Legality of Real and Quicktime Alternative Codecs

Edit: Please see my 2nd post (below) for a better question...this first post doesn't quite frame the issue the way I want it to.

I'm not entirely sure on which forum to make this post, but I have a question which a quick Google search hasn't answered.

Are the Real Alternative and Quicktime Alternative codecs legal? I don't want to use them to crack anything, but I'm thinking about using them to bypass the need for RealPlayer (spyware) and QuickTime Player (very large file size, some 70 mb for the newest version...just for a fiddily player).

The various forums on the internet suggest that some versions of these codecs might be illegal, or are illegal, but somehow I'm not sure that this isn't (a) people talking out of their you-know-what, or (b) representatives of Real and Apple trying to get people to use their front-end products.

So, if someone knows that these are illegal, I would ask that they provide me with a source...or a detailed explanation. Furthermore, does this mean that it is illegal if, say, we install single-file codecs without getting them from the company that makes them (even if they are distributed for free by that company)?

I know that XVID is open-source, and that there are open-source versions of DIVX, are those illegal too?

I would appreciate some clarification. Thanks very much in advance.

whatever the legality, you're hardly going to have steve jobs on your doorstep demanding you pay a hefty fine.

seriously, i wouldn't dedicate any more thought to the issue.

Where have you got 70Mb from for Quicktime?
Most of the "unofficial" codecs are open source anyway and a lot better to boot. All somebody has done is write their own player/codec for Real/Quicktime so technically you've got nothing to fear from using it.



You're reading too much into this, far too much if you're basing your viewpoint purely on something somebody wrote on a web forum somewhere online. Use whatever you're comfy with and leave it at that.



Flawed argument; if everything was only available from one place, nobody would be able to download anything as there would be too much traffic.



There is no clarification; all a codec does is decompress stuff made in a certain way, so there is nothing to stop you or I writing a new codec to play QuickTime files and dumping it on the internet.

Thanks, Neil Jones.

I guess, more generally, even though a media codec can be copyrighted, does that copyright exclude the creation of "generic" codecs that will also play the media format?

And, does anyone know if Real and Quicktime Alternatives are generic alternatives or derived from reverse-engineered copyrighted products?

I apologize for not being able to ask this question in a more succinct way, but my confusion arises from this: although it appears that attempting to view Real media and Quicktime media on other plays is forbidden, both the RealPlayer and the QT Player will play almost all other media types. How is this possible? Did they get permission from Microsoft to play .asf, .wmv and .wma?

The Senior Codec Engineer at RealNetworks says:


He also says that RealPlayer is not spyware:

I find Quicktime player very good, quick and simple. The latest WMP is also good. RealPlayer however is very bulky and slow, and I myself have recently ditched it for an alternative codec which is much more efficent. Quicktime mainly uses easily available codecs, such as H.264 which is a form of MPEG-4, meaning no legalities. Both the latest Real and WMV/A are registered as in international standard, which documents everything about it, allowing people to easily create alternative codecs. I should have thought they are also legal.

I believe the BBC has a link for a clean version of realplayer