Atmos finally decoded in PC/Mac

[usersky]

"Hacked" in the context of complete legality is a strong word. I for one wish for a world without Dolby's malefic (IMO) influence. Not soon to happen, to the benefit of said almost 3000 people and against the interest of many millions that are forced to pay what essentially is a tax to a private organisation, wether they use Atmos or not. That worths all the pleasure of the hack, in the context of legality as it was put.

 

[MCH]

"Hacked" in the context of complete legality is a strong word. I for one wish for a world without Dolby's malefic (IMO) influence. Not soon to happen, to the benefit of said almost 3000 people and against the interest of many millions that are forced to pay what essentially is a tax to a private organisation, wether they use Atmos or not. That worths all the pleasure of the hack, in the context of legality as it was put.

I agree with the fact that someone here, and i can't tell who, is taking the customers for idiots.
You need to pay for the highest tier to get Dolby Atmos on Netflix but you still get it as an encoded content that you can't access unless you pay someone else to decode it... It doesnt't seem fair in my book.
If the same thing is true for a film you buy, it is even worse.

 

[sarumbear]

"Hacked" in the context of complete legality is a strong word. I for one wish for a world without Dolby's malefic (IMO) influence. Not soon to happen, to the benefit of said almost 3000 people and against the interest of many millions that are forced to pay what essentially is a tax to a private organisation, wether they use Atmos or not. That worths all the pleasure of the hack, in the context of legality as it was put.

There’s no place for politics in this forum. Please mute your socialistic views.

As you said on your earlier post there are indeed various countries where the rule of law is not important but neither the US, where Dolby is based, nor the UK where I’m from, are not one of them. In our countries we respect and protect property ownership, physical or intellectual, and condone any activity against it, by making it illegal.

 

[edechamps]

There’s no place for politics in this forum. Please mute your socialistic views.

Then why are you bringing up topics like software patents and the rule of law, which are inherently political? Did you mean to write "there is no place for political opinions in this forum except mine"?

As you said on your earlier post there are indeed various countries where the rule of law is not important but neither the US, where Dolby is based, nor the UK where I’m from, are not one of them. In our countries we respect and protect property ownership, physical or intellectual, and condone any activity against it, by making it illegal.

This is deeply ironic, given that the UK, just like the rest of Europe, does not recognize software patents either. And please don't imply that just because a country does not recognize software patents, that means that country does not care about the rule of law - that is a ridiculous over generalization and comes across as insulting.

Debates around software patents tend to be highly controversial with valid opinions on both sides. It is quite reasonable to argue that Dolby should be allowed to enforce copyright on their code, but at the same time others should also have the right to write their own code that is capable of producing inputs/outputs compatible with Dolby's. Just because you seem to think that position is morally wrong doesn't make it so. Please be respectful of other's views.

 

[sarumbear]

Then why are you bringing up topics like software patents and the rule of law, which are inherently political?

I respectfully disagree. Your understanding of the rule of law is different to mine. However, I am not prepared to argue further. I’m a law abiding person. I condone anyone who suggests or hopes the law to be broken.

I will stop by reminding you that there are countless cases where hackers sent to prison, even for supplying tools to allow hacking.

 

[usersky]

I respectfully disagree. Your understanding of the rule of law is different to mine. However, I am not prepared to argue further. I’m a law abiding person. I condone anyone who suggests or hopes the law to be broken.

I will stop by reminding you that there are countless cases where hackers sent to prison, even for supplying tools to allow hacking.

Haven't seen here any sugestion to break any law. My post started and ended precisely saying that I applaud the effort within the context of legality (outside the US to be more precise). This is exactly why the term "hack" seems to me improperly used when it concerns a legal reverse engineering effort that can potentialy benefit a lot of people: end users, manufacturers, software developers for tools, players, content creation etc. I can go and detail on why Dolby in particular IMO is a perfect example of failed rule of law (anti-monopolistic) but indeed it can be interpreted as politics so I won't.

 

[sarumbear]

Haven't seen here any sugestion to break any law. My post started and ended precisely saying that I applaud the effort within the context of legality (outside the US to be more precise). This is exactly why the term "hack" seems to me improperly used when it concerns a legal reverse engineering effort that can potentialy benefit a lot of people: end users, manufacturers, software developers for tools, players, content creation etc. I can go and detail on why Dolby in particular IMO is a perfect example of failed rule of law (anti-monopolistic) but indeed it can be interpreted as politics so I won't.

There’s no legal way to reverse engineer patented products. That’s what a patent is for, to give the owner legal protection. Dolby protects their IP with thousands of patents.

 

[himey]

First this thread was "clickbait" and now it is too "political"? Certainty glad the majority here don't believe that nonsense.

 

[edechamps]

There’s no legal way to reverse engineer patented products.

Just to clarify: reverse engineering patented products is not illegal by itself - in fact, the information is normally public as it's in the published patent itself! What's illegal is making your own product based on patented inventions without consent from the patent holder, assuming the patent is valid.

The above is only true, however, if the patent is actually valid in the country the product is being distributed from. Even Dolby themselves hint at this themselves in the page you linked, which explicitly mentions "in the United States and elsewhere". Guess why they felt the need to phrase it that way? It's because the patents are not actually valid everywhere in the world - only in some countries.

Outside of these countries, it is perfectly legal to write and distribute software that implements inventions described in these patents. That's been done, many, many times over the past decades (ffmpeg and VLC are textbook examples) with no successful challenge in the courts of those countries (and that's not for lack of trying). And to be clear we're not talking countries like Russia, China or some hypothetical "patent paradise" island in the Pacific or something, unless you are willing to argue that most countries in Europe, including the UK, have gone rogue and anti-capitalist/anti-IP (good luck with that).

You can't even argue that Dolby is being blindsided or being taken by surprise here. Many Dolby codecs have been reverse engineered a long time ago, they are surely used to it by now and they know they can't do anything about it because it's perfectly legal in the countries where it's being done. Surely they must treat it as a fact of life at this point, and are factoring it in their business decisions. Yet that doesn't seem to have stopped them from developing new formats like Atmos, so that doesn't seem to bother them as much as you think it does. In fact, one could argue that the wider availability of alternative encoder/decoders actually helps Dolby's bottom line, because it makes their format more widespread and thus harder to ignore when developing new products, but you need to pay them patent royalties if you want to use them in a product distributed in the US!

 

[mkt]

However, the article you posted says that only Apple Music and Apple TV apps works. Does that mean, no Netflix, Disney+, HBO, or Amazon streaming, nor Blue-ray disk playback?

There is at least one web site (https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/concerts) which streams in atmos in a way that works on Mac. I don't know why the other ones don't seem to work.

 

[generalguy]

Not a merry wish for a company's IP to be hacked and the livelihood of almost 3000 people directly and many more indirectly effected just for one's pleasure...

IP reverse engineering for compatibility is explicitly allowed in many jurisdictions. We wouldn't need to reverse engineer the format if it were patented, that's the whole point of patents: Dolby would have to disclose the details. IIRC they simply don't publish any info and rely on obscurity. TrueHD itself has already been reverse engineered by ffmpeg, it's a variant of meridian lossless packing.

Regardless, given that Atmos is the prevailing standard for object/extended surround sound, it ought to be reverse engineered for preservation's sake alone. There are many jurisdictions that have much laxer laws on copyright and patent than the US, and are filled with competent programmers.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

IP reverse engineering for compatibility is explicitly allowed in many jurisdictions. We wouldn't need to reverse engineer the format if it were patented, that's the whole point of patents: Dolby would have to disclose the details. IIRC they simply don't publish any info and rely on obscurity. TrueHD itself has already been reverse engineered by ffmpeg, it's a variant of meridian lossless packing.

Regardless, given that Atmos is the prevailing standard for object/extended surround sound, it ought to be reverse engineered for preservation's sake alone. There are many jurisdictions that have much laxer laws on copyright and patent than the US, and are filled with competent programmers.

Once it's done, it will be everywhere irrespective of patent law. Dolby just ought to license decoders for Windows and Apple PCs. I would gladly pay for the priviledge of decoding pn my PC Atmos material from my own files and streaming services. We shouldn't need big box single purpose receivers with shit performance, reliability, and lifespans, and we shouldn't need to use outdated storage material like silver disks in individual non biodegradable plastic containers that we have to dedicate entire rooms of our houses to store and curate. It's all just so frickin' 90's. and it's pathetic. I don't want to make watching Atmos movies at home my hobby. I want a consumer product.

 

[sarumbear]

IP reverse engineering for compatibility is explicitly allowed in many jurisdictions. We wouldn't need to reverse engineer the format if it were patented, that's the whole point of patents: Dolby would have to disclose the details. IIRC they simply don't publish any info and rely on obscurity. TrueHD itself has already been reverse engineered by ffmpeg, it's a variant of meridian lossless packing.

Regardless, given that Atmos is the prevailing standard for object/extended surround sound, it ought to be reverse engineered for preservation's sake alone. There are many jurisdictions that have much laxer laws on copyright and patent than the US, and are filled with competent programmers.

I find it shocking to see this and similar sentiments that put no value to Intellectual Property and only care for one's own enjoyment.

 

[MCH]

I find it shocking to see this and similar sentiments that put no value to Intellectual Property and only care for one's own enjoyment.

Sarumbear. I cannot comment on the details of what is legal or illegal in all this. But I can tell you from own experience that a company is free to decide if they keep their IP completely confidential, in the form of a trade secret, and don't publish any patent at all, or if on the contrary they decide to fill a patent, that is a public document, and make the necessary information freely accessible.
Now, if that patent is only valid in certain territories, as some members here suggest, it was the company's decision to make the information available to everyone, even in countries where the patents are not valid or are not going to be enforced.
If you are not going or you can't fill patents in every country you make business or you don't have the resources to enforce your patents, the best is just not to fill them. That is why many companies decide not to fill patents and keep their IP as trade secrets.
There is no absolute right or wrong, some companies are very secretive with everything and some others publish a lot of research and we applaud them from here (read Harman studies on fr preferences)
This is how it works, and it is silly to think that Dolby is not aware of that.
Now, is this the best way to keep fair competition and promote technological advances? That is a very complex subject, but for the last centuries, it is how it works...

 

[192kbps]

"Search for FUCKDOLBY on DHT search engines."

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Sarumbear. I cannot comment on the details of what is legal or illegal in all this. But I can tell you from own experience that a company is free to decide if they keep their IP completely confidential, in the form of a trade secret, and don't publish any patent at all, or if on the contrary they decide to fill a patent, that is a public document, and make the necessary information freely accessible.
Now, if that patent is only valid in certain territories, as some members here suggest, it was the company's decision to make the information available to everyone, even in countries where the patents are not valid or are not going to be enforced.
If you are not going or you can't fill patents in every country you make business or you don't have the resources to enforce your patents, the best is just not to fill them. That is why many companies decide not to fill patents and keep their IP as trade secrets.
There is no absolute right or wrong, some companies are very secretive with everything and some others publish a lot of research and we applaud them from here (read Harman studies on fr preferences)
This is how it works, and it is silly to think that Dolby is not aware of that.
Now, is this the best way to keep fair competition and promote technological advances? That is a very complex subject, but for the last centuries, it is how it works...

The ultimate purpose of the patent is to insure innovations come to market and can be enjoyed by the public because their inventors have a fair return by virtue of the bestowal of intellectual property rights for a limited period of time. All of which indicates that even in the jurisdictions which such rights are granted, it's done with the understanding that these rights are limited and intended to serve the public interest, first and foremost. When inventors use (misuse?) those rights to stiffle innovation and competition, then it is appropriate for those societies to re-examine and adjust the terms and conditions under which those rights are being bestowed. In short, an intellectual property right it not something absolute, but rather a limited license granted to serve the larger public interest. And it is fair to ask if the way Dolby is licensing ATMOS really serves the public interest. For all the reasons outlined in this thread, I would thing it's apparent that it does not. If, as a result, the market is going to put pressure on them to alter how they sell that product, so be it.

 

[IONLYlisten]

I am not familiar with patent laws. But a patent forbids competitors from selling a product made in a way as registered in the patent, not some forum users from creating his/her own decoder, does it? Whose own "enjoyment" is this in fact?

 

[192kbps]

 

[192kbps]

Music Media Helper 6

 

[mkt]

Music Media Helper 6

Are you able to go Blu-ray -> mkv -> individual mlp files and play in DRP?