AMD's New DRM

DefectiveByDesign writes "Remember how AMD said they'd make use of ATI's GPU technology to make better technology? Well, not all change is progress. InfoWorld's Tom Yager reports that AMD plans to block access to the framebuffer in hardware to help enforce DRM schemes, such as allowing more restricted playback of Sony Blu-Ray disks. They can pry my Print Screen key from my cold, dead fingers."

Comments

Why do this?

[growse]

Ok, so AMD aren't doing this because it makes their customers happy. Given the choice between two identically performing chips, one of which restricts your ability to do something, I'd bet most people would choose to get the unrestricted one. Whether that's because they need it not to be restricted, or they think they need it in the future, or they just object to the principle, I'm betting few people would go "Gee, well, this one stops me doing this, so I better get that".

So the only reason AMD is doing this is to pander to the content providers. I wonder, what's in it for AMD. Money? Too simplistic somehow. Can't think what else..... Surely it can't just be because Sony/whoever turned up with a big cheque?

Re:Why do this?

[morgan_greywolf]

AMD aren't a content producer, so it must just be a fat cheque.

Maybe. Something to consider is that AMD's customers aren't you and I. AMD's customers are OEM PC makers, large and small. Now if one of their large customers were given a fat cheque, or if AMD were potentially interested in wooing a large PC manufacturer who isn't (yet) a customer who also happens to be a content producer, without mentioning any names *cough*Sony*cough*, then perhaps that could be the reason.

Re:Why do this?

[MBGMorden]

Via won't Seriously. They're a Taiwanese chip maker - the region/culture is famous for making devices that don't obey copy protections schemes in general. It's strange that I've noticed that the more expensive a DVD player is, the more likely it is to have trouble playing discs. Those $30 ones from Taiwan will play anything you through at them, usually even out of region stuff with little to no effort.

My guess is that as Intel, Nvidia, and AMD start to implement stuff like this, a market for Via processors and more off the wall graphics ships like S3 and Trident (is Trident still in business) will open up amongst the hacker/enthusiast community. The question is will you accept a computer that might run a tad slower (and might not run some commercial software programs at all) for the price of using it how you see fit.

Re:Why do this?

[Jerry]

Because Microsoft WANTS it. And if they offend Microsoft their ad rebates will dry up, which accounts for a large part of their profits.

IAAM.

Re:Why do this?

[jimstapleton]

actually, it's an interesting duality there.

AMD, the more obscure of the two (AMD vs. Intel) was usually only picked by the tech-knowledgeable (but by no means had a monopoly on this group), and the indifferents/I-don't-cares typically went to intel

So, while this hurts the AMD fan base, what we are looking at here is ATi related...

In the big GPU vendors, until recently, nVidia was the vendor that didn't get the 'I-don't know or care' crowd, while it was ATi who got that crowed as well as the 'I know and care' crowd. Lately, the 'I don't know or care' crowd has been shuffled over to intel (I won't say they moved, because that could imply their own intent and planning).

So, until recently, this would not have been a bad move for ATi, but as of 2 years ago or so, ATi, like nVidia does tend to get more of it's users from the 'I know and care' crowd.

Re:Why do this?

[Opportunist]

Well, like you said in your first paragraph, the chance that the crappy hardware from Taiwan is more likely to run the commercial program than the high profile Intel/AMD/Whatever chips, simply because they don't give a rat's rear about restriction crap.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of freedom comes out of countries you don't really consider "free". Boggles the mind.

Re:Why do this?

[mutende]

See also 'Phoenix BIOS only for Windows Vista'.

Re:Why do this?

[Merusdraconis]

Okay, wait, wait wait.

I may be working from faulty assumptions here, but they intend to block hardware access to the framebuffer, right?

Don't most blurring special effects in games, such as light bloom and trails and suchlike, use the framebuffer? Isn't this going to negatively impact the performance of those games? (I note that World of Warcraft has light bloom effects on by default.)

And isn't gaming the primary application of these cards?

I guess I am working off faulty assumptions here, because this scenario seems too impossibly bone-headed to come to fruition.

Re:Why do this?

[0xABADC0DA]

...we have perfect freedom of religion...

Having "In God We Trust" on our currency and "Under God" in our Pledge is not perfect freedom of religion. In America we have perfect freedom of religion, what we are missing is freedom from religion. And ironically only god has the power to give us freedom from religion, by suicide, but unfortunately he doesn't want to take the chance of going to hell.

Yes apparently god's immortal soul is more important than our utopia. What a self-centered mofo. Jesus died for us, why won't god?

from MPAA to DELL

[way2trivial]

would you like to sell hardware with blu-ray or HDDVD licensed drives?
consumers WANT to play blu-ray and HDDVD's on their home pc's
business users WANT to back up 50gb of data on a optical disc

if you DON'T help us protect the content, you won't be able to purchase drives.

Is it DRM'ed if I'm not playing protected content"

[dpilot]

One poster mentioned that this is essentially covering the framebuffer with the TCPA "curtained memory" spec.

TCPA is and has always been a 2-edged sword that can also be sheathed. I can completely ignore it, I can use it to my own benefit.... or I can surrender control of my computer to The Dark Side.

Is this "hidden framebuffer" the same way? In other words, if I'm not touching protected content can I still access the framebuffer as I wish? Is it also possible that I can use this as extra security? We've taken to encrypting filesystems and swapfiles, and moved from xhost to xauth, it seems to me that the framebuffer could be considered another leakage point. (Won't comment on the difficulty of exploiting.)

Theoretically TCPA can be a good thing, and most of people's fears center around it being required and locked away from the owner. I'm not sure I ever see that being an issue, simply because of implementation and legal difficulties. What I can see is "If you want to use ??AA media, surrender control of your computer, for this boot." As long as I can reboot and have complete control of my own computer, that is.

Re:Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowadays you (the customer) are not supposed to do what you like with your computer.
You're supposed to run Windows Vista, work with Microsoft Office, only play games you download via "great" content delivery services like Steam, watch movies in formats and ways major Movie Studios want you to watch them, program exclusively with Visual Studio .NET and preferably in C#, design websites so they work in Internet Explorer, use Google as soon as you start your browser and so on...

There's a reason why stuff like the Free Software Movement exists.
What you can do is to
1. NOT buy or use software and hardware that restrict your freedom of what you can do with the things YOU own and
2. educate others ("Joe User") why they shouldn't buy or use certain software and hardware.

- pflakes

So what?

[apodyopsis]

Ok, so AMD aren't doing this because it makes their customers happy. Given the choice between two identically performing chips, one of which restricts your ability to do something, I'd bet most people would choose to get the unrestricted one.

So what? Given the choice most consumer electronics manufacturers and large corporations would choose the other one, and they are the ones making equipment.

I think you'll find that what the people want really does not matter.

what to buy?

[Anonymous Coward]

ok...
this stuff is important... so you actually will know what NOT to buy...
but what if I wanted to know what I CAN buy that is without any form of tcpa?
now that will be useful for everyone.
right now everyone is saying we shouldn't buy from ati, nvidia, intel, now (maybe) amd...
so what? what do you expect the customer will do if he doesn't know what he CAN buy? ...
can anyone post a link?

It will break screen readers for the blind...

[gkearney]

and in doing so make any computer inaccessible and not purchasable by government. Between this and the fact that none of the windows screen readers work with Vista it seems as it everyone is working over time to have the blind and print disabled move from Windows to Mac, Linux or Sun.

At some point will we need legislation that requires that computing equipment be accessible the way we now require such of telephone equipment?

Anyone?

[kahrytan]

  Did anyone realize this has "Screw You Linux" written all over it?

Freedom matters.

[jbn-o]

Then /. readers should be taught the real value of "the freedom of choice" and myths about how the market will cater to our interests as users if there were fewer restrictions on it. Your freedom to control your computer as you see fit simply isn't adequately addressed by either. Richard Stallman reminds us in his talk about free software from Zagreb on 9 March 2006:

It's a mistake to equate freedom to "the freedom of choice". Freedom is something much bigger than having a choice between a few specific options. Freedom means having control of your own life. When people try to analyse freedom by reducing it to the freedom of choice, they've already thrown away nearly all of it and what's left is such a small fraction of real freedom, that they can easily prove it doesn't really matter very much. So that term is very often the first step in the fallacious argument that freedom is not important.

To be able to choose between proprietary software packages is to be able to choose your master. Freedom means not having a master.

Re:Vista: the cowtow starts now

[symbolic]

MS didn't HAVE to do this. IT was a choice. Do you think it would have mattered even the slightest if MS told the media companies to get bent, and that it was THEIR responsibility to protect their oh-so-precious content?