Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 96

Thread: Radeon UVD Support Going Through Code Review

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,579

    Default

    The fact that you see malice behind something doesn't change what the agreements say, and doesn't make what I posted Wong.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    The fact that you see malice behind something doesn't change what the agreements say, and doesn't make what I posted Wong.
    Digital Restrictions Malware only is, was, or ever will be malicious software meant to attack the end user and strip them of their rights.

    It's unfortunate that hardware vendors partner with malicious companies to join in on this attack.

    Blu Ray DRM has never been very robust. Funny things like showing the device a forged revocation list with the version number maxed out so it never accepts another real one does not make that component robust.
    Last edited by DaemonFC; 03-16-2012 at 02:19 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonwil View Post
    2 points:
    1.Releasing the UVD as a binary blob or anything obfuscated wont happen because any blob that small would be too easy to reverse engineer
    2.Its not about DRM as such, its about the fact that if AMD documents this hardware, Microsoft will revoke their "protected content can play on this hardware" approval (block the digital signatures of the drivers or whatever) because getting that approval means the hardware has to be undocumented to prevent hackers hacking it.

    Anyone know what the situation is regarding Intel cards? Do they have dedicated silicon for decoding video? Is the driver support open source on Linux? If so, what has Intel done differently that makes it possible to open-source their support?
    Whether your analysis is right or wrong, the big question I have is this; WHY do hardware makers bend over to the likes of MS/Hollywood/etc and agree to this? If the hardware vendors took a stand and said "F*** THAT", then the software vendors would have to capitulate to THAT position and accept that the hardware won't be used to protect content.

    In other words, MS and/or Hollywood *COULD* be forced away from DRM if only all the HARDWARE DIDN'T SUPPORT IT.

    I know its too late to go back on it now, since the contracts have been signed, but I would DEFINITELY NOT include DRM hardware in any future products.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Whether your analysis is right or wrong, the big question I have is this; WHY do hardware makers bend over to the likes of MS/Hollywood/etc and agree to this? If the hardware vendors took a stand and said "F*** THAT", then the software vendors would have to capitulate to THAT position and accept that the hardware won't be used to protect content.

    In other words, MS and/or Hollywood *COULD* be forced away from DRM if only all the HARDWARE DIDN'T SUPPORT IT.

    I know its too late to go back on it now, since the contracts have been signed, but I would DEFINITELY NOT include DRM hardware in any future products.
    Calling blu ray "protected" when a rip of every blu ray ever released is on your favorite bittorrent site is comical at best.

    It's just one more pain in the ass that politicians like Bridgman keep lying about to snow the owner of the hardware that won't work properly.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    The fact that you see malice behind something doesn't change what the agreements say, and doesn't make what I posted Wong.
    the "Fact" of Malice chance ALL

    it chances what the agreement say because the agreement claim to be a agreement about technical stuff and legitimate behaviour also your posts are about what it should be and not what it IS in REAL!

    Your post doesn't fit and is wrong if the the agreement is illegitimate "behaviour" and if its not a technical agreement at all.

    the Technical and the law-frame are only the camouflage to cloaked the "Malice"

    and its not only "Malice" because this sounds bad but its still in the "Law" and still in the "Legitimate behaviour" in my point of view its against the LAW and its Illegitimate (illegitimate just to make sure if there is no law then its against all unwriten human laws)

    and you are also guilty because you cloaked the Illegitimate and illegal behaviour with the "in law/legitimate" word "Malice" this means you are just a part of this system.

    the word "Malice" is also just a camouflage to distract the people from the only true solution against "Malice" ---->death penalty

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Whether your analysis is right or wrong, the big question I have is this; WHY do hardware makers bend over to the likes of MS/Hollywood/etc and agree to this? If the hardware vendors took a stand and said "F*** THAT", then the software vendors would have to capitulate to THAT position and accept that the hardware won't be used to protect content.

    In other words, MS and/or Hollywood *COULD* be forced away from DRM if only all the HARDWARE DIDN'T SUPPORT IT.

    I know its too late to go back on it now, since the contracts have been signed, but I would DEFINITELY NOT include DRM hardware in any future products.
    Not including DRM in any product would be suicide as every Joe Sixpack out there would only buy nVidia and Intel because they can play "premium content". But some DRM-free editions (like they have now unlocked multiplier editions) of their future APUs would be nice.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    What AMD does with their Catalyst driver is effectively malware by proxy.

    Just the thing for your Linux system, a blob of proprietary binary crap in the kernel that shoves everything GPU-related out into the X server and undoes the last 6 years of technical achievements of X.org and the Linux kernel.

    That's just the appetizer though, it turns your kernel and X server into a nasty undebuggable mess that crashes a lot for reasons that are usually not entirely clear.

    So that AMD can pretend that their criminal friends in Hollywood and at Microsoft are "protected" because some Linux user can't figure out how parts of their private property work.

    In the mean time, various laughable flaws in Windows, Windows software, and even the fucking video drivers for Windows, combined with a really third rate DRM specification, have allowed EVERY SINGLE BLU RAY DISC, NOT *ONE* SPARED to be ripped and put up on file sharing sites.

    Then AMD sends Bridgman out to piss all over us and say it's raining. AMD is not exactly a winner in all of this mess either. They're contractually obligated (under duress) to appease Microsoft and Hollywood and pretend like their shit DRM works when it doesn't.

    It might not be so bad if Bridgman wasn't insinuating that they're actually protecting anything when they aren't though. I understand that maybe he feels compelled to lie because the company he works for is compelled to humor people who should be in federal prison.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansla View Post
    Not including DRM in any product would be suicide as every Joe Sixpack out there would only buy nVidia and Intel because they can play "premium content". But some DRM-free editions (like they have now unlocked multiplier editions) of their future APUs would be nice.
    this is not the question. they can implement DRM no problem. But why they do it in a way that it effects other Operating Systems without DRM?

    ATI is Guilty in implementing the UVD unit in a way that the DRM part is not a extra part and its built-in in the video part.

    this hole work 5 years later (to late) to get UVD in the radeon driver is just a farce! they are Guilty!

    Guilty means amd should pay back the linux peoples money and they should send them free hardware and they should punish the managers who have caused this .

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    It might not be so bad if Bridgman wasn't insinuating that they're actually protecting anything when they aren't though. I understand that maybe he feels compelled to lie because the company he works for is compelled to humor people who should be in federal prison.
    Please read what I actually post (rather than, say, what Q says I posted ) before making comments like this. I have stated here multiple times that the requirement on us is not "protecting BluRay content" but "making sure that our specific subset of the playback chain is secure".

    I know full well that there are other ways to get around the protection chain, but (as I have posted multiple times) that in no way changes the requirements *we* (and everyone else in the GPU business) need to meet in order to sell into the OEM PC market which makes up the majority of our business.

    It would be nice if you would stop insinuating (falsely) that AMD is any different from any other GPU vendor in this regard, but that's your call.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    Then AMD sends Bridgman out to piss all over us and say it's raining. AMD is not exactly a winner in all of this mess either. They're contractually obligated (under duress) to appease Microsoft and Hollywood and pretend like their shit DRM works when it doesn't.
    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.
    Last edited by bridgman; 03-16-2012 at 03:21 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •