Radeon UVD Support Going Through Code Review

[bridgman]

Yep. You can make a compelling argument that DRM on digital content is a lot like gun control, in the sense that it puts a high burden on legal owners without doing much to prevent criminal activity.

What I find odd, though, is that most of the people who are strongly opposed to DRM are strongly in favour of gun control. Go figure.

[droidhacker]

Sorry, but you are totally missing the point. We are contractually obligated (as a pre-requisite of selling into our chosen market) to guard the front door even though content is being copied on a regular basis via the back door and the windows. We know that, and I've said that here multiple times, but it doesn't change anything.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.

Unfortunately, this is true.
And it was a MAJOR mistake that that contract was signed.

[DaemonFC]

the GPLv3 license says clear that DRM is against the license!

Actually, it doesn't prohibit DRM, but it does render it ineffective since yhou'll end up having to turn over your cryptographic keys to the user and promise not to use the DMCA anti-circumvention clause against them. It doesn't prohibit DRM, it just takes out all its teeth.

It's why Apple hates the GPL 3 so much. Good. Let them go find a handout somewhere else.

[bridgman]

The problem is that there are people with money, that want product. You refuse to give them the product, offering drug instead. The drug is preinstalled on all OEMs.

The challenge is that the amount of money that seems to be available to buy product is considerably less than the amount of money required to implement the product, unless the effort is spread out over several years.

That said, I fully understand that any supply chain tends to emphasize the highest volume stuff and downplay the lower volume stuff, in order to deliver the highest volume stuff most efficiently and make the most money. Knowing that doesn't make it any easier to read what the end user is willing to pay for, unfortunately.

We're getting kind of off-topic here though.

Unfortunately, this is true.
And it was a MAJOR mistake that that contract was signed.

What do you think the alternative was. Saying "I don't do DRM" and losing three quarters of our market ?

[DaemonFC]

The challenge is that the amount of money that seems to be available to buy product is considerably less than the amount of money required to implement the product, unless the effort is spread out over several years.

That said, I fully understand that any supply chain tends to emphasize the highest volume stuff and downplay the lower volume stuff, in order to deliver the highest volume stuff most efficiently and make the most money. Knowing that doesn't make it any easier to read what the end user is willing to pay for, unfortunately.

We're getting kind of off-topic here though.



What do you think the alternative was. Saying "I don't do DRM" and losing three quarters of our market ?

You would still be allowed to do everything you do now on Microsoft's Vista-based operating systems, aside from playing blu ray discs.

Most people don't do that anyway since the Digital Restrictions Malware puts a huge load on their system (kills laptop batteries dead) and even if they DO have the fucking drive, they have to pay a monthly fee to get the new Digital Restrictions keys every month from the software companies that make blu ray playing software.

You'd probably lose about 1-5% of your market that actually jumps through all the hoops and makes the sacrifices demanded of them to play encumbered content on their Vista-based PC operating system.

What don't you get about Blu Ray DRM? It's OVER, DEAD, FRIED, FINISHED! The beast is dead, THE BEAST IS DEAD!!! Quit pretending it's not and let me use my video card please. Thank you.

[crazycheese]

The challenge is that the amount of money that seems to be available to buy product is considerably less than the amount of money required to implement the product, unless the effort is spread out over several years.

That said, I fully understand that any supply chain tends to emphasize the highest volume stuff and downplay the lower volume stuff, in order to deliver the highest volume stuff most efficiently and make the most money. Knowing that doesn't make it any easier to read what the end user is willing to pay for, unfortunately.

We're getting kind of off-topic here though.

This is very old approach, as modern supply chain is extremely flexible, quickly adapting to policy to volume and demand changes, to product lifetime and market saturation, continuously watching the scene. This is similar to what google does with Ads.

You will not be able to stomp the people with tons of spam. If you are doing this, you will instantly loose.

Why don?t you want to make money with Linux? Maybe you could start with kickstarter project, put $100,000,000 as start, announce this officially(opensource driver for *nix?es, et cetera). Whats the problem? You don?t want money?

[bridgman]

This is very old approach, as modern supply chain is extremely flexible, quickly adapting to policy to volume and demand changes, to product lifetime and market saturation, continuously watching the scene. This is similar to what google does with Ads.

Then why do most of the companies who buy our chips say that Linux isn't important ?

[DaemonFC]

Then why do most of the companies who buy our chips say that Linux isn't important ?

Because most of them get kickbacks for selling the various incarnations of Windows Vista.

[bridgman]

another lie "gun control" constitution of America do not speak about "Guns" the constitution speaks about : "Weapons" this means Nuclear Weapons.

I live in Canada, remember ? The legislation here is very specific about nuclear weapons. And fireworks ;(

[DaemonFC]

I live in Canada, remember ? The legislation here is very specific about nuclear weapons. And fireworks ;(

Well, they can't have insurance companies making payouts......errr....I mean "Think of the ZOMG CHILDREN PUTTING EYES OUT WITH THE BOTTLE ROCKETS!!!!!111112"