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.

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.