Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI Evergreen 3D Code May Soon Go Into Gallium3D

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

  • elanthis
    replied
    If people just gave copies to friends, there might not be such a stink. The problem is that people put copies up on the server that the whole world can download from.

    Let's be honest. If DVD sharing on the Internet were legal, how many people do you think would actually go buy a $20 (or even $5, if we assume prices will drop) copy of Iron Man instead of clicking a few buttons and getting it downloaded for free?

    It's not greed to expect that the $200 million you sunk into a project actually gets made back, or to even expect some kind of profit. That's not just business, that's how people survive. Sure, a tiny handful of people make most of that profit, but there's a TON of people that are involved that are making their livings off of the success of those movies. If those movies were no longer financially viable because nobody had pay for them because "all content is free" then all those costume designers, set constructors, make-up artists, audio engineers, lighting engineers, caterers, support crew, assistants, set liasons, effects crews, and the hundreds of other people involved would not be getting paid to make the movies... and you wouldn't get to see them, either.

    There is a need for copyright re-reform after Congress ****ed up the copyright law in a major way. The death+70 years part is absolute bullcrap. It ignores how ALL media -- all characters, stories, and ideas -- are formed, which is by building on what came before. It's horrifically broken. But that does not mean that NO copyright is the right idea, either.

    You need to let the people who are investing millions of their own cash (or even just hundreds of dollars for small indie projects) to recuperate their expenses and make at least a reasonable profit. That only takes a few years at absolute most, so even a 5-10 year copyright term would keep the business machine running smoothly, but a 0 year copyright term would end most media outside of the crappy little college-kid home project indie movies (imagine: the only movies ever to come out are along the lines of the Blair Witch Project. kill me now.). Yeah, Hollywood pushes out a lot of crap, but they push out quite a number of fantastic movies, too.

    And don't get me started on games (my profession). The budgets on these things are massive. The art team alone for a modern big game will burn through a few million dollars just to pay reasonable salaries for the number of people it takes to make all that art content. The programming teams go through what is easily the most difficult programming of all (along with kernel/driver devs and compiler devs), working 60-80 hours a week trying to get the technology finished and out the door before it becomes obsolete. It's HARD, and it's expensive purely due to salaries of the number of people it takes to make a game (and again, quite good but still very reasonable salaries, not like movie stars). Sure, many games could disappear and nobody would shed a tear, but there are a huge number of amazing titles that have been released that have budgets in the dozens of millions of dollars. The sales don't just make executives rich -- the sales are what keep the executives investing, and hence keep letting those artists and programmers and designer keep pushing out creative, fun, wonderful games that are the foundation of much of our youths' media and culture.

    Games fall into the software category, and get a little tricky, I will admit. I'm still fine with a 5-10 year copyright term on games. Very few games keep pulling in a profit after 5 years, and while I'm sure Blizzard might fight vehemently against a copyright reform that would make Warcraft or Starcraft public domain, let's be honest: they've made back their investment, they've made a huge profit, and they are in no way hurting for more. I believe people should be able to get rich off their work, but I don't think we need to keep helping the rich get richer at the expense of society by any means. The real problem with software (and hence games) is that simply moving the work into the public domain is not enough. With a movie, you can keep re-encoding and transferfing the content to new media formats as necessary. A game is delivered as low-level machine instructions that rely on a complex set of system interfaces. As those machines and OSes become obsolete, it becomes increasingly difficult to port that machine code to modern systems. Sure, old NES games are safe because the difficulty of writing an NES emulator is relatively low, but a modern Windows Vista + DirectX 10 game is going to be exceedingly difficult to get running on future platforms. Look how long Wine has been around and still can't do it.

    Software needs source code to be part of its public domain release. That's the only way to ensure that the impact of its artist relevance is not lost due to the complexities of the encoding of software algorithms for specific systems. This is, in part, one of the reasons for the GPL -- being Free to share is a hell of a lot less important than being Free to keep using the software decades from now when the original system it was written for no longer exists. Unfortunately, the GPL mixes in that Freedom to share, so as a tool for preserving code+media combinations like games, it's borderline useless; it doesn't allow for a real business model that actually works (sure, Red Hat makes a profit... that's approximately the size of the budget for a single triple-A game) in addition to protecting the future Freedom of the work. There is no license or way to really make sure that a game can be released, be proprietary and profitable for say 5 years, and then be open with source and all. The company just has to relicense the work, but there's no incentive to do that. And the fact that many games use licensed proprietary (or even patented) technology means that a company that wants to release a game's source is lot less able to do so. And then the fact that the execs know that they CAN still make a profit 5 years after release makes the less likely to sign off on an open source release.

    ... short version, we need copyright re-reform, but we also still need copyright. Baby and bath water and all that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Panix
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Do you feel that when you buy something you should have the right to make copies and give those copies to your friends, for example ? If not then you and the content providers are probably on the same page.
    Why not? I agree with Droidhacker.

    So, when a Chinese company takes a product and makes copies of it, nothing happens. When someone in China pirates a product and sells it nothing happens. So, why is all the penalties given to North Americans, Europeans, for e.g.?

    As for making copies and giving it to friends, the magic word is 'give.' As long as you don't sell them. That's what it should be but it's not.

    It's all because of greed and penalizing the people who are vulnerable hence these MILLION DOLLAR fines to Joe Nobody who happens to have a large video collection and might be sharing here and there.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    In other words, if I buy something, I ***OWN*** it -- not whoever produced it. Like I buy a sandwich -- the sandwich store can't tell me what I can and can't do with it, so I can feed it to my dog if I want. Unfortunately, the law doesn't agree with this.... which is a real pain.
    The sandwich analogy doesn't work so well with digital media. I think everyone agrees that you should be able to buy a sandwich and feed it to your dog, the question is whether you should be able to upload that sandwich to a public server and have everyone *else* feed their dogs without buying more sandwiches.

    Do you feel that when you buy something you should have the right to make copies and give those copies to your friends, for example ? If not then you and the content providers are probably on the same page.

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    The main thing to understand is that there is no benefit to MS to avoid DRM, since they themselves have tried and continue to try (failing miserably) to implement DRM or DRM-like limitations. The nature of DRM is NOT anti-MS.... so they accept it and rake in the $$.

    If there was some fundamental reason why MS would be better off (in terms of $$) to NOT implement DRM, they wouldn't. This would, naturally, have led to problem with their customers who lack the ability to use play their content on their shiny and new MS-whatever... and the next logical step from here, would be that the content MAKERS wouldn't be able to use DRM due to it being thoroughly rejected.

    The simple fact is that MS is VERY CENTRAL to DRM.

    Simply put... if you make something that nobody can use, nobody will buy it. If nobody buys it, you look for the reason why. If the reason why is that you've loaded it up with DRM, then you know that the only way to make it work (and thus get people to BUY it) is to eliminate the DRM, then you ditch the DRM and allow people to actually use what THEY PAY FOR, what is THEIR MORAL RIGHT to do!

    ... I say "moral" right since the law tends to be at odds with what is actually right and wrong. Especially when it comes to DRM.


    In other words, if I buy something, I ***OWN*** it -- not whoever produced it. Like I buy a sandwich -- the sandwich store can't tell me what I can and can't do with it, so I can feed it to my dog if I want. Unfortunately, the law doesn't agree with this.... which is a real pain.

    ... and I do NOT agree with any nonsense "licensing" ideas. They didn't get my signature (witnessed or otherwise), there is no contract outlining my obligations to them, I therefore OWN it irrevocably.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kjella
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I hate DRM too, but do you really think MS is the one pushing it? It's the content providers dictating to Microsoft, not the other way around.
    I don't think they can dictate Microsoft around, what would they do? Even if they could in theory ditch the PC and go stand-alone only would they give up all laptops with Windows being used to watch movies on the road? No.

    Microsoft does DRM for a few reasons:
    1. Files that only play on Windows is a great lock-in
    2. It blocks Linux from taking market share (but not Macs)
    3. They probably get some kickback from the content industry to require DRM in their "made for Windows" program. It's free money to do their dirty work.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by Gps4l View Post
    Then I belong to the same minority.

    I would like you to think for a moment,
    Would M$ shove this DRM shit up out asses, if they were not so dominant ?

    I buy something, but I do not own it ?

    Like audio cd's, I cant play on my pc, you find this normal ?
    I hate DRM too, but do you really think MS is the one pushing it? It's the content providers dictating to Microsoft, not the other way around.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gps4l
    replied
    Originally posted by PGHammer View Post
    Qadarium, people in your position are a minority, and a very small minority. For the majority (in fact, the vast majority of folks running Linux), Windows may not be liked, or their first choice, but they don't go about hating it with the fervor of a jihadist.

    Windows is a *compromise design*; pretty much any design which has to support as wide a hardware base as Windows does in practice is going to be a compromise. (And is Linux - any distribution - clean of security holes? Absolutely not, and you know that.) Linux is also a compromise - in fact, if anything, it's more of a compromise than Windows, as only parts of the common core are identical (which is why there are endless niche distributions, forks, etc.) That very freedom to do things differently than Windows is part of the reason why DRM (which is a security measure related to IP) is such a nightmare on Linux (and why most distributions don't install what players support DRM playback - they are justifiably worried about discovery of DRM exploits). Except for the most DRM-ridden formats, Windows and Linux (when fully installed) treat average DRM-protected content (DVDs and MP3s) no differently (both require third-party software, that is easily available, and it's usually free). BD-ROM content, on the other hand, is considered by its authors to be the most valuable, and thus gets the highest level of protection. (Consider bank vaults - not all protect their contents equally. As an engineer, you should at least be familiar with that sort of cencept, as it's not even remotely unique to security, though it is a linchpin of it.) If you are unable, for any reason, to approach security from the content-owner's POV, may be you are not philosophically cut out for engineering. (Your beef with DRM seems very much to be on philosophical, not engineering, grounds.)
    Then I belong to the same minority.

    I would like you to think for a moment,
    Would M$ shove this DRM shit up out asses, if they were not so dominant ?

    I buy something, but I do not own it ?

    Like audio cd's, I cant play on my pc, you find this normal ?

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    Originally posted by PGHammer View Post
    Qadarium, people in your position are a minority, and a very small minority. For the majority (in fact, the vast majority of folks running Linux), Windows may not be liked, or their first choice, but they don't go about hating it with the fervor of a jihadist.

    Windows is a *compromise design*; pretty much any design which has to support as wide a hardware base as Windows does in practice is going to be a compromise. (And is Linux - any distribution - clean of security holes? Absolutely not, and you know that.) Linux is also a compromise - in fact, if anything, it's more of a compromise than Windows, as only parts of the common core are identical (which is why there are endless niche distributions, forks, etc.) That very freedom to do things differently than Windows is part of the reason why DRM (which is a security measure related to IP) is such a nightmare on Linux (and why most distributions don't install what players support DRM playback - they are justifiably worried about discovery of DRM exploits). Except for the most DRM-ridden formats, Windows and Linux (when fully installed) treat average DRM-protected content (DVDs and MP3s) no differently (both require third-party software, that is easily available, and it's usually free). BD-ROM content, on the other hand, is considered by its authors to be the most valuable, and thus gets the highest level of protection. (Consider bank vaults - not all protect their contents equally. As an engineer, you should at least be familiar with that sort of cencept, as it's not even remotely unique to security, though it is a linchpin of it.) If you are unable, for any reason, to approach security from the content-owner's POV, may be you are not philosophically cut out for engineering. (Your beef with DRM seems very much to be on philosophical, not engineering, grounds.)
    1) From a philosophical point of view, if I buy content, I become the OWNER of that content and should therefore be able to use it as I see fit. After all, I'm paying for it.

    2) From a lighter philosophical point of view, if you are going to sell content that is restricted by DRM, you should be OBLIGATED to make sure that that content is USABLE on *whatever* equipment the customer happens to be using.

    3) From a technical point of view, #2 would be solved by moving the video decode junk into the DISPLAY unit and letting the DRM-infested nonsense just pipe dumbly through the host system. You can let the DRIVE and DISPLAY negotiate with each other for a secure channel without having to go all nuts with protected pathways.

    Leave a comment:


  • PGHammer
    replied
    Niche Viewpoints

    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    o yes very nice :-) many people like me don't touch an windows system again just because of the DRM shit in Vista/7

    and yes microsoft windows is broken by design '.dll security hole' shows the true!
    Qadarium, people in your position are a minority, and a very small minority. For the majority (in fact, the vast majority of folks running Linux), Windows may not be liked, or their first choice, but they don't go about hating it with the fervor of a jihadist.

    Windows is a *compromise design*; pretty much any design which has to support as wide a hardware base as Windows does in practice is going to be a compromise. (And is Linux - any distribution - clean of security holes? Absolutely not, and you know that.) Linux is also a compromise - in fact, if anything, it's more of a compromise than Windows, as only parts of the common core are identical (which is why there are endless niche distributions, forks, etc.) That very freedom to do things differently than Windows is part of the reason why DRM (which is a security measure related to IP) is such a nightmare on Linux (and why most distributions don't install what players support DRM playback - they are justifiably worried about discovery of DRM exploits). Except for the most DRM-ridden formats, Windows and Linux (when fully installed) treat average DRM-protected content (DVDs and MP3s) no differently (both require third-party software, that is easily available, and it's usually free). BD-ROM content, on the other hand, is considered by its authors to be the most valuable, and thus gets the highest level of protection. (Consider bank vaults - not all protect their contents equally. As an engineer, you should at least be familiar with that sort of cencept, as it's not even remotely unique to security, though it is a linchpin of it.) If you are unable, for any reason, to approach security from the content-owner's POV, may be you are not philosophically cut out for engineering. (Your beef with DRM seems very much to be on philosophical, not engineering, grounds.)

    Leave a comment:


  • GDJacobs
    replied
    Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
    I don't know, maybe ask again about 9 days ago?
    Well, that's done. Bring on the islands cards!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X