Surely the EU places discrimination as a highly important issue? In what was is using a proprietary file format that cannot legally be used on Linux not discrimination? The EU should use a file format based upon OPEN STANDARDS and stop this discrimination.
It is not only possible, but also fairly easy to provide perfectly legal streaming services for Linux users and users of other operating systems, for example by streaming in the free Ogg/Theora format.
Software for this is freely available with or without commercial/professional support.
I find it unacceptable that I need to pay license fees to a commercial entity in order to watch media streams provided by political institutions such as the Council, in the same way that most people would find it unacceptable if every document download from the Council's web page had to be payed for.
Come on EU - do something useful for a change and support European technology. There's no reason not to - it's perfectly good, proven and well supported. It would also probably save a bob or two...
As you make every decission avaible in every major european language, the streams should be also available to all major systems, including Mac and Linux. So that everyone could access them without restrictions.
The "Streaming Service of the Council of the European Union" should be available for everybody and not only for Mac & MS Windows users!!!
It's unbelievable that EU adopts these CLOSED tools to provide a PUBLIC service...
The EEC should use freely available tools, and not restrict its publications to users of proprietry products controlled by its economical and political opponents.
Government organizations need to use patent-free, royalty-free open standards so that everyone has a chance to access the content they provide. By restricting who has access to these documents you are defeating the purpose of democracy.
It is depressing to see the EU force its citizens to use the proprietary products of non EU companies, instead of helping alternatives to grow in importance. Is this on purpose or just because of incompetence?
A moderated petition? While I agree with this motion, are my comments to be moderated? I can understand that it might prevent offensive messages, but doesn't this allow the petition owner to censor negative comments?
This is unacceptable. As an European citizen, I should be allowed access to this service from what platform I want, not by paying a proprietary provider.
I don't think we should be giving Microsoft a controlling interest to political information in Europe by choosing their proprietary format over an open one.
As a publically funded organisation, this video service should be available to all citizens, not just customers of certain proprietary software vendors.
Supporting Linux in a legal way is easy. Just choose an open streaming media format! This attitude is inexcusable for information that should be publicly accessible.
I really feel concerned that people I voted (even indirectly) for, and who are payed with my taxes should state such a thing as "we only support proprietary solutions". You should have a look at "Vorbis" and "Theora", for instance, and stop wasting MY euros in a solution that only profit to a fraction of the people that elected you!
As a EU citizen, I find the blatant statements concerning interoperability very discriminatory and rude, and consider the adoption of this particular technical implementation an extremely poor choice and a misuse of taxpayer's money.
As there are no real technical, financial or legal reasons not to make use of free and open standards and formats for public information exchange, this choice appears to be founded either on corporate interests or on ignorance; Please reconsider the alternatives.
All documents published by the Councel should be reachable to the whole population of the Union. Therefor they should use open standards. This can done in a legal way.
There is no excuse for a democratic organisation to not use free and open standards for its communication with the public, the very public that are funding it with their taxes!!
Isn't it strange to on one hand have a anti monolopy case against Microsoft and demand their Windows XP product to be delivered with mediaplayer, and on the othe rhand only support an Microsoft proprietary media format?
