The new music store that is going to be included in Ubuntu 10.04 is called the Ubuntu One Music Store.
I propose that the store be named "7digital music store" because it is more accurate and honest.
The store should not be named after Ubuntu, for these reasons:
1. The music is sold in MP3 format, which is a patent-encumbered format in some jurisdictions. This goes against the Ubuntu philosophy/promise/spirit, which aims at providing working software to all without restriction and for no charge. Furthermore, Ubuntu cannot play MP3 audio by default. Solution: provide music in a free format such as Ogg Vorbis or disassociate the Ubuntu values from the store by renaming it to "7digital music store".
2. The music is sold at a price. Once again, this goes against the Ubuntu philosophy/promise/spirit. Ubuntu's software is always gratis. Why should this not apply to art? Ubuntu has gone out of its way to support free and gratis art , it would be inconsistent to associate the brand with selling music per unit. (Canonical has donated money to the Creative Commons. Every release features a "Free Culture Showcase". I quote Jono Bacon: "At the heart of Ubuntu’s ethos is a belief in showcasing Free Software and Free Culture".) Solution: provide the music for no charge, or disassociate the Ubuntu values from the store by renaming it to "7digital music store".
3. Neither the Ubuntu community or the official Ubuntu sponsor, Canonical, have any control over the Ubuntu One Music Store. This goes against the Ubuntu philosophy/promise/spirit, which encourages contribution and participation of its users to improve Ubuntu. It's also dishonest advertising, in a way. If anyone has any complaint about the music store, for example too small a variety of music or high prices, Ubuntu will be blamed, despite the fact that the Ubuntu community and Canonical have no method of improving the store, only 7digital does. Users expect music stores to be named after the entities that are responsible for them: Microsoft is clearly responsible for the MSN music store, Apple for iTunis, Amazon for the Amazon MP3 store (but not Ubuntu of the Ubuntu One Music Store). Solution: name the store after the company that is responsible for it: 7digital, or create a new store that is entirely under the control of the Ubuntu community.
4. What has Ubuntu One got to do with this music store? Can't Ubuntu One synchronise any DRM-free music, regardless of its source? There is no special relationship between Ubuntu One and the store. Solution: I think you can guess by now :)
I would like to add that I have no objection whatsoever to Canonical pursuing profits, however, it must do so without brandishing the Ubuntu brand on whatever commercial venture it wishes to pursue if that venture violates the Ubuntu philosophy/promise/spirit. It would be nice if the Ubuntu word was only used for things the community is involved in as well, although I realise that the Ubuntu community has no control or legal rights over the trademark.
Thank you for the report, I appreciate the calm and reasoned approach taken on what can be a highly emotive subject.
I'd like to respond to the specific points in your report. I'm not going to change the status of the bug for the moment, in order to encourage conversation here. In due course, we'll make a decision and resolve the bug one way or another.
1. On the music format, it's true that in some jurisdictions there are still patents involved in MP3 playback that preclude easy adoption of open source players. But the format is not proprietary in any sense - there are no restrictions on the use of the content, no DRM, no other problems. And MP3 is the de facto standard for digital music. We can certainly ask our partners to recode music in Ogg format, but that's their decision, and it would be based on whether there was sufficient demand for it. Getting lots of people buying music from Ubuntu is the best way to build credibility for the case that EVEN MORE people would buy it in a patent-free format. If you know a better way to make that case to the music industry, please do invest time and energy on that.
2. The music is sold at a price. This does *not* go against the Ubuntu ethos. Ubuntu is not a priceless ecosystem, there are hundreds of companies that offer services and content for a reasonable charge in the Ubuntu ecosystem. We strongly support open content (the Free Culture Showcase is an example) and open source, but we have also been pragmatic from the beginning, with a willingness to include proprietary drivers, but not proprietary apps. We know there are risks in pragmatism, but there are also risks in puritanism :-). We go to some length to have Ubuntu certified for use with proprietary software, from the server to the client, from DB2 to Flash. Most importantly, we are not in the game of telling artists to give their content away for free, though we are glad to help provide distribution mechanisms for those who do, as well as those who sell their work.
3. Community involvement in the store is limited, but think of this as the first iteration. Over time, we will create the ability for alternative content uploads, including content under open licenses like Creative Commons. This is a prototype to see if the idea has legs. If this is an area about which you are passionate, then please to get involved. Ubuntu is not only the set of things purely provided by the community. That is a naive view of the project, and misses the real strength of the willingness of both Canonical, community (and other organisations) to collaborate on Ubuntu. *That combination of strengths* is the unique thing that Ubuntu brings, and therefor is not something we should be blind to.
4. Ubuntu One will enable you to get the music you buy, instantly on any of your Ubuntu One enabled devices. It's not about the store, it's about the way you consume and sync the content.
Mark