[Xiph-Advocacy] dir.xiph.org

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:47 PM,  <xiphmont at xiph.org> wrote:
>>> On 2/20/09, Michael Smith <msmith at xiph.org> wrote:
>>> > Agreed. Who runs dir.xiph.org currently? We should require that it be
>>> > changed to list only free formats within, say, 2 weeks, or point
>>> > dir.xiph.org somewhere else.
>>>
>>> Agreed, as well.  I have no idea who runs it, though.
>
> I disagree, but not for the reasons you think.  Turning off the
> non-free listings on dir.xiph.org could easily be seen as a wallowing
> in denial-- we're not winning, so let's spin it.  Or worse, we're not
> winning-- so were taking our toys and going home.
>
> I'd prefer we build some better apps and just win the war :-)

There are (at a minimum) some thousand Ogg/Vorbis streams out there:
And that alone is a
significant success.

The whole notion of characterizing some blanket adoption trend with a
black and white
"winning" vs "losing" is made of fail.

There are significant factors in the user's selection of formats
which are entirely out of our control… and if we include thinks we
can't control in the measures we hold ourselves to we could only hope to
find unhappiness as well as less success addressing the things we can
control.

"Winning" also fails actually explain our goal actually is—

In the context of streaming internet radio, I think Xiph's goal can be
simply stated:

"Creators and distributors of audio materials on the net should be
able to conduct their business
without paying format/transport related royalties, or the risk of a
future imposition of royalties,
or undue legal exposure. This must be possible without having to make
a difficult
decision weighing audience size vs fees/legal exposure."

I don't think that it's at all clear that we're failing to win that
goal, at least in terms of the technical fundamentals: Not only is
Ogg/Vorbis widely supported in desktop music playing tools, but anyone
with either Java or Flash can play it via a website, providing that
the right glue has been setup. (Arguably, we need to improve the glue,
and the promotion of the existence of the glue).

Unless it has suddenly become popular to stream icecast streams to the
iphone and other portable music players… in which case, then that
might become a serious gap.

So—  If we've got (most of) the right things done to achieve the above
goal, Why isn't the amount of Vorbis usage overwhelming?

I think the primary factor is that the decision to use a particular
codec is very small scale decision, often an individual decision,
while the harms we are trying to address are only obviously serious
when viewed on a large scale (or to a relatively small number of
parties who had expensive surprises).  Joe Schmoe having to pay some
bucks here or there to buy some licenses, or some vague legal risk (it
won't happen to me!), and even single larger companies run into the
licensing caps which make the cost individually tolerable.

Following this model we can think of the encumbered codecs as
something akin to pollution or wasteful energy consumption.
Individually harmless, but potentially devastating taken as a whole.

Since most people don't directly feel the pain of the problems we are
trying to fix, having a 'brand on the market today which is just as
tasty as the real thing' is simply insufficient. We could match on
ease of use, match on availability, whoop-butt on quality. … and still
lose based on inertia and some minuscule marketing spending by the
other guys.

In order to cross that gap we need to educate: People need to be
invited to "Think globally", and understand that choosing the free
format isn't just a good decision on technology but that it's also
good for the information-ecosphere, if you will.

Part of that is modelling behaviour: Once we've sold someone on
formats having some greater importance, we need to go on and show them
how free formats can be an acceptable solution for them.  Both steps
are necessary.

As far as I'm aware— there are no high profile stream directories
catering to free formats.  The existence of such directories is
another kind of incentive that can 'break the tie' and get people
using a free format where otherwise they would use MP3. An exclusive
directory means an additional listener base. Its no less valid an
incentive than better sound quality or lower bandwidth, and like those
technical improvements a free format only directory is something we
can provide.  If dir.xiph.org didn't already exist, you could argue
that we ought not be in the directory business, but it does, and the
discussion is over what it should contain.

A free formats only directory is a place where people who've decided
that formats matter can visit first. It's evidence for people looking
to stream that streaming in free formats *is* viable, socially
acceptable, technically achievable, etc.   (of course, if it's not,
then please— lets find out why and fix it).  ... and if its not it
sends the opposite message.

The impact of that kind of directory service could be increased
greatly too, since if we did have a unencumbered formats only
directory other groups with a common interest in these formats could
drive more traffic to it:  "These streams all play in Fedora out of
the box"-RedHat; "Works with Firefox"-Mozilla "This list of streams
supports your freedom"-FSF; etc.

And that is why I think that dir.xiph.org should be unencoumbered formats only.