Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD screws consumers by embracing DRM

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 12, 2007 2:44:57 PM

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/04/12/142218.shtml

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/03/28/14OPcurve_1.h...

DRM primer: http://defectivebydesign.org/about

The days of the general purpose computer are numbered. In the not too distant future you will be required to swipe your credit card to log into your machine 8O
Related resources
April 12, 2007 3:34:43 PM

Are you sure? A quick search in google might turn up different results. Maybe I am off base though and HOW the two are supporting DRM. I did the google search, so you guys can also.

wes
April 12, 2007 3:43:33 PM

Wiki says:"The Trusted Computing Group (TCG) is an alliance of Microsoft, Intel, IBM, HP and AMD which promotes a standard for a ‘more secure’ (i.e. under their control) PC. Their definition of security is controversial; machines built according to their specification will be more trustworthy from the point of view of software vendors and the content industry, but will be less trustworthy from the point of view of their owners. In effect, the TCG specification will transfer the ultimate control of your PC from you to whoever wrote the software it happens to be running."
Intel calls it a "trusted platform module" and yes it is in hardware already.
Example: Intel® Desktop Board D915GMH
Trusted Platform Module (TPM)

I don't see VIA mentioned. Hmm...new VIA slogan..."we may be slow, but we aren't crippled"
April 12, 2007 3:44:23 PM

Does this apply to the Radeon 1250 in the 690G chipset, or to products not yet released?

I ask because I've had a few issues using the DVI out while connected to the HDMI port of my LCD TV. I think there is some kind of handshake issue going on. I can't output in native 1360x768 resolution, and there are strange issues with the TV not re-acquiring video signal after the TV has been turned off and on again. I don't get any of these issues using the analogue (VGA) connection.

What kind of interference do we expect in our day-to-day computing? I can see this being a hassle for the uninformed who think that playing a high-def movie on their computer should be a simple matter of putting it in and hitting play, but for those of us who know what we're doing, what is the degradation in usability? I read a lot about how Vista screwed up 3D sound effects (though I've only ever used stereo connection to my PC).
April 12, 2007 3:44:53 PM

Never heard of "Trusted Computing"? WINTEL
Intel is way ahead of AMD in limiting your "rights" on your PC. I'm getting sick of the AMD hate around here - I'm sorry you guys were stuck with Pentium 4's when I had an early 939, but that's no reason to spread hate, just 'cuz you got stuck with a dog.
April 12, 2007 3:50:09 PM

Quote:
"In effect, the TCG specification will transfer the ultimate control of your PC from you to whoever wrote the software it happens to be running."


This sounds to me like "chalk one up for open-source software".
April 12, 2007 3:54:44 PM

Quote:

What kind of interference do we expect in our day-to-day computing?


The infoworld article states this will be implemented in "upcoming" GPUs.

The iterference is going to come to the fore as a slow insidious loss of hardware functionality available to you the owner of the PC. Apps that used this functionality before are going to be impossible to create in future.

Its a slow-raise-the-water-temperature to boil the frog scenario.
April 12, 2007 4:00:06 PM

Quote:
Never heard of "Trusted Computing"? WINTEL
Intel is way ahead of AMD in limiting your "rights" on your PC. I'm getting sick of the AMD hate around here - I'm sorry you guys were stuck with Pentium 4's when I had an early 939, but that's no reason to spread hate, just 'cuz you got stuck with a dog.


I hate to pop your fanboi bubble but this is a first ... a new type of hardware DRM restriction in GPUs (introducted by AMD, not Intel or nvidia ...).

While all the hardware manufactures will undoubtedly eventually get into bed with the content producers, AMD is breaking new ground here.

Futhermore, "trusted" computing (now there is a misnomer!) is a DUAL use technology. You can (theoreticaly) use a TPM chip to secure your own personal data. Of course this is not its main purpose, its main purpose is to ensure a movie/song/game sold to you plays on ONLY your PC.

This crap that AMDTI is planning to pull is NOT a dual use technology. There is NO potential benefit to you ... just a stripping away of your rights to use your own hardware that you paid for.
April 12, 2007 4:05:40 PM

Do you imagine that this GPU trusted-computing junk is going to interfere with OpenGL?

While I don't disagree that the RIAA and the like are crossing a line in terms of getting the way operating systems and even hardware are built, I wonder how far the hardware manufacturers will go. Once their product is rendered undesirable to the consumer, well... that just opens the door to a new party to come in with a product embracing open standards based around what the consumer actually wants. In the end, it's the consumer's money that's making the wheel go 'round.

Do you ever start to feel guilty when you actually buy/rent a movie because a portion of that money is going to the RIAA/MPAA or whatever group to support their shady lobbying?
April 12, 2007 4:06:11 PM

Quote:
"In effect, the TCG specification will transfer the ultimate control of your PC from you to whoever wrote the software it happens to be running."


This sounds to me like "chalk one up for open-source software".

Open source software wont be able to access the GPUs frame buffer either.
April 12, 2007 4:06:27 PM

Wiki says of this:"High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) is a form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) developed by Intel Corporation to control digital audio and video content as it travels across Digital Visual Interface (DVI) or High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) connections. The specification is proprietary, and creating an implementation of HDCP requires a license."
It may be in your monitor as I don't think an old 9250 would have the tech. I think that they want it in everything, you computer, monitor, and OS. Could be why Creative is having such a hard time with drivers for Vista: they are forced to make audio sound like crap on protected content.
April 12, 2007 4:11:13 PM

Quote:
Do you imagine that this GPU trusted-computing junk is going to interfere with OpenGL?

While I don't disagree that the RIAA and the like are crossing a line in terms of getting the way operating systems and even hardware are built, I wonder how far the hardware manufacturers will go. Once their product is rendered undesirable to the consumer, well... that just opens the door to a new party to come in with a product embracing open standards based around what the consumer actually wants. In the end, it's the consumer's money that's making the wheel go 'round.

Do you ever start to feel guilty when you actually buy/rent a movie because a portion of that money is going to the RIAA/MPAA or whatever group to support their shady lobbying?


Well there are only two real consumer CPU manufacturers and two real consumer GPU manufacturers. Thats a very small list to lean on by the RIAA/MAFIAA.

A consumer hardware boycott will be next to impossible. The RIAA/MAFIAA (Sony, ...) can use a strategy like: "If you want to create new markets for your hardware in the living room you must cripple your hardware with DRM". Its already happening in front of our eyes.
April 12, 2007 4:14:19 PM

Quote:
Could be why Creative is having such a hard time with drivers for Vista: they are forced to make audio sound like crap on protected content.


Same thing with the nvidia 8800 driver fisaco in Vista ... caused by DRM. The MAFIAA have made it clear they will disable all GPUs that use HDCP if their drivers leak content.
April 12, 2007 4:18:56 PM

Well, the TV isn't that old... about 6 months. I had it running on a DVI-HDMI connection from a 6600GT before, but that GPU doesn't have any HDCP chips in it AFAIK.

My understanding of the requirement for HDCP compatibility in the TV is for high-definition playback only (regulated through Vista). What I'm doing shouldn't envoke those operating modes. I'm running Ubuntu in the first place.

As for the "chalk one up for open-source", I mean that I don't believe the open-source software community is in on this DRM crap. If more people move over to Linux, then media companies aren't going to be able to force their control on computer users since the market could shift to people buying hardware that functions for Linux (and them). Frankly, I'd be happy to never play blu-ray or hd-dvd in my life so long as I can do whatever else I want on my HTPC.

I hope that the same thing happens to blu-ray/hd-dvd as did sacd/dvd-a. I mean that downloaded content (legit or otherwise) should take over the media distribution scene. I would love to be able to subscribe to a high-definition media service that sets me up with downloads for my entertainment consumption. Now we're testing out DRM-free music for downloads... I hope this works well because the logical extension is TV and movies. There is a huge market potential for this business, and the cost savings of moving to internet distribution are huge (especially if they can manage to do it with torrent-style downloads where users share the expense of serving the files). I see the industry being disabled by their fight for DRM, and I hope that EMI does well with their experiment.
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2007 4:21:32 PM

Quote:
Never heard of "Trusted Computing"? WINTEL
Intel is way ahead of AMD in limiting your "rights" on your PC. I'm getting sick of the AMD hate around here - I'm sorry you guys were stuck with Pentium 4's when I had an early 939, but that's no reason to spread hate, just 'cuz you got stuck with a dog.


AND...

Quote:
Wiki says of this:"High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) is a form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) developed by Intel Corporation to control digital audio and video content as it travels across Digital Visual Interface (DVI) or High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) connections. The specification is proprietary, and creating an implementation of HDCP requires a license."


Adopting some DRM standards and hard coding them into hardware was inevitable given the furor from the RIAA, Sony, Toshiba, etc. and, ultimately had to become a business decision to ensure that either AMD and Intel could remain competitive in the media/embedded market.

Fact is Intel fans, whether you like it or not, Intel has been on board with implementing DRM from back when the debate began a few years ago. And in case you are in denial or don't remember, there were a number of articles about Intel including DRM into the PentiumD and 945 chipset. But, because of all the flack and noise as a result of that announcement, Intel did not move forward with it.
April 12, 2007 4:51:22 PM

Well if DRM takes over my cables and TV, which it will, I will move over to Linux. I see no reason to now except... i play games.
April 12, 2007 4:56:31 PM

i'll probably start buying movies when i move out in 6 months, but if they're going to tighten the DRM noose around our necks, i'm going to only get my movies through warez cause this DRM stuff is bullshit. I'd have to start buying nonDRM hardware if this keeps up. Why do these companies think that enforcing DRM and the like are going to keep people from going to warez?? It's only pushing people more into that direction.
April 12, 2007 5:04:13 PM

Quote:
Well if DRM takes over my cables and TV, which it will, I will move over to Linux. I see no reason to now except... i play games.


You still arnt getting it. This is DRMing / crippling of hardware:
It doesnt matter what OS/software you use.
It doesnt matter if you never buy any DRMed media ... your hardware still gets crippled anyway.

PS: Guess who pays for the additional expense of incorporating this into the hardware? You.
April 12, 2007 5:21:49 PM

So basically, you're saying if we want a system that works, we should get the hardware now and just pirate the content we want because at least that will work?

Is it possible to just pay for the rights to a movie without buying a specific format of that movie? I mean, can I go and get some sort of receipt that signifies that I have the right to own a certain content in whatever format I want? Then I can work out how I'm going to obtain that content myself. Honestly I just want to legitimise what is the simplest way of getting one's hands on the content you want, without giving in to the shackles of restriction in the way you plan to use the content.
April 12, 2007 5:24:50 PM

Quote:
Never heard of "Trusted Computing"? WINTEL
Intel is way ahead of AMD in limiting your "rights" on your PC. I'm getting sick of the AMD hate around here - I'm sorry you guys were stuck with Pentium 4's when I had an early 939, but that's no reason to spread hate, just 'cuz you got stuck with a dog.


I hate to pop your fanboi bubble but this is a first ... a new type of hardware DRM restriction in GPUs (introducted by AMD, not Intel or nvidia ...).

While all the hardware manufactures will undoubtedly eventually get into bed with the content producers, AMD is breaking new ground here.

Futhermore, "trusted" computing (now there is a misnomer!) is a DUAL use technology. You can (theoreticaly) use a TPM chip to secure your own personal data. Of course this is not its main purpose, its main purpose is to ensure a movie/song/game sold to you plays on ONLY your PC.

This crap that AMDTI is planning to pull is NOT a dual use technology. There is NO potential benefit to you ... just a stripping away of your rights to use your own hardware that you paid for.

The TPM is not for DRM that I have heard. It's so that IT depts can set passwords and encryption on HDDs. That way if a machine gets stolen, the HDD contents can't be accessed.

If implemented on a GPU, that is for DRM because the GPU has to transmit an HDCP signal to the HDCP monitor.

I can't really see why anyone would use their PC for BluRay or HD-DVD though when most monitors are a lot smaller than TVs.
April 12, 2007 5:42:31 PM

Quote:
I can't really see why anyone would use their PC for BluRay or HD-DVD though when most monitors are a lot smaller than TVs.


It's about convergence, which is a major market that Intel, MS, etc. are trying to push. Why buy a $30 DVD player when you can do the same job with a $600 computer + $70 software DVD player? This is the argument against it I suppose.

The idea is what's called a media centre PC. I'm sure you've heard about it and know what it is, so I'm not going to tell you what you ought to know already. The idea is that a single box can be the source for all media types. You have TV/DVR, video library (including DVD and .avi playback), music library (including CD and .mp3 playback), and internet radio streaming. It's also not a bad place to keep your digital photo album. The living room is a logical place to show your pictures of that last vacation. The possibilities are endless, which is the whole point of using a PC as the source... oh yeah... and some computer games translate well to the living room, like a flight simulator, etc.

Anyway, the idea that people are using computer monitors for HTPCs is kind of silly. I've got a 32" LCD TV working for me, and I like the current setup.

I wouldn't naturally say that it makes sense for everyone to use a PC as a media centre. A lot of people are going to be served better using a regular, cheap DVD player and TV tuner. However, in university I didn't have a TV, so I used my desktop in my dorm room for movies. Later on, I moved into a house, and one of the guys owned a TV. I formed a habbit of using a laptop as the media source whenever I wasn't watching regular TV. Then I moved in with my GF and we were back to having either a 14" TV or a 19" computer monitor, so we ended up watching movies and TV on the computer. It turned out that the laptop was doing nothing other than media centre tasks, so when the time came to replace the laptop, instead of buying another one, I just built a media centre PC (and we picked up an LCD TV). It seems that I'm a natural fit for the HTPC market because I was using a computer for my entertainment 7 years ago. This was my natural usage pattern even before computer hardware was being made for the task. I'm sure there are a lot out there who will consider the media centre to be very convenient now that computers are being designed for it.

Of course, all that could fail if content delivery or playback is needlessly encumbered by the media industry. This would be unfortunate for everyone, since I'm more likely to buy content if it's convenient for me (more $$ for the studios) as well as think of all those people buying extra computer hardware and software to put in their living rooms (more $$ for that industry). On the consumer side, we do it because we choose to (more choice for us). The failure of this movement, which seems to be what the studios are pushing for, makes no sense to me.
April 12, 2007 5:45:56 PM

Quote:
So basically, you're saying if we want a system that works, we should get the hardware now and just pirate the content we want because at least that will work?

AFAIK, all current hardware uses DRM for hi-def. In this case, if you don't use BLU-RAY or HD-DVD, you are most likely OK - except for specifically encrypted content. So we can't just break the DVD encryption like they currently do, but we buy all our stuff, right?:wink: From the player, to the HDMI cable, to the monitors - DRM is in every layer of Hi-Def in order to translate the encoding correctly.
April 12, 2007 6:06:04 PM

musicians can save money by actually not trashing hotels, dumping waste from their buses on unsuspecting victims (*cough* Dave Matthews), or having huge amount of groupies! :twisted:
April 12, 2007 6:16:33 PM

What chunkymonster said. To the OP - you, sir, are, pardon my French, a moron. You must be one of those people who thinks MS is out to screw you with Vista DRM.

It's been beaten to death, but here it is again: DRM is the invention of content providers. All hardware and software makers that incorporate do so to ensure that they can play the content, because they think that's what the end-user (their customer) wants. You, as a user, want to start a rebellion against DRM? I'm all for it, I'm with you. But rebell against RIAA, MPAA, and others. All you're suggesting is that a particular company (which is particularly laughable in the case of AMD, an underdog involved in an oligopolistic battle with a big company with lots of money who is doing everything in the monopolistic power book to kill the only competitor off. There is an argument whether or not the industry represents a natural monopoly, but I don't think so, and most other natural monopolies have been moving away from the monopolistic structure recently) should be a rogue and loose revenue and client base because you, who, I hope you realie, represents an informed minority don't want to pay for stuff (which is an illegal motivation in the first place)?

You're either juvenile or just flat out slow.
April 12, 2007 6:40:06 PM

Quote:
How about all the musicians that get screwed from piracy every year? DRM may not be the best avenue for deterring theft and piracy ,but what is going to take place of the lack of consumer morality that drives piracy?

Companies have to do something to protect their investment,Making albums in modern studios isnt cheap ,nor is the touring aspect.


I'm with you on that the artists deserve to get their share, and I do agree that taking the content without paying is stealing. However, I have yet to see a DRM scheme that actually works. I believe that it is pretty much impossible to protect digital content. With that in mind, those who want to steal the content are going to continue to be able to, no matter what kind of DRM gets built-in to our systems. You build a thicker wall and pirates will build a bigger battering ram.

I think what needs to be done is to make things as convenient as possible for the legitimate consumer. Choosing the path of paying for the content should be the easiest route (besides having to pay). I wonder how much piracy goes on just because it's much more difficult to get the content you want through legal means. I've had several conversations with "pirates" that do it not because they can't easily afford the media, but because it's too much of a hassle to get through the DRM crap. A good example was using iTunes. I bought my Creative mp3 player just before iTunes launched, so what good is iTunes for me unless I go get an iPod? I refuse to buy an Apple product just because the best online music store is incompatible with the hardware I bought (I don't say it's 100% Apple's fault, but they did choose that path). Anyway, I'm quite happy to see what EMI is trying out, and I hope that I will eventually be able to buy open-standard, DRM-free music (say ogg format) in the future. Until then, it's easier for me to continue buying a 20-year old format: the CD, which is ridiculous.

On a side note, when I bought my mp3 player, in Canada there was a charge to me for a fee paid to the RIAA or MPAA based on laws regarding recordable media. One could argue (successfully in court) that I am owed a certain amount of content from these companies. The fee was dropped a few months after my purchase (because the RIAA had taken pirates to court, and the pirates had won the case on the basis of having paid for content while buying blank CDs). Since the RIAA couldn't have their cake and eat it too, they decided to convince governments to drop the recordable media fee - I received no refund. Anyway, the last I heard was that they were reinstating the fee.

What I hope for is to see artists take more of the media recording, producing, and distribution into their own hands. The digital/internet age makes this possible. Or, at least, there should be an era of new opportunity for other recording studios to profit from the new way of doing business. There is room for a lot more artists in this world, but the current design of the industry requires mega-stars to make the big bucks. One more reason people pirate is because people making minimum wage don't have too much sympathy for millionaires (not that this justifies stealing non-essentials like music).

To reiterate, in the face of immensely available pirated content, consumers need to be given legitimate choices that are at least as convenient to them. The internet can be used to remove a lot of the middlemen/supply chain expenses, and I think artists can still make the same royalties if the savings were passed on to the consumer.
April 12, 2007 6:42:07 PM

I despise piracy and look down on those who illegally downloads movies, games, and songs.

Downloading a single song here and there to see if you will like a cd or artist with the intent to purchase seems fine. Or if you know there is only one song from an artist that you want. Download it. (Even then, a legal version is only $1)

We wouldn't be in this situation with DRM, RIAA, and the likes if it wasn't for so many petty thieves.

Companies come into existence to make money and are going to do what they can to continue to make money. Honestly, do you go to work everyday for free? I hope not...
April 12, 2007 6:42:11 PM

Slashdot lost me at "sony blu-ray" disc, what is that? like a big "LASER"? I've never seen one!

Quote:
but what is going to take place of the lack of consumer morality that drives piracy?


Consumer morality lol, not in a capitalist or communist society :p 
April 12, 2007 6:56:48 PM

Quote:


How about all the musicians that get screwed from piracy every year?


These are completely different issues.

Crippling our PCs isnt going to solve the piracy problem. Piracy requires a single unencumbered copy to be generated by a capable hacker which then seeds its subsequent limitless spread. This will ALWAYS be possible even if it takes a hardware hacker desoldering chips and sniffer bus traffic with an oscilliscope (e.g. xbox 360 cracking).

Quote:

DRM may not be the best avenue for deterring theft and piracy ,but what is going to take place of the lack of consumer morality that drives piracy?



DRM doesnt deter piracy as the recent EMI/Apple move illustrated. Whats going to alliviate piracy? I dont know. But I sure as hell know that crippling my hardware so that RIAA/MPAA execs (they get the money NOT musicians) ISNT going to solve that problem. Musicians have been making music and supporting themselves for thousands of years without the need for DRM.

Some suggestions anyway:
Reasonably priced content.
Not having to buy the same content 10x times on different media.
Only sell your content on a SEPARATE DRMed-up-the-whazoo media box (something like the Apple TV). Dont f***k with MY PC that I paid for!
....
But again this isnt my problem or area of expertise.

Quote:

Companies have to do something to protect their investment,Making albums in modern studios isnt cheap ,nor is the touring aspect.

Again, breaking my f*****g PC isnt going to solve that problem.
April 12, 2007 7:01:11 PM

Quote:
The iterference is going to come to the fore as a slow insidious loss of hardware functionality available to you the owner of the PC. Apps that used this functionality before are going to be impossible to create in future.

Its a slow-raise-the-water-temperature to boil the frog scenario.


I think this has been going on for a very long time, but few people have noticed. Ever think about all the terms in the EULA's that are in every bit of software that you buy? At one time, when we bought a program, we bought it. After buying it, we could sell it, give it away, or throw it away. Now, we use use only by permission and we cannot legally transfer its ownership to anyone else. We are technically only renting the program, having paid for the priviledge of using it. We may own the physical computer, but there's probably not a single piece of software on it that we really own.

Much as I hate DRM, etc, its only a logical continuation of the software policies that have been out for years. The only way to get back the functionality of the hardware is if we start start writing and using the programs ourselves.

Vern, I agree fully that something should be done about piracy, but I'd rather that DRM was not written into the OS, but was something that was in the property of Sony, etc. That way, if a person wanted to download or otherwise install some company's music or whatever, the person would have to deal with that third party. By putting it into the OS, I cannot install any non-approved music whatsoever without paying Mircosoft, etc a bunch of money for their stamp of approval, even if I wrote the music and played it myself with my saxaphone. I can legally own all the rights to the music, but unless I pay them the extortion money, I can't record it. That is what ticks me off more than anything else.
April 12, 2007 7:07:26 PM

ONLY PIRATES USE GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTERS!
\
Ruski the twit
April 12, 2007 7:18:52 PM

Quote:
The only way to get back the functionality of the hardware is if we start start writing and using the programs ourselves.


I agree: GPL.
April 12, 2007 7:19:50 PM

I was under the impression that most musicians make their money from live shows and radio airplay. Independent musicians went independent because all a recording company has to do to screw the musician out of their royalties is to heavily promote an album (the marketing comes off the top, as does the studio time, production, pressing, and distribution, as well as the cost of music video production) or to keep an album "in the can" until the artist is dead, for example. Many albums and videos never see the light of day, only to show up when the artist is long dead. Ask Bo Diddley how much he made off of his music in the last 50 years, for example. Many albums that have sold quite well result in a net loss for the artist. This is why ticket prices for live performances have increased in the last decade or so (yes, insurance rates have increased as well, but that is another issue). Piracy costs independent artists money, to be sure, but the interviews I have heard from independent artists say that losses due to piracy are less than the marketing losses to a large record label, and many actually see it as easy promotion as the consumer is the one doing the work for them. Audiophiles also don't like the squished sound of mp3s, and will pay for good quality, as their speakers alone are worth the price of many cds. I usually buy used cds and dvds, so should those products be degradeable, so only new off the shelf recordings are available?
I agree artists should be paid for their efforts, but supporting EMI and Sony does not guarrantee any money will make it to the artist. I'd suggest instead that some dude in a suit in an office who couldn't play a note, much less an original one, makes as much off a recording, if not more, than your average performer who makes a record that "only" sells 10,000 copies.
Of course, I may have only heard from bitter performers, so take this rant with a grain of salt.
April 12, 2007 7:34:52 PM

Everything AMD does Intel has to follow, has to. Now that is power getting dragging by a leash. :p 
April 12, 2007 7:39:33 PM

This is why u need to save you MS XP updates on a disc and keep the coa handy to use.

In a few years you need retro systems to play music and game.

DRM sucks!

Everyone should shun pay per play - pay per play tv shows, pay per play music, pay per play games .......etc. If its pay per play then dont buy it!

If you can't strip the DRM off then do buy it!
April 12, 2007 7:48:50 PM

Quote:
Crippling our PCs isnt going to solve the piracy problem. .......Dont f***k with MY PC that I paid for!...........Again, breaking my f*****g PC isnt going to solve that problem.


You keep complaining about them crippling your computer. How?
I could not find any specifics on it other than the article you linked, but it sounds to me that the frame buffer is hindered only when you watch protected content.

However based on your comments you feel that it is OK to steal other peoples work. When you purchase a movie you agree that you will not make copies of it. Yes I would like to see digital media sold in a variety of formats so if I wanted to store all of my movies and music on a hard drive I could, without having to rip them but we have not reached that point yet.

Get a grip on reality because life is not fair and it does suck 60% of the time.
April 12, 2007 7:59:41 PM

Quote:
However based on your comments you feel that it is OK to steal other peoples work.


Sue your English comprehension teacher for a refund :roll:
April 12, 2007 8:03:01 PM

Not everyone is as willing to bend over and take it as you are. Protesting is what people do when things suck.
April 12, 2007 8:05:07 PM

Quote:
Here we go again: All that AACS DRM crap built into Vista and our GPUs?

Broken yet again: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/12/164228


That's one thing the software companies keep failing to see. The more they try to insert anti-piracy codes, DRM or whatever, the less effective they become. They only inspire hackers and such to break the anti-piracy codes and then render all the codes useless. The end effect is to make the DRM or whatever a pain for the legitimate, honest users and of no practical effect to the pirates.
April 12, 2007 8:22:20 PM

Quote:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/04/12/142218.shtml

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/03/28/14OPcurve_1.h...

DRM primer: http://defectivebydesign.org/about

The days of the general purpose computer are numbered. In the not too distant future you will be required to swipe your credit card to log into your machine 8O


How about all the musicians that get screwed from piracy every year? DRM may not be the best avenue for deterring theft and piracy ,but what is going to take place of the lack of consumer morality that drives piracy?

Companies have to do something to protect their investment,Making albums in modern studios isnt cheap ,nor is the touring aspect.

Poor example IMO. Most artists actually end up owing the record company more after recording a CD than they will ever make under the contract. Ont he other hand the highly profitable touring revenues are hardly replaced by pirated revenue.
April 12, 2007 8:39:05 PM

Wouldn't the artists be better off to give away the canned music for free, and consider that to be a promotional expense for the live show?
April 15, 2007 7:59:58 PM

I know we have pretty much already concluded it's not only AMD(might want to change the topic of the thread). I just wanted to add this link from HardOCP further stating the point some have tried to say. All the GPU makers are doing this, seems like finger pointing to me.

http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjUyMDMsLCxobmV3c...

wes
April 15, 2007 10:03:16 PM

They want us to pay for content, but I am sure, if there will be any alternative to the fucking DRM from my loved company Intel, I will never pay for stupid DRM. They should make normal hardware and the stupid DRM hardware for the stupidity, so that the user can decide which hardware to buy :) 
April 15, 2007 10:13:00 PM

Did you read? Intel will be doing it as well, whenever they actually start making GPU's. It's not an AMD specific thing, it's an industry thing, they are all doing it. It's unfortunate but true.

wes
April 15, 2007 10:22:28 PM

It would be interesting to see if any of the companies decide to make a grahics solution that's not HDCP compliant. For those of us who aren't playing high-def movies on our computers (the vast majority), I don't feel the need to buy equipment that's more complicated than necessary, has artificial roadblocks to what can be done on my hardware, and incorporates a royalty fee paid to the RIAA/MPAA.

DRM has done nothing to thwart copyright infringement. It does, however, create a situation where the RIAA/MPAA etc. are recieving royalties from hardware. You know, in times gone by, this would be called collusion.
April 15, 2007 10:42:22 PM

Quote:
However based on your comments you feel that it is OK to steal other peoples work.


Sue your English comprehension teacher for a refund :roll:


The funny thing is that Intel was the spearhead for HDCP. DUMMY!!!!!!

Quote:
HDCP stands for High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection and was developed by Intel Corporation.


Dummy!!
April 15, 2007 11:41:26 PM

Quote:
However based on your comments you feel that it is OK to steal other peoples work.


Sue your English comprehension teacher for a refund :roll:

That was the best you could come up with.....I'm disappointed... :cry: 
Sadly, I learned English in the public school system.. 8O
Seriously, I don't care for the restrictions, because if I purchase it I would like to make a backup copy just in case the original gets damaged...
April 16, 2007 12:54:39 AM

Quote:
We wouldn't be in this situation with DRM, RIAA, and the likes if it wasn't for so many petty thieves.

Maybe, maybe not. We've been here before, although you may not be old enough to know it. I seem to recall a surcharge on Compact Cassettes when the RIAA was freaking out over them. The cassette didn't have nearly the copying potential that digital formats have now.

The recent events surrounding the hacking of AACS have compelled me to generally boycott to the best of my ability anything with equipped with DRM or mandating its use. To paraphrase "Network", I'm sick and tired and I'm not taking it any more.

It was already detestable that we were being stripped of the freedom over what we use to play legally obtained content, but it has now reached the point where you could easily find yourself locked out of your own hardware and/or content just because through no fault of your own, the media mafia can't keep up with the hackers.

Imagine you just spent five thousand dollars on a huge HDTV setup, you have guests, everyone is sitting down to watch a legally purchased disc, you hit the [>] button and it won't work because your player's code has been revoked.

In my opinion the mess we're experiencing today with the media mafia has less to do with the admittedly enormous scale of casual content piracy and more to do with what technology has allowed them to get away with.

-Brad
!