AMD's Bridgman Talks Open-Source

[Thetargos]

It'd be nice to have a thread to fully discuss this DRM issues to get them out our chests. The problem is that this matter is SO sensitive (and has so many angles you can look at it) that it's instant flame-bait. Even if the intention of openly discussing the issue is not to flame anyone, though the opinions are very strong on both ends, it'll divert towards that direction. Provided that the opinions are responsibility of those who emit them, is not enough for such a sensitive matter. And what's worse are the implications, this "issue" has social, economic, technological and even religious-like implications. And I'd better stop there, is like walking around with lit cigarette on your hand over gasoline sprayed ground waiting to light up.

[Svartalf]

And I'd better stop there, is like walking around with lit cigarette on your hand over gasoline sprayed ground waiting to light up.

Heh... More like a little kid beating on a blasting cap with a rock...

[Thetargos]

Heh... More like a little kid beating on a blasting cap with a rock...

Nice picture, I ROFLed

[Redeeman]

i just find it a tad ridicoules that AMD is prioitizing DRM support which is totally useless, given what its supposed to protect is already cracked, over actually pleasing their customers.

i guess they are getting alot of money from clueless hollywood people

[Berniyh]

i just find it a tad ridicoules that AMD is prioitizing DRM support which is totally useless, given what its supposed to protect is already cracked, over actually pleasing their customers.

Oh come on, this is not the point.
It's like saying "I've stolen this car because someone would steal it anyway...".
You can't do something you shouldn't or mustn't (like AMD opening the DRM stuff), just because you expect that someone else would do it if you don't.
Even if it already happened.

i guess they are getting alot of money from clueless hollywood people

AMD? Why?

[Thetargos]

i guess they are getting alot of money from clueless hollywood people

Actually it would be Hollywood the ones getting money from AMD in order for them to include this.

We may not like DRM (and I suppose anyone who understood what it is, etc, wouldn't either), but the fact is that people keep happily consuming "protected" content, giving media companies a reason to keep doing it. There's no mass market backslash and stop consuming at all (and that includes not consuming piracy either). Piracy consumers usually do that due to the same reason media companies include DRM: Avarice, on the one hand you have companies that will not be happy until we "pay per play" and on the other there's the consumers that say "no I won't pay", but still want to play the content. It's a vicious cycle. Where one party gives reason to the other to keep doing what they're doing. Companies like AMD are simply caught in the middle and try to appeal to the masses with products such as these.

[Uchikoma]

i just find it a tad ridicoules that AMD is prioitizing DRM support which is totally useless, given what its supposed to protect is already cracked, over actually pleasing their customers.

i guess they are getting alot of money from clueless hollywood people

The point being here is that even if DRM support is useless in the long run, and that DRM will be cracked in sufficient time as it comes out, it still doesn't change the status quo and agreements made at this current point of time.

No company will drop it all to go open-source. The ramifications and financial repercussions would probably be a lot worse than any benefit gained.

...and how are they getting paid to do this?

[Redeeman]

Oh come on, this is not the point.
It's like saying "I've stolen this car because someone would steal it anyway...".
You can't do something you shouldn't or mustn't (like AMD opening the DRM stuff), just because you expect that someone else would do it if you don't.
Even if it already happened.


AMD? Why?

no, thats not the same as saying i've stolen. the point is, the thing the DRM in-card is supposed to protect, has already been broken, that means that everyone that wants to steal, can already do it, so whats the point of applying the "protection" for people that already bought? they have already legally paid, so why punish them by encryption. And if they decide to infringe on the copyright, the DRM is not gonna make any bit of difference, since ANYONE can just decrypt it.

[Uchikoma]

no, thats not the same as saying i've stolen. the point is, the thing the DRM in-card is supposed to protect, has already been broken, that means that everyone that wants to steal, can already do it, so whats the point of applying the "protection" for people that already bought? they have already legally paid, so why punish them by encryption. And if they decide to infringe on the copyright, the DRM is not gonna make any bit of difference, since ANYONE can just decrypt it.

Read my post above yours.

[Berniyh]

no, thats not the same as saying i've stolen. the point is, the thing the DRM in-card is supposed to protect, has already been broken, that means that everyone that wants to steal, can already do it, so whats the point of applying the "protection" for people that already bought? they have already legally paid, so why punish them by encryption. And if they decide to infringe on the copyright, the DRM is not gonna make any bit of difference, since ANYONE can just decrypt it.

It is the same, but I'll give you another example:
David Airlie signed a NDA (maybe you'll remember that story) which he used to write a driver.
Other people were reverse engineering the same hardware and writing a driver for it. If they finally succeeded he would still not be able to publish his driver code or talk about what he knew about the hardware, that isn't freely available, because he signed that NDA.
The point is, in such a case (and it's the same with AMD vs. Hollywood) it's not for those to decide, that signed the NDA. Only those who gave the information away under NDA can decide this (which just has happened if I understood it right and which is the reason, that the radeon driver now supports r500).

This means, if the whole DRM stuff has been made useless by some people you (or AMD) can go to the people that introduced that stuff and ask them to open up.
BUT it's not the decision of those (in this case AMD), that only retrieve the information.

Understood?