Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why I think the DRM and open source debate is nonsense

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by rbmorse View Post
    Duby...is there something here beyond wishful thinking or am I missing something? I didn't get from AMD last financial statement that they were in a position to throw away sales into the Windows markets.
    You think theyd be throwing away sales? How so?

    If anything once they announced to the general public that they have eliminated a threat to them, they'd become hero's, and most folks would use there products exclusively. I personally beleive that it is ATi's duty.

    That said I fully realize and appreciate that it will never happen. It's sad and shameful, but poor unfortunate folks actually believe that there is no other way. As such, all I'm askng for is to keep DRM out of Linux. It's in the hardware, and there is nothing that can be done about it, but keep it out of the drivers, and disable the infected hardware. If they want to use it in windows then so be it, but it isnt welcome in linux.

    Dont use DRM as an excuse for crippling the open source drivers. if the hardware is capable of decoding h264 then the open source drivers should be able to take advantage of that capability, and using DRM as an excuse is not a good facet to get going on. As far as DRM'd content goes, it'll be hacked sooner or later and an OSS solution will be available. It's in this way that Linux --will-- be able to view and use --ALL-- the same content as Windows while using free and open source software to do it. It's going to happen whether ATi likes it or not, and they should be encouraging it and even helping it along.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
      One more time. Nobody is talking about putting DRM in the RadeonHD driver. The issue is that we *do* put DRM in the hardware for use by the Windows drivers, and as a result of that there may be certain HW functionality we can't expose for use in RadeonHD.



      ... and not NVidia's, or Intel's ? We all sell into the same market, and we all implement DRM, and we all face the same issues re: opening DRM-related HW to the open source market.

      It's probably worth mentioning that this whole discussion is about whether AMD will be the *first* to expose HD decode HW, not the *last*.
      Of course, but dont use that as an excuse. please.

      What would be truly impressive is if you could say that you did it without stooping to there level by not implementing DRM. Help the open source community instead. DRM will be cracked, and all the same functionality will be exposed to us all while using free and open software to do it.

      That would be truly impressive.

      You come into this assuming that it cant be done with free software and --that-- is the flaw in your logic. Whether you like it or not it --will-- be done with free software.

      Comment


      • #18
        I have to admit I don't get the connection between this discussion and "doing it with free software".

        The question is not what is done with free software, the question is what *we* do to protect (or not) technology which we have committed to keep safeguarded. Even if someone successfully reverse engineers a playback solution (and that has already happened for most of the major protection mechanisms), that has no impact on our obligations or liabilities.
        Last edited by bridgman; 02-03-2008, 04:28 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by bridgman View Post
          What exactly are you proposing ? Are you saying that we should expose all the hardware specs and not worry about protecting DRM, even if that means massive lawsuits and significant loss of business outside the open source market ?
          How do you figure it would lose a bunch of business? For those folks that dont know about DRM, they'll continue using the closed driver, and for those that do, they'll start using the open driver....As such any business that you lose will be due to your own lack of educating the your customers. If you started spending your resources now to educate your customers, then they would know better. I deal with people all day long, and I know first hand that average people are not as stupid as folks make them out to be. People are not sheep.

          Be honest with them, and tell them what DRM is, and then give them a chioce between a closed source DRM infected driver, and an --equally-- functional open source driver, and I'll guaranty that ost folks will continue using your hardware with the open source driver. And if the content industry sues you then you've got an ass ton of anti competitive case law on your side and you'll win in a month.
          Last edited by duby229; 02-03-2008, 04:30 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            I don't think Duby understands that the vast majority of AMD video chipset sales are to OEMs who don't give a rat's patoot about DRM one way or the other. They're just trying to shove cards down consumers throats any way they can and right now the easiest way to do that is by selling into the Windows market.

            Does AMD even sell any ATI-branded consumer video cards anymore?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by duby229 View Post
              How do you figure it would lose a bunch of business?.
              Simple. If we expose info which allows our DRM to be compromised on Windows, we instantly lose most of our Windows business since one of the pre-requisites for that *is* a robust DRM implementation.

              If we had an sure-fire way to open up HD decode without exposing DRM-related info we wouldn't be having this discussion. Remember that the two are intertwined in the standards and handled in the same block. One of the requirements is that you can't allow decoded images to be accessible *inside* the PC either...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rbmorse View Post
                I don't think Duby understands that the vast majority of AMD video chipset sales are to OEMs who don't give a rat's patoot about DRM one way or the other. They're just trying to shove cards down consumers throats any way they can and right now the easiest way to do that is by selling into the Windows market.

                Does AMD even sell any ATI-branded consumer video cards anymore?
                Yes AMD does. All AMD's video chipsets sold into the PC market are still under ATi's brand. And I understand perfetly well, but OEM's are not ultimately the consumer. If anybody is at risk here it is the OEM, and in the end they --must-- do what the consumer wants. It is ATi's duty to educate the consumer.

                I understand perfectly well, and the truth is that ATi is prolly the only company in the world right now that has the power to kill off DRM completely and totally. And they arent doing it. It's a damn dirty shame.

                But in the end, All I'm asking for is to keep it out of Linux in either the closed driver or the open driver. It doesnt belong here, it isnt welcome here.

                If you wantr to continue selling DRM into the Windows arket then please do so, but keep it out of Linux it isnt welcome.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I understand perfectly well, and the truth is that ATi is prolly the only company in the world right now that has the power to kill off DRM completely and totally. And they arent doing it. It's a damn dirty shame.
                  I have to ask. Why do you think ATI is the only company that can do it ? Why not Intel or NVidia, for example ?

                  If you wantr to continue selling DRM into the Windows arket then please do so, but keep it out of Linux it isnt welcome.
                  We have to include DRM in the decoder hardware for Windows, and until the Linux desktop market is big enough to justify Linux-specific chips that means the same hardware will be used by Linux customers. Along with the hardware comes the need to protect the DRM stuff and hence the decoder hardware... and that, in a nutshell, is the whole issue.
                  Last edited by bridgman; 02-03-2008, 04:44 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                    Simple. If we expose info which allows our DRM to be compromised on Windows, we instantly lose most of our Windows business since one of the pre-requisites for that *is* a robust DRM implementation.

                    If we had an sure-fire way to open up HD decode without exposing DRM-related info we wouldn't be having this discussion. Remember that the two are intertwined in the standards and handled in the same block. One of the requirements is that you can't allow decoded images to be accessible *inside* the PC either...
                    Dont expose that information then. It's that simple. But you can still allow us to use the hardwares decoding capabilities. It's not too much to ask for.

                    The fact is that I dont want to have anythng to do with DRM, if anything then you should give us the ability to completely disable and totally hide that hardware from the drivers so that there is zero chance that we can stumble upon it. That would be perfect, then we could have a video card that has the DRM hardware perfectly disabled, and there would be zero chance that whatecver your concerned with would happen.

                    Disable the hardware. Problem solved.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                      I have to ask. Why do you think ATI is the only company that can do it ? Why not Intel or NVidia, for example ?



                      This is the core issue. We have to include DRM in the decoder hardware for Windows, and until the Linux desktop market is big enough to justify Linux-specific chips that means the same hardware will be used by Linux customers, and along with the hardwrae comes the need to protect the DRM stuff and hence the decoder hardware.

                      That, in a nutshell, is the whole issue.
                      Becouse of the number of related markets, ATi is involved in. Almost all of them are DRM infected, and ATi has huge presence in all of them by disabling DRM across the board right now and demanding that the content industry drop support for all DRM mechanisms immediately, while also educating the public masses about what DRM is exactly, would effectively kill DRM within the year. The content industry would have no chioce but to comply.

                      I'm not asking for separate hardware, just that the Linux driver work just as well as the windows driver on the same hardware, with the DRM hardware disabled. By embracing the Free software community, that will be possible in the very near future becouse it will be cracked sooner or later, whether you like it or not.... HDCP is doomed to fail as is Macrovision, and every other restriction mechanism in place today. They will all be cracked.. When that happens your DRM implementation wont matter anymore, and you'll have wasted how many untold ours of man time. You should be helping the free software community develop these circumvention mechanisms as fast as you possibly can, becouse in the end it is for your own good.
                      Last edited by duby229; 02-03-2008, 04:54 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I agree it would be perfect if decode and DRM were different hardware but they're not, and they have to stay closely coupled in order to meet Windows DRM requirements. I don't think the market would accept the extra cost of implementing two decoders on each chip, one with DRM and one without, but that is the obvious answer.

                        There are other alternatives as well, like running accelerated decode on the shaders rather than on dedicated HW. That would allow you to stay completely DRM-free while offloading a lot of the processing to the GPU.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                          I agree it would be perfect if decode and DRM were different hardware but they're not, and they have to stay closely coupled in order to meet Windows DRM requirements. I don't think the market would accept the extra cost of implementing two decoders on each chip, one with DRM and one without, but that is the obvious answer.

                          There are other alternatives as well, like running accelerated decode on the shaders rather than on dedicated HW. That would allow you to stay completely DRM-free while offloading a lot of the processing to the GPU.
                          That would be perfectly acceptable. I could be perfectly happy with that. and after DRM is hacked I'll still be able to view all the same content as windows anyway. Yeah I could definitely be happy with that.

                          I know that the nvidia drivers use something called xv to decode video on the hardware... How would this relate to ATi hardware decoding video using the 3d shaders? And will the closed source drivers support xv?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                            I think this is the fundeental issue, and thank you for bringing it up. Yes I think that AMD would be better off by not supporting DRM in any way shape or form on any product using any operating system period. ATi is large enough, and diverse enough with enough customers that if the Content industry wanted to sell there content then they would have no choice but to release it without restrictions.

                            If anyone is in a strong enough position to eliminate drm it is ATi. If they spent as much money and an power educating the public about DRM as they do supporting it, they could easily kill it within the next year. I understand that you dont represent ATi as a whole, just the open source documentation, so please dont consider this a personal attack on you. It isnt. I just feel that ATi as a whole should be attacking DRM with all of it's might and man power becouse DRM is the source of these problems. And ATi as a video card company is right smack dab in the middle of it.

                            Lets face it, if DRM didnt exist we wouldnt be having this conversation. there wouldnt be any risk of law suites. There wouldnt be any problem with decoding content. The only problem that exists is DRM. So lets fix the problem.

                            as i've said in the other post of the closed/mixed ati driver, if ati wouldn't support this protection stuff then all the oems would turn to another producer that support it and this means nvidia, which already has a long term support on linux and solaris and is in good shape also on windows, even if amd/ati is still leading windows hw. also if ati woulnd't provide certified windows pieces of silicon then windows might completely disable these boards in its systems, with vista it should be possible and quick to be done, and this would mean that amd/ati will be crushed by nvidia since almost 90% of pcs get out with vista preinstalled. also intel will not move a muscle on this since we all know of its behaviour towards amd, but this is another matter and we're not here to discuss about this. so, this means that if ati would not support drm and bd/right protection management then ati would go bankrupt and we all would need to migrate to nvidia, since nowadays ati boards don't perform at more than 80% of their capabilities (and 80% means for older chipsets with tested codebase). now, amd/ati says: we will not put at legal risk our stuff with other companies just because linux users (which still are less than 20% of total users around the world) with no revenue. since actual boards cannot have hw hd decoding capabilities for free movies without putting at risk the protection module at its base (the 2 features are inserted in the same box on the board) then the only way of releasing hw hd decoding is enabling it into fglrx, but for now fglrx needs to be performance tuned and bugfixed. after that they'd introduce uvd. maybe the introduction of this feature would be sped up because of the increasing number of users requiring it, but for having it at the same performance and completness as aiglx when it was released i'd better wait longer. now, i think that it's time to stop blaming amd/ati for supporting this privacy invasion of drm since nobody obliges you to use this stuff, even if someone still wants you to not be able to use at 100% your legally purchased hw.
                            Last edited by givemesugarr; 02-03-2008, 05:26 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                              And that is how ATi has weakened there position. Becouse they actually believe that crap.

                              Monopolies are iilegal in most countries. ATi isnt going anywhere. Additionally they already have so much hardware saturated in the market that if the content industry wanted to sell content they would have no chioce but to fill ATi's wishes. I install cable for a living in my home town, and a see Tv's with ATi codecs all the time. PVR's with ATi tuners and chipsets. I see PC's and laptopswith ATi video cards, and XBOX 360's and Nintendo's with ATi graphics processors. The list goes on and on and on. If ATi boycotted DRM across the board on all of it's products they could kill DR in a year.

                              Of course it is clear that ATi is afraid, and weak. And it is entirely there own fault.
                              do you think that xbox would have chosen ati if it wouldn't support their drm requests?! i really don't think so.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                                You think theyd be throwing away sales? How so?

                                If anything once they announced to the general public that they have eliminated a threat to them, they'd become hero's, and most folks would use there products exclusively. I personally beleive that it is ATi's duty.

                                That said I fully realize and appreciate that it will never happen. It's sad and shameful, but poor unfortunate folks actually believe that there is no other way. As such, all I'm askng for is to keep DRM out of Linux. It's in the hardware, and there is nothing that can be done about it, but keep it out of the drivers, and disable the infected hardware. If they want to use it in windows then so be it, but it isnt welcome in linux.

                                Dont use DRM as an excuse for crippling the open source drivers. if the hardware is capable of decoding h264 then the open source drivers should be able to take advantage of that capability, and using DRM as an excuse is not a good facet to get going on. As far as DRM'd content goes, it'll be hacked sooner or later and an OSS solution will be available. It's in this way that Linux --will-- be able to view and use --ALL-- the same content as Windows while using free and open source software to do it. It's going to happen whether ATi likes it or not, and they should be encouraging it and even helping it along.
                                it seems that you still haven't understood that exposing free h264 hw decoding would put at a too high risk the drm protection since they're integrated in the same component on the board. this would allow with very little rev-eng to put at use also the protected hw decoding. this is obviously unaceptable and would mean a very looooong way of problems to amd/ati. the real problem is with bd/hd direct hw decoding which is IMPOSSIBLE on linux until linus torwalds accepts drm code into kernel, and i don't see this happening, at least for this solar year. now, i hope that things are a little clearer.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X