Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A few questions about video decode acceleration

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

  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    duby229, I think we may be talking about different things. I'm talking about how the DRM-related hardware in a graphics chip fits into the big picture; you're talking about whether the overall protection scheme can be cracked.

    What I'm saying is that if you have a licensed player (any of the HD/BD players available today AFAIK) then it will not play unless the OS tells it that the playback path is secure and that the outputs are either protected or sufficiently low resolution that nobody cares. If you have a player that does not observe the licensing rules, all the DRM hardware in the world is not going to make a difference. This is why I don't see why you're unhappy with the presence of DRM hardware in the chips.

    DRM hardware and driver support is a pre-requisite for selling into the Windows market, which represents maybe 99% of our sales. I would really like to believe that the movie industry would quake in fear because we refused to support DRM, but the term "bug on a windshield" comes to mind.
    Fine so be it. Keep doing what you do with Windows. Keep developing the hardware.. Do what you need to do, but Linux simply doesnt need it. We dont need or want DRM support in our device drivers. I understand that you think you need to implement DRM in hardware. I personally believe that if ATi told the content industry to F*** off, they would have no choice but to do it, if they wanted to keep selling content. How many players and computers have ATi chips in them right now? The majority would be my guess.

    Anyhow that is entirely beside the point. ATi chooses to delude themselves when it comes to DRM, and that is all fine and good. I can live with DRM in hardware as long as that hardware can be completely and totally disabled. And with the open source drivers that will be entirely possible. I'll still be able to watch and record any content I come across whether it is protected or not. Same thing with anybody else....

    Using the excuse that in order to play back protected content you need DRM in both the hardware and drivers is a flat out lie.

    This is the point.... Linux doesnt need it. Stop wasting resources like Time, and engineering talent, and documentation, and money and other such things on it. Linux does --not-- need a closed driver. It doesnt need and --shouldnt-- share the same code base as windows. It doesnt need and --shouldnt-- implement DRM in any form under any circumstances. All of those resources doing so are completely wasted. And while that effort is being thrown away, Intel is in the process of shaping the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • oblivious_maximus
    replied
    I can't help but agree with duby229 that implementing all the DRM BS is a waste of resources and ultimately a futile effort. As I've said before, I can't help but wonder how much less frustration I'd have suffered if it weren't HDCP.

    I also can't help but agree with Bridgman that Microsoft is ultimately to blame for all of it. OK so Brigman didn't quite put it like that, but I read between the lines.

    How many billions of dollars (on top of the billions people actually pay that evil company for their products) have been lost industry-wide supporting Microsoft's hair-brained scheme to pwn the HD download market. If only Hollywood was intelligent enough to see that M$ just wants to make more profits on Hollywood's products than Hollywood does.

    How many more billions will be lost to hopeless efforts? When will people with the power to do something about it realize that there is no point in preventing copying when copying is exactly what must happen if one is to watch or hear digital media?

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    duby229, I think we may be talking about different things. I'm talking about how the DRM-related hardware in a graphics chip fits into the big picture; you're talking about whether the overall protection scheme can be cracked.

    What I'm saying is that if you have a licensed player (any of the HD/BD players available today AFAIK) then it will not play unless the OS tells it that the playback path is secure and that the outputs are either protected or sufficiently low resolution that nobody cares. If you have a player that does not observe the licensing rules, all the DRM hardware in the world is not going to make a difference. This is why I don't see why you're unhappy with the presence of DRM hardware in the chips.

    DRM hardware and driver support is a pre-requisite for selling into the Windows market, which represents maybe 99% of our sales. I would really like to believe that the movie industry would quake in fear because we refused to support DRM, but the term "bug on a windshield" comes to mind.
    Last edited by bridgman; 06-06-2008, 06:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    I know the popular view is that we would be deluged with customers since they would now be able to play any protected content without restrictions but it doesn't work that way. The DRM hardware just allows us to provide a secure environment for a player app, and the app makes the decision whether to play. No DRM hardware, no secure environment, no play.
    That's BS and you guys at AMD know it just as well as the rest of us. The fact of the matter is that hacks are already being worked out. HDCP, and AACS are already being cracked. Sooner rather then later we will all be able to watch any content protected or not, using nothing but open source players and drivers, and we'll be able to do it 100% transparently.

    Whether you like it or not this --is-- what is going to happen. If you took this opportunity to help the open source community to achieve this goal, you could single handedly kill DRM entirely in one fell swoop. ATi is the --only-- company who has the market position to dictate to the movie industry what it will and will not do.

    I really dont care what anybody else says. ATi --can-- kill DRM completely. It's the only company who can, and until they decide to do so we will be stuck with it. And the thing that they are simply too ignorant, or maybe arrogant, to realize is that it wouldnt effect there bottom line at all in any measurable form. Lets face it, open source drivers will exist, so the people who would have used ATi's hardware will still do so, and HDCP, and AACS will be hacked so the people who will be buying and watching DRM'd content will still be able to do so.

    There is absolutely no valid point at all to continue supporting DRM. All your doing is --wasting-- resources in a --futile-- effort. You should take those same resources and devote them to the open source drivers and help us to develop a better product. Instead of allowing Intel to shape the future of the Linux graphics subsystem you should take the efforts that you have devoted to DRM and your closed driver and reallocate them to the open source community.
    Last edited by duby229; 06-06-2008, 02:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    It's probably more correct to say "AMD basically says oh, because we and everyone else in the industry signed agreements committing to provide a secure environment for DVD/HD/BD player applications we will honor those agreements".

    I expect that we will allow you to use all the hardware fully; we just arent sure we can expose it to open source developers without violating pre-existing agreements.

    If you are saying that we should violate the agreements we have signed, and that we should refuse to deliver the features which 99% of our OEM customers insist we provide, that is not a decision I can make but honestly if I were asked it's not a decision I would recommend. I understand that you're looking for one hardware vendor to take a billion-dollar risk and go against the industry direction on DRM, but so far nobody has identified a way that could work out well for AMD or any other vendor who tried it.

    I know the popular view is that we would be deluged with customers since they would now be able to play any protected content without restrictions but it doesn't work that way. The DRM hardware just allows us to provide a secure environment for a player app, and the app makes the decision whether to play. No DRM hardware, no secure environment, no play.

    This discussion really is premature anyways, since I don't know yet how things are going to work out with UVD. I don't have an answer today, so I'm saying "we have no plan to open UVD" (which is the literal truth), but if it turns out that we are able to open UVD does that solve the problem for you ?
    Last edited by bridgman; 06-06-2008, 04:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redeeman
    replied
    or perhaps he could have AMD do the right thing, and not stop THEIR users from using THEIR hardware fully, because they need to "protect" the stupidity of some hollywood exec's, trying to maintain the illusion that their DRM works, and havent already been broken.

    reality is, that the DRM is already broken, its null and void, USELESS, it protects NOTHING, everyone that wants to make copies, can do so.

    AMD basically says: "oh, because hollywood wishes to THINK the drm protects their stuff, YOU can not use the hardware you bought", which is just wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • TechMage89
    replied
    He could tell us. But then he'd have to kill us. And that's a little hard over the internet.

    Leave a comment:


  • brouhaha
    replied
    It's stuff so secret that you can't even tell us in general terms what it is and why it's secret? I'm impressed! Sounds like real cloak-and-dagger stuff! :-)

    Anyhow, thanks again for all the hard work you and the team have put into getting the docs released and supporting open driver development! It's nice being able to recommend ATI products to friends, coworkers, etc., with no reservations.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Macrovision and HDCP are no problem -- they're actually implemented in the output blocks and we released docs on those back in September/October last year.

    This is more serious stuff -- and before you ask, if I could tell you more I WOULD HAVE ALREADY RELEASED THE DOCUMENTS

    Leave a comment:


  • brouhaha
    replied
    I can't imagine why there would be any legal problems with releasing the docs on any of the video stuff, as long as the details of enabling Macrovision and HDCP are redacted.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X