If VLC can ship a free DVD player, why can't Microsoft?
Summary: Microsoft's decision to remove support for playing DVD movies in Windows 8 has caused some confusion. If the VLC media player can provide DVD support for free, why can't Microsoft? For starters, Microsoft isn't French.
Microsoft announced this week that Windows 8 will not support playback of DVD movies unless you explicitly add software that supports that feature.
The economic reasons for doing so are compelling (see Microsoft's follow-up FAQ for details), but it’s also a potentially disruptive move for some Windows enthusiasts. So it’s not surprising that some of the initial reactions have been heated and even angry.
I look at the big numbers and walk through the math in a follow-up post; How much do DVD and digital media playback features really cost?
But I wanted to interrupt the discussion here to answer a question that several people have asked.
“Microsoft says the cost of DVD playback adds up to several dollars,” the argument goes. “But I can download the VLC player for Windows and get DVD playback for free. How come VLC can do it and Microsoft can’t?”
Welcome to the wonderful world of software licensing, where today we get to see a real-world example of the differences between commercial software and free software published under an open source license.
Any commercial product—hardware or software—that plays back DVDs has to have a license to a handful of software components that are protected by patents. In particular, you need access to the following:
- An MPEG-2 decoder. The licensing rights for the MPEG-2 standard are made up of a pool of patents contributed by their inventors. The pool itself is managed by MPEG LA, which collects and distributes royalties on behalf of the patent owners, under a master license agreement. Those rights cost $2 per device. The maker of a cheap DVD player sold at Costco pays $2 per unit for the MPEG-2 rights. Microsoft pays An OEM PC maker who licenses Windows from Microsoft must pay $2 in MPEG-2 licensing fees to enable DVD playback in every copy of Windows 7 Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate. [Edited to clarify payment requirements]
- Dolby Digital audio support. This decoder, which is required for DVD movie playback, has to be licensed from Dolby Laboratories, Inc. The licensing schedule isn’t public, but in its annual report for 2011 Dolby revealed that it collected $124 million in licensing fees from Microsoft for the year, with most of that revenue generated from Windows 7. My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that Dolby gets at least 50 cents and as much as a dollar for every Windows PC sold.
Microsoft, Apple, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, and other companies that make DVD players (hardware and software) have to pay those license fees for every unit they deliver to a customer, which is why you don’t see very many free DVD players.
The noteworthy exception is the VLC media player, which proudly bills itself as “a free and open source cross-platform multimedia player and framework.” It explicitly lists DVD as a supported format.
How can that be?
Well, on its “Legal concerns” page the makers of VLC open with a proud declaration: “VideoLAN is an organization based in France,” and “French law … is the only one to be applicable.”
If you skip to the bottom of the English portion of the page, you see why that matters. This is VideoLAN's argument:
Patents and codec licenses Neither French law nor European conventions recognize software as patentable (see French section below).
Therefore, software patents licenses do not apply on VideoLAN software.
The two software libraries that enable DVD and Blu-ray playback in VLC are libdvdcss and libaacs, both of which get their own legal justifications (the bold-faced words are in the original):
libdvdcss is a library that can find and guess keys from a DVD in order to decrypt it.
This method is authorized by a French law decision CE 10e et 9e soussect., 16 juillet 2008, n° 301843 on interoperability.
NB: In the USA, you should check out the US Copyright Office decision that allows circumvention in some cases.
VideoLAN is NOT a US-based organization and is therefore outside US juridiction. [sic]
[…]
libaacs is a research project and has an interoperability purpose (see above point).
Moreover, libaacs DOES NOT provide any decryption key. It is based on the official public AACS specification only.
Update: Via Twitter, VideoLAN notes that "libaacs is not yet shipped with VLC. We are waiting for remarks from the French DRM authority." Their comments include a link to this article (English translation).
I’m sure if one were to ask a lawyer for one of the patent holders in the MPEG-2 or AACS pools, one would get a very spirited argument about the validity of those arguments. That argument would probably invoke the anti-circumvention provisions of the United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But VLC can get away with it primarily because it is a nonprofit organization based outside the reach of the United States legal system and not worth pursuing.
A maker of commercial DVD playback hardware or software would be sued in a heartbeat if they tried to distribute products based on those freeware projects. They’d also run afoul of the General Public License if they tried to include the code in their closed-source, commercial products.
But the VLC project is hardly a rogue player. In fact, as I noted in a 2010 post, Microsoft has provided financial support for VLC:
Anyone can write a media player for Windows and can build in support for whatever media formats they want. No one is “required” to use Windows Media Player—exactly the opposite....
One alternative is VLC, which I have praised before.... In an e-mail to me, one of the core developers of VLC specifically praised Microsoft last year for its assistance, noting that “Microsoft … funded our Windows 7 compatibility program participation.”
Any OEM that includes a DVD player in a new Windows 8 PC will undoubtedly include a licensed DVD Player, such as the Metro version of PowerDVD that CyberLink announced at CES earlier this year. (If PowerDVD is smart, they'll include both the Metro and desktop versions with Windows 8.) You’ll also have an assortment of commercial programs to choose from.
The good news is that as a consumer you can count on the continued availability of VLC as a free DVD (and Blu-ray) playback alternative if you don’t want to pay for the Media Center Pack. And the project continues to evolve. Earlier this week, VideoLAN boasted via its official Twitter account: "by the time Windows 8 is out, we will have even better Blu-Ray support!"
See also:
- Microsoft: Media Center not part of 'the future of entertainment'
- A closer look at the costs (and fine print) of H.264 licenses
- H.264 patents: how much do they really cost?
- First legal shots fired at Google's VP8 codec
- Ogg versus the world: don't fall for open-source FUD
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
VLC in Windows Store ?
please no
Full Screen
Err...
Microsoft's hands are tied unless they pony up (and pass that cost on).
Err...
What about Cyberlink?
GPL Misunderstanding
Microsoft isn't required to do anything else, as long as they don't include the VLC source in any other program. If they do, then that program would have to be GPL'd. Microsoft knows that, so they will avoid that situation.
Again
For an analogy, there are drugs that are restricted in the US but legally available in other countries. People can and often do buy these drugs online, and customs often doesn't find them. However, if a distributor in the US started advertising this in the US, and setting up a direct conduit for distribution here, they would of course soon be shut down.
Flawed analogy
By the same measures
it's not hard to figure out
Because MS wants to push their digital downloads. It's that easy.
Perhaps the answer is simple
Given that VLC already offers DVD playback already for free, I see no reason for MS to support a soon to be obsolete format which can only store a fraction of a cheap USB stick. I also note that more laptops, netbooks and of course ultrabooks and tablets are appearing without the once required DVD player.
Oh and I'm sure the money MS didn't have to pay helped too ;-)
This controversy reminds me of the current fracas over Java - a lot of sound and fury over something that no one really needs.
It's all about CODECS
Correct, but ...
h.264 on the other hand, which is used on most Blu-Rays, IS licensed in Windows 8. It may not be important to handle Blu-Rays in the standard version of Windows 8, but h.264 is used EVERYWHERE on the web. Ditto MP3 audio encoding. I wonder if Microsoft is going to license AAC audio codec this time?
Soon to be obsolete?
Mine happens to be 400 MB per day! That's it. If I go over, then I lose a whole day of access. That 400 MB, is costly also, the average plan on Satellite is 300 MB to 350 MB.
Then, believe it or not, there are still others that are on dial-up, because they don't have alternatives.
So there are still many, and I believe the percentages to be high that still rely on DVD's, you're foolish to believe they're going away soon.
Thanks...
Ed, please help me out here. I'm really confused now.
Does this "convention" apply to pirating and then releasing the stolen software as "open sourced"?
For example, some enterprising young French hacker, Pierre Picard, for instance, is able to reverse engineer Windows 8. He then releases this OS code under the "open source" name of "French Louvers". Pierre, because he is such an open source idealist with unlimited resources (old French money!), gives his new software program away free of charge, only stipulating, of course, that if anyone else steals or modifies his code that they at least mention his name.
Under French Law is Pierre home free and Microsoft legally "screwed"?
I am not a lawyer
That is their argument, not mine.
There are already projects like the example you cite: WINE, for example. But no one is going to "reverse engineer" Windows 8 and produce an OS that works just like it. That is not really a fair analogy for this situation.
No one is accusing VLC of stealing anything. They have chosen an alternative method for enabling DVD playback that they believe does not violate patent law in their jurisdiction. And so far they haven't been sued.
Software is not Patentable Per Say
Every software patent relies on that legal decision.
In Europe, the decisions were a little different. The combination of a specific machine, along with the software for it is required in order to patent software.
Goes further than that...
Ah Those Hypotheticals
Patent infringement can be done by users. Thus, VLC's developers may be shielded by geography, assuming they are, but US users of VLC are subject to US patents, and could be sued, though who would want to spend millions to gain the pennies.
The patents in question are probably written as covering devices that produce and consume video, in which case I don't think any manufacturer will provide VLC as a workaround to licensing fees. Or if they do, the licensing fee was paid when they bought the DVD units they are using as they assemble their pcs.
Ultimately, no one sues VLC because no one sees that the return is worth the effort.
But, back to our question du jour: If VLC can, why can't Microsoft.
Microsoft can. They choose not to. We are not entitled. If one doesn't like the deal one should take one's business elsewhere. (Last I looked, the two of us were Mac guys. My interest is academic, as a vendor pulls back a feature. Will the customers really care? Will the manufacturers jump for joy if this is a cost transferred from Microsoft to them and lowers thin margins? Is this because optical media is starting to go the way of the rotary phone? I'm tuned in.)