© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
2eb648a
demo site
(Get the code!)
Hello Ryan. Could we keep this bug report as civil as possible? You and I may feel quite frustrated with what's happening, but this is not the place to vent. Ranting is just counter-productive.
@Mark Shuttleworth:
Thanks for the quick response. I realise bug reports like this one can get unpleasant very quickly, so the sooner Ubuntu leaders react, the sooner we can close this bug with a minimal amount of in-fighting.
1. I concede that the MP3 format is not proprietary, just patent-encumbered in some jurisdictions. I'll change the bug report to reflect that. I still think it's against the Ubuntu spirit, as some groups of people are not free to play this format without paying the "patent tax". Furthermore, the practical point still stands: Ubuntu can't play MP3 files by default.
I'm puzzled buy your idea that people buying MP3s from an Ubuntu Music Store would accelerate adoption of patent-free formats. If anything, it would do the opposite, as music stores would begin to think that even the Linux crowd don't really need patent-free formats.
2. Charging money for services has never been against the Ubuntu ethos, I agree. I would be even willing to accept that charging money for copies of software or art is not against it. However, wouldn't you say that legally enforcing a charge on all copies of software or art is? It would be illegal for me to share my music downloaded from this store with a friend. How does this square with "humanity to others"?
3. I'm excited about the future of this music store, and I am pleased with the openness Canonical has already put into the music store (the plug-in is open source, multiple players are going to be supported, etc.) But how could I get involved in providing 7digital's music in a patent-free format, for example? The answer is: I couldn't, because 7digital controls the content, the pricing and the format of its music. Not Ubuntu or Canonical or the community (by which I include volunteers and organisations.) (And I realise that 7digital is limited by record labels and artists wishes, but still, they are responsible for their selection of music.)
4. I'm confused. If Ubuntu One is about the way consume and sync the content, why is the music store named after it? The music store doesn't determine the way you consume and sync the content, only the way you obtain the music.
7digital is the main contributor to the music store. It should keep its name on the store, so that responsibility for the store can lie where it is supposed to lie. Ubuntu names things sensibly in other areas: it's "Mozilla Firefox", not "Ubuntu Firefox", it's "Yahoo search", not "Ubuntu search", it's "OpenOffice.org by Sun", not "UbuntuOffice". Why not call 7digital's store what it is?