Daddybambam
Technical User
Is there any codec pack that covers most if not all audio & video files? and does not have spyware encripted into them? Please help.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations John Tel on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Codecs Packs 1
- Thread starter Daddybambam
- Start date
- Status
I use K-lite but there are others:
____________________________
Users Helping Users
____________________________
Users Helping Users
I really don't know of any so-called universal codec pack that doesn't have some kind of problem with it, like spyware, or a codec included that's not licensed for distribution (i.e. warez) or the like. Usually though, I just use XVid and it handles most of my encoding needs.
Could you point out the spyware and warez in the codec pack I listed please? You should note that the user is not interesting in encoding but in playing audio and video files. Your statement is awfully broad. I do not know what codec packs you have experience with, but the most popular ones I have seen are adware, spyware and warez free. Perhaps because you confused encoding with the decoding chore?
Another popular codec pack is XP Codec Pack:
Like the K-lite pack it is spyware, adware, and warez free.
____________________________
Users Helping Users
-
1
- #5
Another vote for K-Lite.
Best Freeware Guide
"Best Video Player/Codec Pack
Basically, the K-Lite Mega Codec Pack will play every video file on this planet.
K-Lite Mega Codec Pack
K-Lite Codec Pack Full (Less features)
Best Freeware Guide
"Best Video Player/Codec Pack
Basically, the K-Lite Mega Codec Pack will play every video file on this planet.
K-Lite Mega Codec Pack
K-Lite Codec Pack Full (Less features)
- Thread starter
- #6
Daddybambam
Technical User
Thanks. I had a list from:
but was not sure what was the best to use.
but was not sure what was the best to use.
K-Lite is one of the biggest offenders from what I am aware by looking at it.
I know of two of them, including K-Lite. Both seem to be riddled with software that is being distributed against the license agreements. And yes I know what a codec is.
Wanna bet?
"According to some companies like Apple Computer, On2 Technologies, RealNetworks and CyberLink, the K-Lite codec packs are illegal.[citation needed] Some codecs were included without the permission of the author like the RealMedia codecs by RealNetworks and the QuickTime DS Filter, created by CyberLink."
I should add that most anything MPEG-2 that's in K-Lite would be flat-out illegal, especially if it plays CSS DVD content.
a nice discussion on the topic is here:
Looking around, this is a better option: , though I find any codec pack to be a horrible thing that causes nothing but problems.
I'd have to go look at it again to get more impressions than that, but, personally I'd rather keep my nose clean than deal with something that's definitely questionable.
OK now that I look at the K-Lite Media Pack more (I just saw enough to see it as questionable and worth staying away from), here's a list of issues I seem to find upon some research - of course I could be wrong, but too much seems suspicious to not discount it:
COREAVC - this is a hack off of some leaked source code - CoreAVC is a closed-source product. Illegal source = illegal distribution.
On2 - against the license to distribute in this fashion.
Cyberlink & Intervideo - both are commercial products. Since their codecs are *NOT* offered on their sites as free to use downloads, both these would be warez.
Ligos - I don't see anything on their site that's downloadable without paying them some funds, so I would consider that warez.
Mainconcept - I don't see anything on their site that's downloadable without paying of funds. Warez.
Quicktime Alternative - this seems to be the codecs out of QuickTime 7 - I doubt Apple is offering just the codecs as an official product, and I'm definitely sure there's no source code. Definitely questionable, and definitely a violation of the licensing agreement. a definite legal problem.
Real Alternative - same as QuickTime Alternative. I seem to see more of a fuss made by RealNetworks - I notice several sites which have posted this has removed the links for it being illegal.
(Is that enough for you bcastner?)
COREAVC - this is a hack off of some leaked source code - CoreAVC is a closed-source product. Illegal source = illegal distribution.
On2 - against the license to distribute in this fashion.
Cyberlink & Intervideo - both are commercial products. Since their codecs are *NOT* offered on their sites as free to use downloads, both these would be warez.
Ligos - I don't see anything on their site that's downloadable without paying them some funds, so I would consider that warez.
Mainconcept - I don't see anything on their site that's downloadable without paying of funds. Warez.
Quicktime Alternative - this seems to be the codecs out of QuickTime 7 - I doubt Apple is offering just the codecs as an official product, and I'm definitely sure there's no source code. Definitely questionable, and definitely a violation of the licensing agreement. a definite legal problem.
Real Alternative - same as QuickTime Alternative. I seem to see more of a fuss made by RealNetworks - I notice several sites which have posted this has removed the links for it being illegal.
(Is that enough for you bcastner?)
And Microsoft that has distribution agreements with many of these same concerns, and distributes the underlying codecs for free as well, is in the Warez business?
You broadly assume that since a codec is the product of another company it cannot be distributed by a second or third-hand party. In this you are often completely wrong.
Nor is the assertion of illegality equivalent to a prima facia case if illegal conduct. Real Networks may not like what others do, but this does not make the secondary use illegal. As long as reverse engineering is not involved or the use is in itself illegal; e.g. to distribute child pornography.
COREAVC: included legally in DirectShow and ffdshow. Other applications using H.264 use libavcodec
On2: included legally with DirectShow.
Cyberlink & Intervideo: Products are not included in K-lite codec package.
Mainconcept: Products are not included in K-lite codec pack.
Quicktime and Realtime Alternative Not included in K-lite Codec Pack. (Sometimes found as well at download sites for the Codec, but not part of the Codec Pack.
Yes, you are demonstrably wrong in your earlier comments, not just painting with a broad brush. You still confuse encoding with decoding. You misrepresent the included codecs of the product. And you mistate the legal status of others.
What is it you hope to gain by acting so irresponsibly? How does this help users such as the original poster?
____________________________
Users Helping Users
You broadly assume that since a codec is the product of another company it cannot be distributed by a second or third-hand party. In this you are often completely wrong.
Nor is the assertion of illegality equivalent to a prima facia case if illegal conduct. Real Networks may not like what others do, but this does not make the secondary use illegal. As long as reverse engineering is not involved or the use is in itself illegal; e.g. to distribute child pornography.
COREAVC: included legally in DirectShow and ffdshow. Other applications using H.264 use libavcodec
On2: included legally with DirectShow.
Cyberlink & Intervideo: Products are not included in K-lite codec package.
Mainconcept: Products are not included in K-lite codec pack.
Quicktime and Realtime Alternative Not included in K-lite Codec Pack. (Sometimes found as well at download sites for the Codec, but not part of the Codec Pack.
Yes, you are demonstrably wrong in your earlier comments, not just painting with a broad brush. You still confuse encoding with decoding. You misrepresent the included codecs of the product. And you mistate the legal status of others.
What is it you hope to gain by acting so irresponsibly? How does this help users such as the original poster?
____________________________
Users Helping Users
It can by license, and I see no indication that there's a license for distribution for KL software on any of these things.
The issue here is not the inclusion, but the use of the leaked source code to build what is present.
By license, no doubt. Microsoft didn't take it and drop it in there of its own volition. It worked out a deal with the company.
The codecs are in the K-Lite package I downloaded. They're there.
If it's against the published license agreements, then it's in violation. Most of what I found in K-Lite fits that criteria, and the inclusion of parts of the Cyberlink and Intervideo software make it definitely illegal (I've purchased the Cyberlink software that includes the codec in K-Lite, so I know full well about that one). Last time I checked, passing off commercial software for free is illegal, no matter whether it was part of it or all of it.
I could say the same of what you have posted.
By steering them away from a potential legal problem, especially if this stuff is getting used in a corporate environment. The K-Lite pack (the one I downloaded anyway), is completely dubious for what I see.
And I posted resources where it's just not me saying it, if you would go back and read it.
And when was the time that posting warez was considered "a responsible action"? I missed the memo on that one.
I have a feeling you aren't going to be convinced anyway.
And a question: If I were to post in response of a user query in the hard drive issues forum on this site a copy of Norton Disk Doctor that was ripped out of the Norton Utilities, what would that be considered as? Legal distribution by a third party (me) or illegal distribution of warez?
And your response?
And your response?
From
Features of K-Lite Codec Pack 2.79 FULL version
- CoreAVC [version 0.0.0.4] (the version number should tip you off on that one, especially since the current is 1.1)
- MPEG-1 / MPEG-2 (Cyberlink) [version 6.0.0.3402]
- MPEG-1 / MPEG-2 (InterVideo) [version 7.0.27.191]
- MPEG-1 / MPEG-2 (MainConcept) [version 1.0.0.78]
- MPEG-1 / MPEG-2 (Ligos) [version 4.0.0.77]
(I see they removed the QT and RM stuff - newer version than the one I had)
Features of K-Lite Codec Pack 2.79 FULL version
- CoreAVC [version 0.0.0.4] (the version number should tip you off on that one, especially since the current is 1.1)
- MPEG-1 / MPEG-2 (Cyberlink) [version 6.0.0.3402]
- MPEG-1 / MPEG-2 (InterVideo) [version 7.0.27.191]
- MPEG-1 / MPEG-2 (MainConcept) [version 1.0.0.78]
- MPEG-1 / MPEG-2 (Ligos) [version 4.0.0.77]
(I see they removed the QT and RM stuff - newer version than the one I had)
The filters you listed above are all for DirectShow (you failed to include that line in your clipping above).
The filters to decode can be legally used. You run into issues on the encoding side however, but the K-lite pack does not include those filters.
For example, here is your Quick Time inclusion for use by Microsoft:
Your dscussion of Norton Utilities is off point and silly.
____________________________
Users Helping Users
The filters to decode can be legally used. You run into issues on the encoding side however, but the K-lite pack does not include those filters.
For example, here is your Quick Time inclusion for use by Microsoft:
Your dscussion of Norton Utilities is off point and silly.
____________________________
Users Helping Users
Again this gets back to the issue of licensing.
It's not off point - it's the distribution of part of a commercially sold and licensed product.
The DirectShow issue is irrelevant.
As you quoted:
This is saying Microsoft licensed the codec to be included into Windows, and therefore the codec is paid for as part of the Windows license.
Is this the same case for Cyberlink, Intervideo, and Mainconcept? As for the Cyberlink product, I don't have the DLL on my system or the capability to play DVD content using the Cyberlink codec until I install the Cyberlink product that I purchased. As part of the installation, all the relevant filters/codecs are installed. And as I stated, I see no download link for any free codecs on any of those sites. If they were free to distribute, don't you think those companies would offer the codecs/filters on their own web sites for download? I don't find them.
And as you quote again:
This just indicates the capability to write extensions to the DirectShow capabilities. This indicates nothing of a "fruit of the tree" issue, in other words, "if it's a DirectShow filter, it MUST be free to distribute by anyone at any time." I don't see that in any of those links, either.
In fact, I see this in the first one:
Guess what? What I'm listing is MPEG-2 decoders!
So now were back to what the third parties have to say, and how they choose to license their products. They can sell the product, even, if they so choose. What are their license conditions? Again I don't see any of that stuff I listed available for free download and use on any of those sites.
And to quote from your third link:
The Quicktime Alternative package has version 7.0 DLLs. So guess what, Microsoft licensed this from Apple way back when (that means they paid money to Apple to include it in Windows). So we're back to what the third party says (Apple). This one is a little less clear, admittedly, but I'm not sure they're too happy about someone repackaging and redistributing their copyrighted materials.
Where's the magic "any decoding filter created for DirectShow must be distributed freely" licensing clause? I'm waiting to see that one. After all, if that were the case, I wouldn't have bothered with the Cyberlink software so I could play my DVDs on my computer.
It's not off point - it's the distribution of part of a commercially sold and licensed product.
The DirectShow issue is irrelevant.
As you quoted:
This is saying Microsoft licensed the codec to be included into Windows, and therefore the codec is paid for as part of the Windows license.
Is this the same case for Cyberlink, Intervideo, and Mainconcept? As for the Cyberlink product, I don't have the DLL on my system or the capability to play DVD content using the Cyberlink codec until I install the Cyberlink product that I purchased. As part of the installation, all the relevant filters/codecs are installed. And as I stated, I see no download link for any free codecs on any of those sites. If they were free to distribute, don't you think those companies would offer the codecs/filters on their own web sites for download? I don't find them.
And as you quote again:
This just indicates the capability to write extensions to the DirectShow capabilities. This indicates nothing of a "fruit of the tree" issue, in other words, "if it's a DirectShow filter, it MUST be free to distribute by anyone at any time." I don't see that in any of those links, either.
In fact, I see this in the first one:
Guess what? What I'm listing is MPEG-2 decoders!
So now were back to what the third parties have to say, and how they choose to license their products. They can sell the product, even, if they so choose. What are their license conditions? Again I don't see any of that stuff I listed available for free download and use on any of those sites.
And to quote from your third link:
The Quicktime Alternative package has version 7.0 DLLs. So guess what, Microsoft licensed this from Apple way back when (that means they paid money to Apple to include it in Windows). So we're back to what the third party says (Apple). This one is a little less clear, admittedly, but I'm not sure they're too happy about someone repackaging and redistributing their copyrighted materials.
Where's the magic "any decoding filter created for DirectShow must be distributed freely" licensing clause? I'm waiting to see that one. After all, if that were the case, I wouldn't have bothered with the Cyberlink software so I could play my DVDs on my computer.
.. version 7.0 DLLs" have nothing to do with the standard to be used for decoding, which is what was referred to.
Again you confuse encoding with decoding. The companies you mention make the decoding portions available. The encoding portions require a charge.
You have not once substantiated a single one of your charges of warez. Where is the documentation from Apple, from Cyberlink, from Intervideo?
You have continuously backed off from your statements when it is shown that your codecs of interest are not even in the K-Lite package.
You do not discuss the Microsoft indemnification through their quickdraw licensing, other than to dismiss it for no earthly reason other than it does not agree with your stance.
You continuously use as an excuse 'I must have looked at an earlier package.'
You are not helping anyone. And you most certainly as you continue you are not helping your case.
____________________________
Users Helping Users
Again you confuse encoding with decoding. The companies you mention make the decoding portions available. The encoding portions require a charge.
You have not once substantiated a single one of your charges of warez. Where is the documentation from Apple, from Cyberlink, from Intervideo?
You have continuously backed off from your statements when it is shown that your codecs of interest are not even in the K-Lite package.
You do not discuss the Microsoft indemnification through their quickdraw licensing, other than to dismiss it for no earthly reason other than it does not agree with your stance.
You continuously use as an excuse 'I must have looked at an earlier package.'
You are not helping anyone. And you most certainly as you continue you are not helping your case.
____________________________
Users Helping Users
ASG0865,
Swapping emails is against Forum Rules. Please read them.
If posters are recommending Warez or stolen intellectural property to the original poster it is a suitable discussion in this thread.
Your comment is gratuitous.
____________________________
Users Helping Users
Swapping emails is against Forum Rules. Please read them.
If posters are recommending Warez or stolen intellectural property to the original poster it is a suitable discussion in this thread.
Your comment is gratuitous.
____________________________
Users Helping Users
Which is irrelevant. The license criteria of the software being used for decoding is.
Where at? Download links, please.
I think the latter two charging for this software would be enough documentation.
I quoted them above.
The statement showed no indemnification for usage of third-party software. In fact, it only stated that Microsoft licensed the Fraunhofer MP3 by PAYING FOR IT - a part of the Windows license fee is the license for the Fraunhofer MP3 codec.
If all you're looking for is for me to agree with you, then no. The evidence doesn't show that. For example, with Cyberlink, the cheapest thing to plug into Windows Media Player on their site to DECODE PROTECTED MPEG-2 CONTENT (and that is what a DVD is) is $14.95. Where's the FREE link, man? My Cyberlink DVD decoder I paid for is version 5.0, where's the free link so I can get 7.0 legally?
The thing has grown pointless anyway - it's obvious he's either not reading my posts or reading into them things that are not being said. Like arguing with a post. The post is just going to sit there. I'm done with it.
fight....fight....fight....lol
sorry for keeping this post alive but i tried the KLight mega codec pack but on install it always fails installing the quicktime and realplayer alternatives....have these features been removed for one reason or another?
sorry for keeping this post alive but i tried the KLight mega codec pack but on install it always fails installing the quicktime and realplayer alternatives....have these features been removed for one reason or another?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question