Jump to content

Help talk:Creation and usage of media files/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Users: "WTF is OGG?"

A summary of the arguments on both sides of this issue has been put on User:WAZAAAA/mp3vsogg. Hit up my talk page to give another reason for either side. Keep the discussion flowing, WAZAAAA 15:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I understand a final decision has been made on the use of MP3s in Wikipedia, but I think it is really hurting the Spoken Wiki and sound file collection projects. Every single time I try to show somebody some of my audio work on Wikipedia, I have to spend 10 minutes explaining why we don't use MP3, and what the hell this OGG thing is. After that, I have to explain how and where to get an OGG player or codec, hell, I have to explain what a codec is.

Wikipedia is great because it is simple, and even the most common user can enjoy what it has to offer relatively easily. The OGG format is holding the audio projects back from common use and popularity; alternative formats such as mp3 or a flash player (a la Google Video) should be seriously considered. I would guess more than 90 percent of normal (see: non-CS major) users don't have OGG playing capability on their computers, and I don't think they should be expected to call up their tech support neighbor to install it just to to hear an article about Jessica Simpson. A common format would allow users to easily get the files on their mp3 players, burn CDs, and share them with friends. Not everyone is sporting Linux. (Sorry for the rant!) -WAZAAAA 18:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Every major operating system has support for ogg, and every template for using ogg sound and video including a link to the media help page (where they get crystal clear instructions for installing the necessary programs). I fail to see your point. Raul654 19:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Really, would you please tell me where I can find my Windows OGG player? I've looked all over my computer for it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My point is that, in this crazy little world called reality, users want stuff to work now, and they don't want to jump through hoops to get to what they want. And that's why Wikipedia has become so popular.
Every major operating system may have support for OGG, great, they also all have support for FLAC and most every other file format that exists. The point is, it's not in 90% of the computers. I know, it's possible to get OGG on your computer, but the current situation is making the visitors apprehensive and too intimidated by a technology they havent heard of to listen to the work Spoken Wiki project members and I have done. I don't care, embed a flash file to play the audio like Myspace and Google Video does, allow distribution of MP3 alongside OGG, or convince Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to include OGG in the operating systems. The fact of the matter is that the use of OGG is scaring away normal users from taking advantage of Spoken Wiki and wikipedia's sound file collection. And that's bad™. -WAZAAAA 19:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I asked about this above some time ago, and got much the same answer. The referenced decision implies that it’s illegal for WP to host MP3 files—not even to provide a Flash-based player (which WP should for Ogg), but simply to host the files—and that every computer has Ogg-playing capability out of the box.
Everyone knows what MP3 is. Every computer has an MP3 player. 10,000 programs on each OS play MP3s; 10 on Windows and 3 on Mac play Ogg (sorry, I don’t have a reference). What is the rationale for outlawing MP3? —Frungi 20:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not that it's illegal; it's that mp3 is a patented format. Creating players and encoders require paying royalties to the patent holder (Fraunhoffer Corp), which goes against our philosophy that the information on Wikipedia should be free (both free as in speech and free as in beer). Raul654 20:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
But not free as in not wasting time and effort downloading codecs for obscure and unused formats. We could have the same net effect as using OGG by simply not having sound and video files available. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No histrionics, please. It's a one-time, 2 minute effort to follow the instructions and install the codecs. We're not talking about a mammoth effort here. Furthermore, assuming wikipedia will be around for a while, ogg support will become more common as time goes on (all it would take to solve 95% of these complains would be for Windows Vista to include an ogg codec by default). Raul654 20:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sweet, let's assume we rely on Microsoft to release their new OS with some OSS built in. Maybe 6 years from now, almost 40% of users will be able to hear my sweet voice on Wikipedia! (gag) We're talking about the now, the actual, the fact that everyone I've told about Spoken Wikipedia said "it sucks i dunno how2uze OGG so i g2g". Wikipedia won't get sued, and can't get sued for having MP3s, and the OGGs are practically worthless in the eyes of many users. MP3 is not going to die or be overtaken by OGG, look at every computer and every audio player. MP3 won the format war a long time ago, OGG is coming in after-the-fact. I say, include both MP3s and OGGs if that's what makes the format-gods happy, because double the disk space is worth it if it turns the data from worthless into GOLD. -WAZAAAA 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason Wikimedia should subsidize users who are too lazy to spend two minutes following clearly marked directions. Raul654 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Cost-benefit analysis. Far more users will utilize our audio data if it's in a format they have. The value of the spoken articles goes up as more users access them. The more people listening, the more people contributing to these projects. I respect the Stallman-esque standpoint, but when it comes down to it, Wikipedia cares about making its site easily accessible, otherwise it wouldn't consider IE's capabilities (disabilities) in its design. Why not do the same thing with audio? We don't have a big sign up for those who use IE instead of FireFox saying "Go away. You are a lazy bastard. Go get Firefox." All I want is a way for the casual user to listen to my work without installing anything extra. I want to tell my near-blind friend across the country about a sound file and have it result in it playing on her computer, not a popup box asking her if she wants to open up en-Guide_dog.OGG in Notepad or MS Paint. I've offered a solution--include MP3s with OGG. -WAZAAAA 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dual-format. Offer it in OGG *and* MPEG formats. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -WAZAAAA 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the decision has been made from "up above" not to include mp3, but why not use Flash, as many here have suggested? It doesn't seem too hard to do [1]. -Sesquialtera II 23:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Flash is even more proprietary and restricted than mp3. Raul654 23:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Do website owners have to pay Macromedia to host Flash files? And about how perfectly easy it is to install Ogg: what about on library computers or something where the user can’t install software? —Frungi 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No, they don't have to pay to host flash files - but you are obligated to use their player (since no others exist) and I'm not positive but you probably have to pay for a development enviroment as well. Raul654 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

and No mp3 players support .ogg! <-- this post is from 70.178.95.216, sign your posts! -WAZAAAA 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. See Ogg Vorbis#Hardware. ~MDD4696 02:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm only echoing other sentiments here, but it seems unfortunate that sound files are the only part of Wikipedia that don't work "out of the box". I think people would be very unhappy if a similar situation existed for image files; i.e. one had to go through an installation process to see anything, and said process probably would not work on 25% of computers due to lack of administrative privileges. I personally like OGG a lot, but it's really frustrating to know that possibly a majority of users won't listen to recordings I might make for Wikipedia, because iTunes etc. won't play them. I guess what I am hoping for is some research into making sound files available by default on 90% or more computers, rather than setting the line at forcing the installation of new software. Sorry if this has been hashed over hundreds of times already. -Sesquialtera II 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't some image file formats have proprietary issues as well? I know GIF did, though its patent is fortunately expired by now. Anyway, I support the principle behind Wikipedia's stand, but find it somewhat impractical; I don't think the iPod supports OGG, which is annoying given that one use for sound files is to put them on my iPod to listen to while I go out for a walk. *Dan T.* 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully support using the Ogg Vorbis format, and I think it's reasonable to force people to use it. Anyone who really wants the audio will take the 3 minutes to download and set it up. It's not hard, and they only have to do it once. People complain, but those same people complain about everything on a computer.

Ogg Vorbis isn't as widely used as MP3 only because it isn't as widely known as MP3. Wikimedia has been a forward-thinking and revolutionary organization, and I don't see why we can't lend a hand in promoting Ogg. They both have the same founding principles, and using Ogg helps inform the public about those principles (freedom of information, freedom of use). If we continue to take a stand, what do we have to lose? ~MDD4696 02:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What we have to lose is millions of potential listeners; those who choose not to listen to the hard work we put into our audio projects. I see absolutely no compelling reason Wikipedia shouldn't compromise and allow both OGG and MP3s. Okay, we get it, Wikipedia's roots are in open source, you can see that in the software used and the liscences of every file. I don't think Wikipedia's mission statement includes "Help out codecs that aren't catching on by crippling our own work with them." Walk outside in the city, look around, you'll see people with iPods, and people on their laptops with Windows or Mac, with MP3 support included by default.
Okay, stand up for the right to make our users (the ones that don't get pissed off and give up when they see a format theyve never used before) install software becuase it's open source and you think it should be used. There will be fewer of us doing audio projects (we gain new people through listeners becoming recorders) and the current recorders will continue to have few to no listeners. Let's pick our battles. Incorporate forced-open-source inconvenience into something people already WANT, like introduce an obscure format of web markup into the main Wikipedia, don't push it into the little Spoken Wiki boxes already crammed into the References section of articles. We're trying to grow. Give us MP3s, give us compatability, isn't that what a blind-accessibility project should be about? -WAZAAAA 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You make valid points, but I'm going to bring up another: What happens to OGG if we allow MP3? It would be entirely usurped. Would we ever be able to transition to OGG if it did get more widely supported at a later date? Or would we require that audio files are submitted as both MP3 and OGG? ~MDD4696 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia were to go with MP3 (at least for the short term), and Ogg later gained as much support as MP3, there should be no problem transcoding between the two. I think the real issues at this point are: How easy is it for sight-disabled users to install Ogg support? and Could Wikipedia be sued for hosting widely-supported MP3 files? —Frungi 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Transcoding between compressed audio formats reduces quality, but not too much (for speech). As far as the visually impaired issue—if they're using the computer, I don't think they're going to have any more trouble installing new software than they're used to. If they can't do it themselves, they can always have someone do it for them. It's only a minor inconvenience.
And no, Wikipedia could not be sued for simply hosting MP3 files, as long as they were not copyrighted. The issue with MP3 is that any software that can make MP3s must pay a royalty, and people are not free to use the MP3 codec as they see fit. I can definately see a rise in copyrighted material being uploaded to Wikipedia if MP3 were permitted. ~MDD4696 23:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of bigtime webcasters who are currently paying a percentage of their income from music distribution via MP3 to Thomson, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. Do you offer an indemnification for those who partake of your legal advice? :) --Gmaxwell 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course not, but I did look at the Thomson page you linked below. It says that only commercial distribution licensing fees are required. My claim might have been somewhat misleading, but it wasn't inaccurate. So for anyone reading this thread, in addition to royalty fees for codec use, Thomson (the MP3 licensor) requires that fees be paid for commercial use of MP3 encoded files. ~MDD4696 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Elsewhere they have said that any use which generates revenue in excess of, um, I think 100k must be licensed. In any case, we don't accept non-commercial only content, so we shouldn't accept non-commercial only formats. :) In any case, we now have a working java player (for both vorbis and theora) that we're considering making available.--Gmaxwell 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What about LAME? —Frungi (not signed in)
LAME exists in a legal grey area. See LAME#Legal_issues Raul654 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That article seems to say that LAME has had legal issues in the past, but is now independent of the ISO source code and licensed under the LGPL, which Sony may have violated. Aside from Sony, it doesn’t say anything about current legal issues. Or am I missing something? —Frungi 19:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The relavant sentence in that section is "LAME developers however state that since their code is only released in source form, "source code is considered as speech, which may contain descriptions of patented technology. Descriptions of patents are in the public domain." In other words, by compiling the source code, you have infringed on Fraunhoffer's patent (at least if you do so in the US). Raul654 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we’re at a standstill yet again. Ogg is completely free, but only the elite 3% of typical WP users use it (2% regularly). MP3 encoders have to be licensed, but it’s ubiquitous. We can’t use MP3 because open-source software can’t legally make them, and most people (think they) can’t use Ogg because their computers don’t know what it is. We can’t make a web-based player because there aren’t any open-source technologies to do so. Anyone who prefers MP3, can’t figure out how to play Ogg, or wants to use a portable MP3 player is screwed. And Jimbo’s a liar. —Frungi 08:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We have detailed instructions on how to get your computer playing oggs. These instructions should be linked whenever we link Oggs. If you think the instructions need improvement, you are invited to help. Do you have any data to back up your claim that "only 3%" of Wikipedia users are able to play Ogg/Vorbis? The problems with MP3 go beyond a simple lack of (legal in the US) free software encoders, see the 'electronic music distribution' section on Thomson's mp3 royalty page. Also, decoding is covered under their patents as well. They permit non-commerical decoders, but this discriminitory restriction is incompatible with copyleft licenses, such as the GPL, which prohibit nature of use restriction. Speaking as a past Lame developer, I can assure you that neither MP3 or Lame is free enough for Wikipedia's goals. As far as conversion, a quick google for "convert ogg to mp3" give tons of useful looking results.
We could produce a free player either a native (the Vorbis libraries are very portable) or a web-based one (there is a java implimentation of Vorbis that works fine with GCJ/Kaffe, thus it is fully free software). However, based on emails to Wikipedia and to the helpdesk there is simply no demand and thus many people (including myself) strongly oppose the idea of Wikipedia distributing executible code to users. --Gmaxwell 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, please either substantiate or retract your allegation about Jimbo. Without support it just looks like a baseless personal attack to me. --Gmaxwell 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a proposal over on m:Talk:Video policy primarily about video, but it applies equally to audio. The owner of a technology to stream Java for video / audio-only has engaged WP with a view to licensing it to WP for free. Java is estimated to be available on 9 out of every 10 computers connected to the internet, which would open up WP audio and video to a huge audience if it were offered in Java. Many people either don't know how to or do not want to get their hands dirty installing special video / audio player and other software. As Java typically comes as standard on new PCs then a Java system would make these problems go away for most people without them needing to do anything.

For authors, the technology has an upload facility, and is also integrated with / underpinned by an editing system that works for sound as well as moving pictures. An enhanced version is also used in a professional broadcast TV setting; it is a robust and reliable that works for a majority of people on the internet. The editing system is also written in pure Java so it too can be used on any broadband Java enabled internet connection.

If I ever have any video to distribute on the net, I always use this system as it is the most reliable and most convenient not only for myself as the author, but for the viewer (listener) too. I have also added several videos to WP using this system (these at present have to be added as external links). This holiday weekend in the UK I was out enjoying the (intermittent) sunshine. I shot some footage which I will circulate to family/friends - here's a short clip to demonstrate. The quality is VHS, not DVD, but it is IMO quite satisfactory for most purposes. The first base so far as internet video/audio is concerned is to actually get the playback working easily / reliably / conveniently for the intended audience (for WP this is the globe). A secondary consideration is to maximise playback quality. Here's another clip with some audio, the soundtrack was purchased on a royalty free basis by myself. The 'applet' can also be integrated into the fabric web pages. This could be made seemles in WP with a special construct for this type of applet.

There would be lots of practical details to work out - but if it is being offered to WP free - what other objections could there be for further detaining video / audio as the poor relations on WP. I would direct specific comments or questions to m:Talk:Video policy rather than this thread. mk 12:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a FORscene article here. Stephen B Streater 13:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is now a FORscene article. Stephen B Streater 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I inserted my explanations on the wrong section altogether. Apologies, AppleJuggler 14:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need my response to them here then. The bigger issue is that beginners in computing are a long way behind more experienced users, and anything short of working automatically (even if a only a few well chosen steps are required to get something working) will, in practice, exclude most users. Stephen B Streater 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cinelerra

You could add that cinelerra supports Ogg Theora videos - that should help at least all users which are using Linux. --130.243.179.56 04:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sound samples of music artist

I recently uploaded a sample of a song ("Everything Went Numb" by Streetlight Manifesto — file, info) however I noticed on {{music sample}} that one of the conditions is "There is no adequate free alternative available". Now this same song is available in it's entirety as a free (as in beer) mp3 download from the websites of both the band and the record label. My question is: do I link to said file, or do I upload a full version in OGG Vorbis format at the same bit rate? — Ian Moody (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Do neither - the first thing you propose (linking directly to the file) is bandwidth theft and the latter is a copyvio (unless you can convince them to license it under a free-as-in-speech license). Raul654 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Does the full MP3 on the websites mentioned qualify as an “adequate free alternative”? If it does, then the sample violates the conditions of that template (and the free alternative should be used instead?). Which meaning of free does that template use? We need some new adjectives. —Frungi 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Insofar as the fair use guidelines, "Free" means libre - free-as-in-speech. Raul654 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
So the user-made sample should be used on WP, and the webpage with the full MP3 should not be linked to? —Frungi 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
A 'user made' recording of that song would not be Free because the music itself is copyrighted. There is no free alternative possible for a modern piece of music when you are writing about that piece of music. However, non-free copyrighted music should not be used to illustrate general concepts about music because free alternatives are possible. --Gmaxwell 19:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
My solution for song samples can be seen in my audio recording of Reggae. --WAZAAAA 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I see a subpage with deeplinks to the ogg files, bypassing the copyright information on the image page. Please use the {{listen}} template. The way you are currently linking these files makes inaccessable the copyright related information which we are legally obligated to provide. --Gmaxwell 04:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How do I convert?

Should I ever make any sound files how can i covert them to an .ogg file. As far as I know the only recording program I have is Sound Recorder. Would I need another program in order to save as an ogg.

It will depends what your source file is. A very userfriendly way for converting files is Ogg Drop. --Walter 11:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Do a Google search for the open-source sound editing program called 'Audacity'. It is free to download and use, and it is simple to use if you want to convert sound files into .ogg format. Cheers. AppleJuggler 14:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking to external media

I just came across Prion, which seems to provide an audio file showing how to pronounce the title. In fact, it does no such thing: it links to webster.com's wav file.

Now, I don't agree with arguments that deep linking to other Web documents as if they were part of Wikipedia can constitute copyright infringement, but I certainly don't think providing such links is a good idea. If it looks like it's part of WP (which, to the casual observer, this does), then it really should be. I think in all cases it's better to do without an audio (video, etc.) file, for pronunciation or otherwise, until we can come up with an original one that we can release under the GFDL, or get permission to use the original under the GFDL (after encoding in Ogg Vorbis, of course). In any case, it wouldn't be possible to include such files on a CD (or whatever) accompanying a paper version of Wikipedia, or indeed in any form accompanying a self-contained derivative, unless we get such permission.

Is there any official opinion on this? Hairy Dude 18:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed at some depth in my recent RfA. User:Gmaxwell is pretty clued up in this area - you might like to ask him for details. I think what you say above was pretty close to the consensus ie usually no content is usually better than an external link to non-free content. Also, User:Danny is pretty definitive on official policy, and (as you can see from his user page) has direct experience with TV and film. Stephen B Streater 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Many articles have pronunciations hosted on Wikipedia. I'm confidence that I'm not stepping out on a limb to tell you what that article was doing was completely foolish, not only does it violate our external link guidelines.. it's just rude. Please don't mistake the fact that you can find an example of almost anything on Wikipedia as evidence that the project as a whole supports the action... it's usually the case that no one else has noticed. I'll go fix the file. Thanks for pointing it out. --Gmaxwell 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP supports it at all! In fact I was just trying to get confirmation for my hunch, which was that it was frowned upon, and I also thought it was important to discuss the issue here, rather than on an obscure page like an RfA where most people are unlikely to find it. (For reference, here is Stephen's RfA, with the discussion evidently showing consensus against such linking.) Hairy Dude 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Ogg Theora files in commons should have their extension changed

I've seen that some users have a lot of problems when dealing with Theora video files, one of the biggest is the file extension. The .ogg file extension normally applies to audio, so in most opearting systems a user downloads the file and the audio player starts it, because .ogg is associated with it. This is a big problem, because the average user won't know s/he should be using a video player instead.

Unofficially, the .ogm extension is used for Theora, and this is a good idea, because many video players can recognize this extension as theirs.

I believe this issue should at least get a voting. Should Jimbo Wales be contacted?

--Saoshyant 13:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ogm is a distinct file format and is not compatible with ogg. also ogm doesn't mean it is used for theora or video at all. see Ogg Media for a detailed description. --Pythagoras1 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Saoshyant is right on the general principle - the decision to use the same extension for many different kinds of media using the same wrapper format was incredibility stupid. Pythagoras1 is correct that ogm is a distinct format - I believe it's mpeg video wrapped in an ogg wrapper. Raul654 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have 30-second .ogg audio clips -- but what should I select for licensing?

Hello there. I am working on an A-class article of an Indian music composer (Ilaiyaraaja). I have recorded 30 second audio clips of this musician's songs in .ogg format, to include on his Wiki as sound samples. Now, my question is this: when I upload it onto the Wikipedia Commons, what sort of licensing should I select, since these are 30-second audio clips that I had created based on this musician's songs? Would appreciate a reply. Cheers, AppleJuggler 14:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Explain please

This entire page seems to have been written for nerds, by nerds. Can anyone explain in plain English how to listen to Ogg files? I've never read such unhelpful tips!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.90.43 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 December 2006

--> Easy. Download Winamp, free-of-charge from the Internet. I'm sure you've heard of this media player program. It plays Ogg Vorbis files for your listening pleasure. Cheers, AppleJuggler 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Media help. This page isn't helpful because it's not the right page for your question. --Gmaxwell 05:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files/Archive_2&oldid=1101191657"