Why I think the DRM and open source debate is nonsense

[bridgman]

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...

[duby229]

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.

[bridgman]

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.

[duby229]

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.

[duby229]

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.

[bridgman]

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.

[duby229]

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?

[givemesugarr]

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.

[givemesugarr]

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.

[givemesugarr]

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.