Digital Workshop

Arghh...it's always something. Did a pro exe pub in Win7 and tested it thoroughly. Works fine anywhere on Win7, but I've found no Win8 machine that will play the FLV. Attempt to update Flash, and it says "It's in IE..." and won't let you do it. Loaded VLC Media Player and it plays the FLVs perfectly...but the Opus pub does nothing.

Showstopper...

Dave

Progress...except for Opus.

Located a codec pack and now Windows Media Player will play the FLVs, but still not Opus.

Any suggestions about how to get the Opus player to access this codec?

Dave

Looks like either I am the only one who's ever had this issue, or the only one that doesn't know the answer...

Dave

Seriously?

DW, ANYBODY out there?

VLC plays flvs just fine on Win8, but Opus doesn't. That tells me it's an Opus issue...but that doesn't tell me how to fix it. Somebody has to know the answer to this.

Dave

Not me!

But to correct the error, VLC uses it own codecs to play files so will always work regardless of changes to Windows. I believe, Opus uses system codecs and as Adobe's Flash is now handled by Microsoft for the IE Browser directly - maybe whatever Opus previously used is no longer available.

The best bet for HD video under windows will be WMV as it's there by default if Media Player is available either that or hope the fix to Opus is easy or possible.

Mack

Betting you are correct.

The codec must be free or VLC wouldn't have it since it's an open source project. Should be possible for Opus, and, IMHO, should be included.

Dave

Except I doubt that licensing law is that simple.

And VLC isn't free. It uses patent protected codecs and if you use them (such as to play a DVD) then you should pay royalties.

Mack

Well, I am good with paying royalties, but it gets a bit overboard.

How would one go about paying? Honor system? Do they take paypal? What about the royalties paid when one purchased the DVD?

If there is a villain here it would have to be Videolan, as they give this away and I don't recall any notices or such that one should pay per use or whatever.

Not going to lose sleep over it.

Dave

I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

If the people who build the ffmpeg decoder look at an .mpg file and build their own reader with no understanding of the original algorithms used to encode / decode the file - is that an original work or a breach of IP Rights?

If we, Interkativ, build a project for client using Opus HTML5 and a third party looks at the project solution (rather than the source code), and they work out a way to build the same concept but their solution is along the same lines as ours - do we have claim under law?

What if they'd never seen our project but built a similar solution to a similar problem - we just happen to have built it first and protected it under law?

It seems like a reasonable reaction to say that MPEG files are extremely well known and that anybody with a passing understanding in video formats knows that MPEG is a commercial codec - so on the face of it (with my zero legal understanding) it seems that ffmpeg have built something that is simply trying to sidestep that licence?

But what if they'd built it to make the MPEG format available to systems that had no other MPEG support - such as Linux or it was developed in a country were the laws of freedom and creativity allow an individual to develop alternative solutions to a problem?

I'm not advocating either side as I think it's a vicious circle like most free Vs paid questions. If no free version existed, we would all be required to use licensed software (probably at a cost) and therefore MPEG-LA would always be in control. However, there are always people who don't or can't afford to pay for commercial software and in a situation where there is a huge demand for something (like a video format that can be used on tablets and phones and the internet), if they follow the rules and avoid MPEG then another format will take the demand and MPEG, whether it's better or not, will be come sidelined.

But again history repeats itself and the 'illegal' (?) use of a technology perpetuates that very technology. Just look at MP3 in the UK. Until recently, it was illegal to copy your own CD music onto your digital player. Do we really think that the rise of the digital download would have been so successfully if anybody had taken any notice?

Again not advocating the 'illegal' (?), but surely there has to be a better way than David Vs Goliath without stifling advancement and creativity or impeding on an individual's right to earn a fair living. The internet may have created a huge demand for free but that's not to say it can ever match or maintain a supply for free.

Mack

Yes, it's very confusing. Since we're on an aside...vent time.

But the end of the great days of innovation in PC's came with the end of DOS. DOS wasn't free, but it was dirt cheap. Programs written to run on it could be used in Windows-type application sharing softwares like Software Carousel or GEM Desktop. These tools provided 90% of the average user gets from Windows today without the iron boot of a monopoly dictating look and feel. I've often said that requiring a MIDI program, a word processor, and a 3D modeling program to use the same GUI is like requiring an automobile, a jumbo jet, and an aircraft carrier to use the same dashboard and steering controls. Nobody working in computers would have believed it possible, and certainly not desirable, in 1990.

There were a lot of interesting OS options. CPM, AmigaDOS, Atari, IBM DOS, and more. All had their strengths and outperformed the others at one thing or the other.

Now, one size fits nobody.

I have assumed that DOS is now completely suppressed, as there remain so many applications like video editing, 3D modeling, CAD and such that would run so much better if compiled for it, and still have access via network to other resources as required I can't believe no one would use it if they had the option. Heck, charge for the DOS in the program cost and make it bootable.

Well, there you have it friends. Crotchety ol farts grumbling about the times.

Dave

Who you calling old?

Woke up to yet more crazy - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/09 ... ackground/

I think maybe I need a patent for filing patents - that'd make me rich

Mack