[OT] free video formats
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
I noticed that the criminal justice system in my town works with proprietary video formats. I'm thinking of asking the government to use free formats instead.
I have some questions -- but here's some background info first:
The Toronto Police Service collects video evidence from surveillance cameras, camera phones, their own video cameras, etc. These videos come in all kinds of formats: maybe some proprietary, some free. As far as I can tell, the police choose which formats to convert these to. They convert the videos to a new proprietary video format some --maybe all-- of the time.
The police save their new proprietary format video (eg: .exe, Adobe format, CSS-DVD*, etc) to DVDs, and provide those DVDs to the Crown counsel (government prosecutors). The Crown counsel then give one copy to the accused person, or to the accused person's lawyer (defence counsel).
I wrote some paragraphs that I might use in my letter to the police, and questions that I hope you guys can help answer. Please let me know where I made mistakes (I'm sure that I made many), or where I can convey the message better.
Thanks guys,
M
Convenience
Proprietary formats can be inconvenient for proprietary software users (eg. Windows and MacOS users). A Mac user may not be able to watch a video in .exe format. A Windows user may not have a license for a particular Adobe product. I've heard both Crown and defence counsel complain about proprietary formats not working on their Windows and MacOS computers. I use a free software computer (GNU) and I have trouble because GNU rejects proprietary formats by design.
I think that the police and Crown counsel use Windows at work. They may be more willing to switch to free formats, if those formats work on Windows.
Will the OGV and WEBM free-video-formats work natively in Windows 7? How about XP, Vista, and 8? Will ogv and webm work in Internet Explorer or Firefox on Windows? Will ogv and webm work on MacOS or in Safari on Mac? I know that these free formats work in GNU.
If ogv or webm work natively in Windows, then Crown attorneys may find those free formats more reliable than proprietary formats. I understand that Crown attorneys experience the same compatibility problems that defence counsel do, with proprietary formats on Windows.
Values
Proprietary formats work with proprietary software. This is a problem when the user has personal or confidential information on the same computer as proprietary software. Proprietary software does not have a public audit process; the user only gets a superficial impression of what it's doing. Some people reject proprietary software (eg. MacOS, Windows, Adobe software) because proprietary products undermine their computing security in principle.
Proprietary software users don't have to compromise their values or political views to watch evidence videos in proprietary formats. They can buy the proprietary Adobe product, borrow a friend's Windows computer to watch an .exe format video, etc.
Free software users (freedom, not price) also have to buy and borrow what they need to watch the video evidence. For a defence lawyer, the alternative is turning down a case. Possibly every case where there is video evidence. An accused person who doesn't believe in proprietary software could reject the proprietary format video. But this could undermine his opportunity to make a full answer and defence.
Free software users have to compromise their values and political views, or not participate in the justice system.
Using proprietary software means relinquishing privacy and autonomy. Using proprietary software on an internet-connected work computer allows whoever controls that proprietary software opportunities to view and take what they want. [This is a fair statement, right? I'd like to say this in as ideology-free, matter-of-fact a way possible.]
The Crown encourages defense counsel to use proprietary software by providing disclosure in a proprietary format. If the Crown provided video evidence in free formats instead, accused persons and defence lawyers could review that evidence without using proprietary software.
More questions
Any suggestions on how I could approach this?
A Crown lawyer told me that other lawyers have asked the police before.
For the police: Is there free software (for Windows) that can save analog audio/video to free formats? How about digital audio/video?
Here's my short list of free formats. Please correct me or add to it.
Video: ogv, webm
Audio: ogg, flac
Fixed text: pdf
Text: .odt, .txt
Photos: .jpg, .png (?)
What other kinds of media are there?
Which applications can view/edit the formats listed above? (Windows/Mac/GNU/etc please)
Am I missing anything?
*I believe that I have encountered a CSS encrypted DVD, but I don't know how to identify it for sure.
For video, there's also Matroska. For audio, don't forget Opus.
It's important to note that while PDF itself is free, some PDF files created by Adobe's software have DRM that makes them only work in Adobe Reader. That's no good.
All patent-free formats works in proprietary system with free software.
Now we have the VP9 codec, only in Chromium for now.
Let's just wait now for a decent successor to come.. Daala we call you out from the Earth's mantle! =P
I would not talk about incompatibilities with operating systems or even with free software. You can install VLC on pretty much any operating system. It is free software.
I would focus on the root of the problem. Maybe this article will inspire you.
The list of free formats is an excellent idea.
Photos should always be .jpg but images can be .png, .svg and probably quite a few other formats. Here's some likely useful info since Wikimedia runs on free software https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types
The GNU project suggests calling these operating systems GNU/Linux. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu
It's great you're sending that letter, if only more people did so!
Thanks guys, your comments are really helpful. I'll read your articles before I do a second draft.
Here's my second draft. Please let me know if it's missing anything, or if I can say something better. I'll attach the Wikimedia Commons' File Types document to this letter (the File Types doc that lembas posted).
I'm reluctant to use the name Linux, because people may associate my request with "open source". I'm open to input on this of course. Here's the draft:
Toronto Police Service,
Re: disclosure and electronic formats
Please provide electronic criminal justice disclosure in free formats. By “free”, I mean freedom, not price:
Free formats can work on any platform. Adopting free formats would address format-and-platform incompatibility. I understand that Crown counsel, defence counsel, and accused people share this interest.
Free formats are not locked to an exclusive service provider. The change would let counsel and accused people choose from a competitive market. This approach will also allow for gratis options, for reviewing evidence. It would help make criminal justice more accessible.
Free formats can work with software licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This license, and others like it, allow the public to audit the instructions that make up the software. Software without GPL-style audit terms are inherently insecure. Some people endeavour to use only GPL-licensed software. Providing disclosure in free formats would accommodate this political view, and perspective on confidentiality.
Could you please use the OGV or WebM formats when providing video disclosure? You can find more information about these free video formats here:
http://theora.org/
http://www.webmproject.org/
I would be happy to discuss how adopting free formats could help the criminal justice community.
Kind regards,
Muhammed
In my opinion, the paragraph about the GPL is totally out of topic. The problem software patents raise have nothing to do with licensing.
You're right, that's a good point.
Let's say I drop the GPL paragraph. Without it, the remaining concerns are (1) free market, and (2) platform-exclusive support.
Could the Crown choose a proprietary format, that is licensed to many companies, and meet those two concerns? If so, what's the best solution here?
No patent-encumbered format can possibly fix those problems, but someone who is ignorant might think that one does. h.264, for example, is widely used, so its status as a patent-encumbered format is invisible to any user of a proprietary system.
I don't want to advocate for a seamless proprietary experience ... losing the paragraph about free sw risks that I think.
I'll post my third draft. I don't mean to drag this out; I just want to give this a fighting chance.
Draft 3: Is this too wordy? Let me know if there's anything I can lose or correct.
Toronto Police Service,
Please provide electronic criminal justice disclosure in free formats. By “free” here, I mean certain freedoms, and not price. Free formats are fully documented. Adopting free formats would make criminal justice more accessable in a few ways:
Free formats can work on any platform. Adopting free formats would address format-and-platform incompatibility. I understand that Crown counsel, defence counsel, and accused people share this interest.
Free formats are not locked to an exclusive service provider. The change would allow counsel and accused people to choose service providers, from a competitive market. Free formats would also allow for gratis service providers.
Disclosure in free formats would accommodate a more conservative approach to confidentiality. Proprietary (non-free) formats require counsel and accused people to install proprietary software. Free formats work with both proprietary and free software. The option to use free software matters. Free software licenses allow the public to audit the instructions that make up the software (whether the free software is commercial or gratis). Proprietary software is not transparent in this way. The opacity allows those who control proprietary software (not the user) to use it as a window into the contents of users' computers. The controller can cooperate with third parties.
Some proprietary formats address the first two concerns. Free formats address all three concerns.
Could you please provide electronic video disclosure in OGV, WebM, or DVD video without CSS? You can find more information about some of these free video formats here:
http://theora.org/
http://www.webmproject.org/
I would be happy to discuss how adopting free formats could help the criminal justice community, and any related specifics.
M
In my opinion CSS is confuse, can be the style language. You can say Content Scramble System (CSS)[1] or Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)[2][3].
Remember: the format isn't proprietary. Is encumbered by patents. [4] And free software (VLC, Gstreamer [Totem, Rhythmbox], MPlayer, etc) can play formats encumbered by patents.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Opposition_to_DRM
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing
I agree with icarolongo: you cannot honestly write that "proprietary (non-free) formats *require* counsel and accused people to install proprietary software".
It is true that, in theory, it is harder to get free software codecs to read a format whose specifications are not freely available. However, in practice, the best MPEG4 decoder is in VLC, a free software program.
The risk is that, at some point, using their patents, MPEG LA sues the VideoLAN project and other free software projects to force them to stop distributing codecs for their formats. If that happens, people who value their freedoms will stop reading those formats (including videos stored on their system in those dangerous formats). Other people would feel the need for proprietary a video player...
I did not understand in what way "confidentially" is related to patent-unencumbered formats.
Something that I believe is missing in your letter is a quick explanation of what is a "free format". Your sentence "By “free” here, I mean certain freedoms, and not price" is too vague. I would rather write: "Free, in 'free format', means the freedoms for anyone to read the technical specifications of the format, to implement it and to use it. Free formats guarantee the interoperability today and for the foreseeable future. On the contrary, non-free formats are like trade secrets and impose a particular software solution to be properly used. To hide the specifications of the format, that solution necessarily denies the freedom for the user to access the source code of the program, a fundamental freedom: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html"
I would explain as well what is a software patent: "In addition, non-free formats usually are protected by software patents. That means a company (sometimes doing only that) can sue any software developer who implemented the format or even any mere user of the format. Those risks further hinder interoperability. In the case of video formats, this risk is not merely theoretical: MPEG LA is known to aggressively use its patents on the MPEG formats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA"
Thanks for your comments Icaro and MB; I didn't understand the patent issue before you explained it. This is how I understand it now:
Some proprietary formats work on both proprietary sofware and free software. Some proprietary formats work on proprietary software only. Using free software to play a proprietary format risks infringing a proprietary format patent. Is that right?
The confidentiality issue may be a reason to use free formats instead of proprietary formats. Could you let me know if I may be wrong about the confidentiality thing:
Some proprietary formats allow people to use free software. But fear of infringing a patent may encourage people to use patent-holder-authorized proprietary software instead. Proprietary software can be a back-door to a computer. [Is that right?]. This may not be ideal, for a lawyer who keeps clients' confidential information on his computer.
Proprietary formats are like trade secrets. For instance, the .doc format. LibreOffice has to reverse engineer the format. To be such trade secrets, programs that natively work with them necessarily deny the access to the source, hence are non-free. And yes, there can be malware in such programs. The user cannot know.
Then, even if the format is free, it can be covered by many software patents (whether they would hold in court does not really matter: victims usually settle before because it is cheaper to be racketed a few hundreds of thousands of dollars than paying a defense in court). Instead of trying to explain you better what patents do, I invite you to watch this short movie.
Reading patent-encumbered formats with Free software (for instance with Trisquel's default install) does not harm your freedoms. In particular you need not fear malware hidden in non-divulged code because any user has access to this code, correct such blatant problems and redistribute the modified versions. The problem is that those freedom-respecting implementations may become illegal if the patent holder decides to attack. It therefore is risky to rely on such formats.
You might consider softening the opening sentence. Despite the word "please", it could sound too aggressive, especially given how many people sometimes insincerely use the word "please" as a substitute for "hey, asshole".
Maybe you could open with something like, "I'd like to raise concern over the use of nonfree electronic formats for criminal justice disclosures."
Thanks Tral, I definitely will
Hey, sorry to bump an old thread, but I was really interested in knowing how it all turned out. Muhammed, did you send the letters? What were the answers they gave you?
Thanks.
Hey -- thanks for following up. I got frustrated editing the letter before; I decided to forget about it for a while and try again with a clear head. I did -- here's what it looks like now. I'm going downtown next week; I'm thinking of dropping it off then. As always, I'll appreciate any critique.
I am writing to ask the Toronto Police Service to accomodate a few issues related to video disclosure. The issues, in my view, arise because video disclosure arrives in proprietary formats, and as proprietary software.
Free formats allow anyone to read the technical specifications, write software to run the format, and use the format. Non-free (proprietary) formats do not. By “free”, I mean those specific freedoms, and not price.
The freedoms (and free formats) guarentee interoperability, a competitive commercial market for playback, and also gratis options for playback. Non-free formats are like trade secrets and impose a particular software solution. With non-free formats, interoperatibility and market competition exist at the format-owner's discretion. The format-owner can also decide not to allow gratis playback options; this raises access-to-justice concerns.
Prorpietary software is a privacy concern, because lawyers must trust it not to access lawyers' and clients' information on the computer. Disclosure as proprietary software raises this concern. Disclosure in a proprietary format raises the concern as well, because it encourages lawyers to use proprietary software.
Free formats allow playback with free software, and also with proprietary software. Free sofware allows public audits. The audits give lawyers a reason to trust free software not to access lawyers' and clients' information on the computer.
Here are two examples of free video formats: http://theora.org/ , http://www.webmproject.org/
The Toronto Police Service already provides document disclosure in a free format (PDF). I am hopeful that the Service will adopt a similarly free policy for video disclosure.
it might be due to english not being my first language, but your letter seems a little confusing to me. It sound too technical, and not very "to the point". But maybe for a english speaking person it might look fine
You're right -- Adresm's edit fixes a lot of it I think
I am a member!
My try to make it short: open with a sentence with what you want so that they can read clearly what the letter is about. Your choice of subject line is important as well as it might be the only thing they see. I am not sure, but they might come back with something like ogg not being viewable in iPads so maybe only choose one format? I am tempted to leave both formats and let iPad users out in the cold.
==========
To who it may concern,
Could the videos on the Toronto Police Service be in *.webm or *.ogg format?
This is to accomodate a few issues related to video disclosure. The issues, in my view, arise because video disclosure arrives in proprietary formats, and as proprietary software.
Free formats allow anyone to read the technical specifications, write software to run the format, and use the format. Non-free (proprietary) formats do not. By “free”, I mean those specific freedoms, and not price.
The freedoms (and free formats) guarentee interoperability, a competitive commercial market for playback, and also gratis (as in free in price) options for playback. Non-free formats are like trade secrets and impose a particular software solution. With non-free formats, interoperatibility and market competition exist at the format-owner's discretion. The format-owner can also decide not to allow gratis playback options; this raises access-to-justice concerns.
Prorpietary software is a privacy concern, because lawyers must trust it not to access lawyers' and clients' information on the computer. Disclosure as proprietary software raises this concern. Disclosure in a proprietary format raises the concern as well, because it encourages lawyers to use proprietary software.
Free formats allow playback with free software, and also with proprietary software. Free sofware allows public audits. The audits give lawyers a reason to trust free software not to access lawyers' and clients' information on the computer.
Here are two examples of free video formats: http://theora.org/ , http://www.webmproject.org/
The Toronto Police Service already provides document disclosure in a free format (PDF). I am hopeful that the Service will adopt a similarly free policy for video disclosure.
I am happy to be contacted if you need further information.
Kind regards,
Thanks Andresm, I used your edits
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben