ATI Evergreen 3D Code May Soon Go Into Gallium3D

[devius]

The consumer has nothing to gain from DRM; and as long as music and video has to be output in the form of pressure changes and photons, it will never actually be effective against ripping into a non-protected format and distributing it over the internet.

Yeah, but once they start providing content by direct access to our brains via ports installed in the back of our necks that will change.

[smitty3268]

Yeah, agreed. The holy grail for DRM is something that allows you to make copies for your personal use without restriction, allows sharing equivalent to "you lending your only copy of the DVD to a friend", both with no hassles or problems, but doesn't allow you to broadly publish the content or share copies while still using it yourself.

The DRM solutions that exist today certainly do not measure up.

Holy grail for users, maybe, but i honestly don't think that's what they content providers want.

There's a reason EA stated that the secondary sales market was more damaging to their industry than piracy. They want to sell as many copies as possible, and if DRM forces you to buy 3 copies for your 3 different machines (and another one after you scratch a DVD) they're going to be ecstatic.

[smitty3268]

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.

I think that's exactly what they would do. They'd start pitching dedicated blu-ray players, iPad/iPod type stuff for mobile, etc. I don't think they would let Windows users play unprotected no matter what.

It's a moot point, because MS isn't against DRM and they're happy to get paid to implement this stuff. I'm just saying, I don't think it was Microsoft's idea in the first place and I don't think they have the ability to forcefully change anything on their own.

[Gps4l]

@Kjella

I totally agree about steam.

I do use it though.

AvP (Aliens vs Predator 3) D11
Not valve but still steam.

When it comes down to not playing or steam, I install steam.

[bridgman]

Do I think it is needed ? Arguably no.

Do I think we have to do it ? That's a big fat yes, since our agreement says "must protect", not "must protect until a general consensus of gossip and rumour on the internet suggests that our scheme has been broken".

Maybe we can work that into the next round of agreements

[Kano]

@bridgman

Do you really think it is needed to "protect" the hdcp keys when ALL keys needed are known?

[Kjella]

Yeah, agreed. The holy grail for DRM is something that allows you to make copies for your personal use without restriction, allows sharing equivalent to "you lending your only copy of the DVD to a friend", both with no hassles or problems, but doesn't allow you to broadly publish the content or share copies while still using it yourself. The DRM solutions that exist today certainly do not measure up.

No DRM system could possibly implement fair use as it stands today. What does a DRM system know if the use is transformative or derivative, private or commercial, in whole or in part (as people would copy all the parts) and so on. And even if you could implement a strong AI to evaluate all this, many of these things are simply impossible to know until after the fact. Before DRM, copyright was simple - you did whatever you thought you could do, and they law worked out whether that was legal or not afterwards.

With DRM this becomes an impossible problem - until you realize that those who make DRM have no reason to give you anything at all. They want to give you the most limited use license possible. They want to erect paywalls so people pay for the same thing in different formats or rebuy because they lose their copies. They want to erect market barriers so they can have globalism and we can't. They want to make you dependent on activation servers so they can kill old products. They want to force you to use it their way like forced unskippable ads. They want to remove your right of first sale by making it impossible to transfer digital products.

They don't want your ideal. That's the bullshit ideal they're trying to sell us so that we'll accept the idea of DRM. Let me tell you what their idea of an ideal EULA is:

This document may be updated from time to time and the current version will be posted at www.take2games.com/eula. Your continued use of this Software 30 days after a revised version has been posted constitutes acceptance by you of its terms.

Translation: "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."

Licensor hereby grants you the nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay on a single computer or gaming unit

Translation: "You own nothing, no second hand sales."

In exchange for use of the Software, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest, you hereby grant Licensor an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose in connection with the Software and related goods and services,

Translation: "All your base are belongs to us"

The Software may require an internet connection to access internet-based features, authenticate the Software, or perform other functions.

Translation: "If you can't reach us or our server is down, tough luck."

The information collected by Licensor may be posted by Licensor on publicly-accessible web sites, shared with hardware manufacturers, shared with platform hosts, shared with Licensor's marketing partners or used by Licensor for any other lawful purpose. (...) If you do not want your information shared in this manner, then you should not use the Software.

Tranalation: "We're free to collect any information on you, and you can't opt out if you want to play."

Oh and for Civilization 5, a definitively single-player game I still forcibly had to sign up for Steam, which has its own gems:

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of software and other content and updates onto your computer ("Software"). (...) You understand that for reasons that include, without limitation, system security, stability, and multiplayer interoperability, Steam may need to automatically update, pre-load, create new versions or otherwise enhance the Software

Translation: "We reserve the right to install anything, at any time, for you to continue using what you bought."

Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or which otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers.

Translation: "At our sole discretion, you can be locked out of all your games including any single player games and any games you haven't cheated in."

On top of this, they've started with very many questionable legal tactics like handing over subscriber information to private organizations, three strikes laws, mass lawsuits with crappy quality data, intimidating ISPs and content sites like YouTube and even hired companies to do DDoS attacks for them.

Further, they are seeking endless copyright extensions looking to be the permanent owners of information, nothing will ever more reach the public domain. They want to sell it to us and yet keep control forever, they no longer serve in society's best interest only their own.

Copyright in itself was fine. I buy a book, it's mine and I use it for whatever. It's everything else that has made me decide the harm is much greater than the good. As long as they are heading down the path they are now, I support breaking the whole system through mass disobedience.

[rohcQaH]

The DRM solutions that exist today certainly do not measure up.

I'm glad they don't. Several of the large content providers have already proven that they wouldn't use it in the way you describe, but would instead use it to remove one customer right after the other (even if granted by law), just to force us to pay multiple times for the content we like.

And even if such a DRM system would exist, would you expect the content providers to switch over to patent free formats, to allow everyone to watch their movies however they like? Why would they?

The consumer has nothing to gain from DRM; and as long as music and video has to be output in the form of pressure changes and photons, it will never actually be effective against ripping into a non-protected format and distributing it over the internet.

[bridgman]

Yeah, agreed. The holy grail for DRM is something that allows you to make copies for your personal use without restriction, allows sharing equivalent to "you lending your only copy of the DVD to a friend", both with no hassles or problems, but doesn't allow you to broadly publish the content or share copies while still using it yourself.

The DRM solutions that exist today certainly do not measure up.

[Gps4l]

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.

I seriously think I should be able to make copies.

Sharing is another thing. I am not innocent though, I do not have all the music in my playlist.