Talk:Combined Community Codec Pack

Link goes to fraud site

The link in the article "how to play mkv in windows media player" leads to a fraud/spamming site, please check and replace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.249.105 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

It is likely that this article will be brought up again at AfD if no sources can be found to back up a sourced case for notability. Wikipedia:Notability is not declared, but proven through Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please do not remove the cleanup templates until the issue has been corrected. MrZaius^talk 20:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• So the official Matroska webpage is not a "reliable source" for information about Matroska files and their playback? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 02:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, of course not, the people who made the software aren't reliable sources for information on it. Why would the people that know every nook and cranny of something have any knowledge about it? I suppose we should start a study to research it, publish the results in a journal, then quote the article written by a third party. The notion that a technology provider's own notes & documentation that can not be used as a source is ludicrous. Kyanwan 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CCCP project is not notable?

Hmm, as far as I understand - there are tens of thousands of people who play videos on their computers. CCCP is an end-all codec (playback) pack that has resulted from the collaborated efforts of a number of fan-subbing groups & community/fan-based media providers. From what I understand, this software pack has been spread quite widely, and solves many issues that have plagued the distribution of video files online.

If this is not notable -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_baiting

Then let's all start monkey baiting.

Or, we could link CCCP to the modern-day piracy issue. Surely, there's some way that it can be relevant (because, it IS.)

Just the suggestion that this may be kept for deletion is somewhat foolish, in my opinion. Just take a look at the discussion. Out of all of the discussion, only 1 argument to delete, possibly by a person who has never heard of this package AND the problems it was designed to solve AND the efforts which went into its creation.

Kyanwan 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Legality?

The article misses a section about the legality of the pack. I would assume that the license agreements for those codecs would forbid this kind of distribution... -- 80.139.28.121 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The GNU Public License, which most of the codecs included in the CCCP fall under, has no such provision. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)