one of the many alternative streaming formats should be used (e.g the open source Videolan or the proprietary Real Video). Although Microsoft and Apple currently holds a large part of the PC Desktop market there are a large number of alterative emerging channels; cell phone video, TiVO like devices and PSP-like devices. These latter forms of devices are much more numerous than a PC and therefore it does not make sence to only target major PC platforms. Also it is important that a lot of EU governments are expecting to adopt Linux as an operating system, especially in the educational sector, so it is short-sighted to not target this audience also.
Why is a public institution locking itself into a proprietary standard. Especially when there are plenty of perfectly good alternatives. Drop WMV. Open standards for public institutions.
Every Government especially the EU should promote civil liberties by adopting OPEN standards of communications. It is ludicrous that the EU is tying itself to an Operating System from a supplier (Microsoft) the EU has take legal action against.
Microsoft is convicted for using unfair tactics forcing users to Windows.
Then we also continue to force users to use only Microsoft. That is unfair competition.
Please look at legal alternatives like Real Media or open formats and protocols like vorbis or theora.
My and orther families is otherwise bared from live streaming video.
--
Falun Sweden
Using WMV for the video codec is retarded. The codec is owned by a company (Microsoft) and your (our) to use it, could theoretically be revoked at any moment.
I strongly advise the EU to use a codec based on an open standard (mpeg4)
Although in actuality it is not difficult to view these streams in Linux; the fact is that open software is the better choice for public documents. By choosing one of the many high quality open formats you don't force your viewing public to buy a Microsoft product. That is a better path unless you have stock in Microsoft.
Wait and maybe they'll tell you it's because of idiotic patents granted by the European Patent Office, which they claim they cannot control !
(poor Europe...)
The council has the right as does every ciztien to use what ever format it pleases. covering MS and MAC it would cover 96% of its user base. Why should a the Council be forced to use Linux. at wost they should have a format that can be played on every media player, Or perhaps linux should play WMV or Quicktime formats.
It is unforgivable that one of our highest organisms within the EU lacks the necessary vision to understand that they need not "support" any given OS, whether proprietary or "free". They only need (or, rather, it should be their mandate) to provide the information EVERY SINGLE EU CITIZEN has the right to access in a non-proprietary format. Open standards exist for that exact reason: to allow access to everyone, regardless of the platform they use. I am extremely disappointed.
By streaming in a closed format, you are providing access to your stream only to those who are willing to license a third-party product. This is not appropriate for an organization that is supposed to represent citizens.
It is preposterous that governments advocate proprietary formats, either Apple or Microsoft or RealPlay formats. Inasmuch as governments don't allow "BMW" or "Fiat" branded roads, information exchange formats for document or audio or video should not be permitted to be in proprietary formats.
In the same way that roads and broadcast standards are in non-proprietary formats, information standards should be non-proprietary. Also, American standards, those created by companies such as Microsoft cannot be allowed to dominate communications, or your countries and economies will be forever enslaved to those same companies, because those who control the communication medium control the communication.
If the IT personnel of the EU Council is so incompetent to provide a suitable to all solution please ask the Open source community for help, they'll do it for free for you.
