Intel Claims No DRM 350
pallmall1 writes "The Inquirer has an official statement from Intel claiming the Computerworld Today Australia story from May 27th was incorrect, and the Pentium D and the 945 chipsets do not have unannounced DRM technology embedded in them. The statement says Intel products support or will support several copy protection schemes such as Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others. The statement concludes: 'While Intel continues to work with the industry to support other content protection technologies, we have not added any unannounced DRM technologies in either the Pentium D processor or the Intel 945 Express Chipset family.' The Intel Chip with DRM story has been previously reported on Slashdot. Update: 06/05 20:12 GMT by Z : Fixed the Macrovision link.
Of course they're going to deny it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I for one consider a chip which purposefully takes control of my computer away from me and gives it to someone else without my authorization to be broken.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
If you consider that to be broken, then you've got a funny definition of broken, because I consider that same thing to be criminal. I'd much rather have a processor that doesn't work instead of one that you've described.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:2)
That happened earlier this year.
Re:Well (Score:2)
You''re missing how things like this is done. It will work exactly like licensing agreements. "You don't want to enable (Dis)Trusting Compuing? Well then, the OS won't run. Sucks for you." "Oh you're running an OS that doesn't use DRM? Well, we won't enable these features." No one steals the authority over your computer, you cede it.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
it's already in audio cards/drivers.
something called "secure audio path".
it's a way of crippling your sound card; preventing it from recording from its inputs if it detects a copy protected stream.
next up is video. check out some of those old NGSCB/palladium screenshots and intel "lagrande" slides... they are implementing encryption aka DRM from the video chip to the display device.. such that you won't have control over what you can do with the data, as you can right now. no more taking screenshots, capturing video without permission etc etc.
they are using the BTF (boil the frog) method. longhorn will only have one or two of the features and they'll build upon it in each release.
if you cannot figure out that this is something no "individual" customer wants, then you need to read more carefully. there is nothing beneficial about reducing machines capabilities. then you consider that perhaps they don't consider end-users customers, then it becomes more clear. sort of like the tv/media advertising business. you are the product, they sell you to their customers.
something will be done about it... but they'll still keep boiling the frog... so when they don't get full DRM in 2006/2007, they'll introduce one new feature each year, for the next 10-20 years. that way those moronic people who pay for products but aren't customers won't notice.
keep treating us badly, and please digging your own grave. of course you won't notice you're digging, since that requires a modicum of intelligence.
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are the electronics and software people so keen to add DRM? It's an added expense in research and development (especially if they're after secure DRM, which would presumably require much more development). Unlike the television analogy, the general public is the customer in all of these cases - they're paying for the computer, processor, and/or Windows.
Are these companies getting kickbacks or something? It seems to me that the logical thing to do if you were a lobbiest for the electronics industry is to tell the PDTAA (Public Domain Theft Associations of America) to go shove it, and tell the manufacturers you represent to boycott DRM so their customers don't raise a big stink when they realize their new purchase is crippled.
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
That makes perfect sense if you sell CDs and DVDs, but not if you sell computers. Take Dell. They don't create intellectual property, they create tools to use it. Their products are valuable because of their versatility, and voluntarily integrating DRM serves to reduce that versatility.
Shareware authors, who used to release fully functional versions of their applications, no longer do so, even though that change in tactics may have reduced their income (IANASWA).
I would argue that the best software sold under the shareware concept is still uncrippled, except possibly for a nag screen. At the moment, I have no shareware installed except for mIRC and WinRAR. Both are uncrippled except for nag screens, and I've purchased both of them. WinZip is another great example of this.
I would argue that the cream-of-the-crop shareware has morphed not into crippleware or adware, but an evolution of the shareware concept I'm going to call "personalware." Examples of this genre are Ad-Aware [lavasoftusa.com], ZoneAlarm [zonelabs.com], Sygate Personal Firewall [sygate.com], AVG Free [grisoft.com], and much more. Each of these programs comes with a license that says "feel free to download and install me, but for personal use only. If you're a business, pony up." You can tell that these programs are polished and that a lot of work went into them. The missing features in these free versions are so minor that most businesses could do without them, if they were so inclined to cheat. The companies behind these products seem to be in good shape, if the fact that their web sites are still up is any indication.
You now have to put money in the box to get a newspaper, whereas before, you could just take one and then deposit your money. That additional machinery contributes to the extra cost of your newspaper.
And yet, these boxes still have a relatively lightweight door that could be forced open without too much trouble, and a design that permits a dishonest person to easily take more than one copy. If we were to "DRM-ize" these boxes, they would be more like a soda machine: you put in your credit card and one copy of a newspaper (printed on special fast-fading paper to ensure you don't share it with somebody else) rolls out.
I'm kind of getting of track, so I'm going to stop here, but I just wanted to point out that in each of these instances, putting further restrictions on the product doesn't translate into more revenues.
Ah, the great question! (Score:2, Insightful)
For god's sake. Intel's been decent overall, when did it become their job to discount every allegation just to make some folks happy?
Re:Ah, the great question! (Score:4, Insightful)
The day they started selling chips to their customers.
Re:Ah, the great question! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ah, the great question! (Score:2)
They've done misc. other things through the years which has kept the flavor of their stench from fading from my nostrils, but that was the wake-up call.
(OTOH, if they had only fired the guy, I would just have considered them a stupid company that I never wanted to work for. As it is, I charge them an extra 10% performance penalty whenever I evaluate any of their hardware...perhaps I should consider upping it to 15%, but they are in stiff competition for "most bastardly cpu mfg.", so I probably won't unless this turns out to be another of their frequent lies.)
Re:Ah, the great question! (Score:2)
Could they have put some pressure on the judge, jury, etc to get him convicted?
They have a lot of clout in Oregon, and could impress upon their employees to tell their friends, family, etc, who could include the judge, jury and/or people that know the juge, jury, etc to support them or else they might leave the state, which would hurt the economy, cost jobs (mass layoffs and unemployment going through the roof).
Well, at least the chips shut down or slow down instead of burn down when they get too hot, unlike a certain competitor.
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (Score:2)
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (Score:2)
With your spelling I took that as "Digital Rights Perversion." I think mine would be more accurate
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (Score:2)
Can't there be massive returns saying they sold a product different than advertised? A class action lawsuit?
And what if the NSA wants an ID on the Pentium 3, can they force Intel to have it, while also forcing Intel to keep quiet about it?
I know in the patriot act, the FBI now has powers to do searches without a warrent, and to order the people involved with the search to deny any knowledge you were searched. They do this with banks all the time. They search the account of Mr. T, then order the bank to never tell Mr. T that his account information was taken by the government.
Since Intel is so large, and there are not that many alternative choices (AMD), I can see how it would be easy for government to make these orders and for very few people to know.
And if there is an ID on a pentium 3 chip, how does the internet trafic comming out of a machine look any differet? Is it easy to detect and alter? Is this like the dots printed on HP's that tell the make and where it was sold, to stop people from printing money?
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree completely. Now we have to go back through all of their announcements, minor and major, to determine if there's something which has been said which can be interpreted as DRM.
This is a case of where the media need to reask the question: "Q: Instead of making us reread everything to see if something has been intimated to know what was or wasn't announced, will there be DRM technology incorporated?" There are only two answers: Yes. and No. And if they appear evasive, the media either needs to repeat the question or realize the answer is yes.
And because the spectre of DRM still looms, there are going to be plenty of people who will hold back purchasing the Intel chip until someone reports a problem (you really can't prove there isn't one - back to the old issue of trying to prove a negative) or there will be a mass exodus of people who want to control their environment to AMD; i.e. those of you who haven't already done so.
Intel et al. are going to continue to find themselves in a pickle: do they bed with fellow corporate entities which exert pressure upon them to incorporate these technologies to make it more & more difficult for us to cheat or face "election day" where everyone votes with their checkbook. Some (on the pro-DRM side) may feel people will vote one way with their personal equipment and be forced, in spite of their decision-making position, to make a different choice in the corporate environment; i.e. a "pebbles vs. boulders" situation but it's been my experience the corporate world really doesn't care what's under the covers if the budget and end-users are both happy.
The only thing (other than AMD) which would help keep Intel in check is the same as US politics: three participants. Then it goes from zero-sum to cut-throat. The strategy changes dramatically and it's a lot more fun to watch!
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (Score:2)
To me that statement says..."Yes, it will be present, but that's not what we're calling it."
When I find out that that's actually true, I will up my penalty bonus on Intel from 10% to 15% or 20%. (I.e., the Intel chip/device/software/etc. with need to perform x% better than the equivalent item from the competition at the same price point. Alternatively, it will need to be x% cheaper than the competition for equivalent performance. And I don't use their PR releases to estimate performance/cost. [They lie.])
Liar Paradox (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this like one of those "This statement is false" paradoxes?
Re:Liar Paradox (Score:2)
Re:Liar Paradox (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no DRM that they haven't already announced.
No go out there and find an announcement by Intel about including DRM in their products, and your imaginary paradox will collapse.
Re:Liar Paradox (Score:2)
Obligatory Adm. Ackbar (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Adm. Ackbar (Score:2)
I thank you and my endorphins thank you.
You missed a word. (Score:5, Insightful)
They've mentioned TCPA-style hardware DRM before; it's just been a while. So, for that matter, have AMD and Via, so running to them won't help much.
Re:You missed a word. (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel also appeared to have realised that people are 'not keen' on this technology so maybe there is hope yet that it won't become mandatory on all Processors/Chipsets. I suppose the best we can hope for in the ling term is DRM on hardware sold to corporations and none on hardware sold to private customers.
What is the current situation with DVD regonal codes? They were supposed to be mandatory, but I thought it was still easy enough to get stuff without them.
Re:You missed a word. (Score:3, Informative)
Here in the UK it is trivial to get a region-free DVD player from a high-street store, and nobody will bat an eyelid. Many of the cheap chinese models are region-free from the factory.
Non-region 2 DVDs are somewhat scarce in the shops, though I understand Amazon will deliver anywhere (and they make clear if a DVD will require a multi-region player).
Re:You missed a word. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is very dangerous technology. After DeCSS, you'd think that the media corps would have realized that keys can be cracked. After Nimda, you'd think that people would have learned how dangerious unpatchable systems (like the Intel system) would be.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:2, Informative)
AMD is supposedly making their hardware DRM entirely optional [geek.com], though.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:3, Informative)
The problem only comes when you are required to (or want to) use an application that uses Hardware DRM, in which case you will need to turn it on.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem only comes when you are required to (or want to) use an application that uses Hardware DRM, in which case you will need to turn it on.
Or you want to be compatible with such a platform (e.g. to exchange documents, files or email messages), and that platform has decided to lock you out. This is free market destroying stuff.
---
I'm not worried about the use of DRM. I'm worried about the abuse.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:2)
Of course, it's optional. Just like turning over all you health records to the insurance company is optional. Just like paying taxes is optional. But the cost of exercising that option can be quite high.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:5, Informative)
That story is two and a half years old. I can clarify the actual situation and industry planned future.
When Longhorn comes out in about a year it will only fully function on a Trusted Compliant computer. It will run with a reduced graphics interface and various other portions of the system will not work at all on non-Trusted hardware or if you decline to "opt-in" (if you leave the Trust chip off).
No PC hardware maker can realistically survive selling hardware that is not compatible with the latest version of Windows. No one would buy it, and anyone who does will return it when Windows refuses to run properly. If you ask Microsoft about the problem they will blame it on the hardware manufacture for making "incompatible" hardware.
AMD has announced a project to make Trusted Computing Group compliant chips, exactly the same specifications as Intel is implementing. In fact Intel is shipping an "inactive" version of it already inside the Prescott CPUs and probably others. Exactly the same specification Transmeta is already shipping inside some of their CPUs.
The specifcation requires that the chip be inactive when you buy the computer. Naturally the first thing Windows will do on startup is ask to activate it.
If you buy a coputer without it, or you refuse to turn it on, you will be increasingly screwed. As I said Windows will only run in a brain damaged mode. You will be unable to install any software that makes use of the Trust system. Applications, games, all sorts of stuff will require a Trusted install. Without the Trust system you cannot install, register, activate, and *DECRYPT* the software at all. New file types will be unreadable if you do not "opt-in". You will be increasingly locked out of websites if you do not "opt-in".
And best of all the Trusted Computing has announced a specification called Trusted Network Connect (TNC). Microsoft has issued a press release that they are implementing TNC, but they call it SAP Secure Access Protection. What does this system do? A network access point uses it. When you request a 'net connection, it first checks if you have a Trust chip. If you do, it then checks that you are running an approved and compliant operating system then checks that you are running all mandatory and compliant software. If you are not you get "quarantined", denied internet access. If you do not "opt-in" to the trust system and run mandatory and approved software then you are denied internet access.
It's all documented right on the Trusted Computing Group website. Of course THEY give it a positive spin. The system can ensure you are not infected by a virus or trojan and it can ensure you are running a mandatory and approved firewall. This way the network can protect itself against you being infected and spreading viruses and worms on their network.
Obviously ISP's can't start making this mandatory right now. The Trust system doesn't really begin to roll out until the Longhorn release next summer. It would then take another few years for the majority of PCs to be replaced. PCs get replaced rather quickly through the normal obselecence and upgrade cycle. You can potentially see mandatory Trust compliance for internet access somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
Oh, by the way... the President's Cyber Security Advisor gave a speech at the Washington DC Global Tech summit calling on ISPs to plan on making exactly this sort of system a mandatory part of their Terms of Service for internet access. There's a transcript of the speech on the BSA website. He calls for ISPs to "Secure the National Information Infrastructure" against "Terrorist Attack".
Oh, and have you noticed the stories lately about taking internet government out from under United States Government control? ICANN and the other organisations? Obviously the world will not allow the United States to impose this sort of system on them. Instead Internet Governance will be turned over to UN groups. T
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:4, Funny)
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:2)
The problem is that as it is rolled out, it is the people who do *not* adopt it who increasingly get locked out and increasingly suffer.
The new McDonalds Happymeal will come with a FREE CD! COLLECT THEM ALL! And one CD will be DRM Britney Spears music that only plays on a Trusted Enhanced computer. Another free CD will be a Spongbob Squarepants game that will only install on a Trusted Enhanced computer. And annoying little Tyffyni will whine to mom and dad:
Why doesn't it work on our compyooooter?!
They work at my friend's house on their compyooooter!
Why do we have a crappy old compyooooter?!
We need a new compyooooter!!!!
And mom and dad will go out and buy a New and Enhanced and Compatible computer just to get the damn *FREE* CD to play and shut the kid up.
And that's how it will be forced on you and me. Because it will be normal computers that spit out error messages, normal computers that stop working on teh new stuff... and the majority of the public will buy these new system just to get the damn machine to work right.
-
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:2)
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:2)
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:2)
This system have 2 flaws. First, you can't verify that another system uses TNC by the network. It can always tell you what you want to listen and not complain. Second, FOSS projects can break the DRM stuff and run on a general porpouse computer (not a TCPA machine) telling the programs that it is TCPA compilant.
Not that TCPA group don't intend to do what you say*, but I think that FOSS have a sucessfull defensive strategy to use.
Normaly I would say "I don't think they are so stupid to persue something as flawed." but anti piracy fight has created several stupid moviments aready, so, why not one more. Anyway, I reserve myself the right of being more paranoid than you and think that their strategy is stronger and unknown.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
"Trusted computing" is not about "anti-piracy", it's not about "virus protection" and it's not about "protecting copyrighted materials". These are all being spun as excuses for implementing DRM. But the real reason for this is so for the industry giants to be able to create a powerful cartel that controls the platform, deciding who is or is not "trusted" to develop software --- in other words, they're trying to never have to worry about competition again.
This is not paranoia, it makes perfect sense for them to do what they're doing, and it is absolutely the most logical thing for them to do. They will definitely try to do this; whether or not they succeed is questionable, although they definitely have a decent chance at succeeding. But think about it - they have everything to win and nothing to lose by just trying this.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:2)
It can always tell you what you want to listen and not complain.
Actually with a salted key system, the only way to "always tell the server what it wants" is if the hardware DRM is reverse engineered and a virtual software implementation is written and used.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:2)
This is a little simplified:
The TPM uses public key crypto to sign the PCR information. Each device has its own private key that never leaves the chip. So unless you can pry the lid off your tamper-resistant chip and microprobe the EEPROM contents to get the key, you can't lie about its PCR contents.
If somebody does manage to do this, publishing this key information doesn't help much, because in some network access protocols, you'd have to authenticate with an identity associated with the source device. Oh yeah, and that key will get put on a revocation list.
Believe it or not, not all security measures are designed by idiots. The consumer electronics manufacturers don't have a good batting average, and WEP was a disaster. But when real computer scientists, electrical engineers, and cryptographers are decently funded over many years to design something, don't expect black magic marker to be a countermeasure.
I call bullshit. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I call bullshit. (Score:2)
You used Microsoft's page as your source? You're joking, right? Of course they're going to only put a positive spin on it ... I mean, these are the people who label the Media Player option to "collect information on every single thing I watch and send it to Microsoft" under the heading "Customer Experience Improvement Program".
In other news, I consulted the Chinese government's website to get information on human rights abuses in China, and it just proved that everyone was making a fuss about nothing, there are no human rights abuses going on there. I also checked old Bob Mugabe's website to see if there is political violence being perpetrated there, but again it proved to me that all the fuss was over nothing. Etc.
Re:I call bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, no problem! It's just that everything is scattered across the internet in bits and peices. Each point you want documented pretty much requires a different link.
I've heard nothing about special chips in any of the numerous Longhorn press releases
Microsoft Next-Generation Secure Computing Base - Technical FAQ: [microsoft.com]
Q: What is the "SSC" component of NGSCB?
A: "SSC" refers to the Security Support Component, a new PC hardware component that will be introduced as part of the NGSCB architecture. The SSC is a hardware module that can perform certain cryptographic operations and securely store cryptographic keys [...] The SSC also contains at least one RSA private key and an AES symmetric key, both of which are private to the SSC and are never exported from the chip. (The owner is forbidden to know his own keys, and the chip is required to self destruct if you try to read them out.)
Q: What is the "TPM"? Is that the same as the SSC?
A: The term "SSC" is generally interchangeable with "TPM" or trusted platform module. The TPM is a secure computing hardware module specified by the Trusted Computing Group
Methinks you've got the tinfoil wrapped a little too tightly around your head.
I admit it SOUNDS insane. However I just cited documentation from Microsoft themselves backing up the point you questioned. I can provide documentation on virtually every single point. If there is anything else you still do not believe, just be specific and ask.
-
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have a citation for this?
I can see how some media features might be disabled on non-Trusted systems (this is even true of W2K/XP), but it seems to be a bit of stretch to think MS would gimp the touted graphical features because of unrelated missing hardware.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:3, Informative)
Do you have a citation for this?
I don't recall my original source(s), but I was able to Google this:
Windows "Longhorn" FAQ [winsupersite.com]
In Longhorn, users hoping to take advantage of the system's exciting new capabilities will only be able to use signed drivers.
Microsoft also explains system security enforment requirements to obtain a driver signature. [microsoft.com] The new interface will refuse to work at all without signed drivers.
Is that adaquate? Do you need me to dig up more on it?
-
Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can wrap it in acronyms. You can attempt to misdirect, obfuscate, or otherwise try to hide the fact that Intel sold out to corporate interests.
No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever.
Cant buy intel gear anymore.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its all tainted at this point, unless you make your own.
And if you are using anything that is fairly new, I bet you have some components of DRM that you ( or the rest of us consumers ) dont even realize are there.
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:2, Insightful)
or otherwise try to hide the fact that Intel sold out to corporate interests.
Intel IS a corporate interest. How could they sell out to them? The word you're looking for is 'synergy'.
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I realize some people on slashdot just hate drm, but there are others who think it is a perfectly valid system, as long as any of my rights are not affected.
I would rather have my rights protected, and have value to the product that i purchased, than a bunch of theives to copy it to the extent it has no value what so ever.
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:2, Interesting)
I realize some people on slashdot just hate drm, but there are others who think it is a perfectly valid system, as long as any of my rights are not affected.
Problem is that your rights most likely will be affected. See "The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman. [gnu.org]
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:2)
Can I provide a link to Brave New World and claim that most likely ordinary reproduction will be outlawed and all humans will be cloned in a lab?
Treacherous computing (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Stallman's science fiction short story isn't the only depiction of what could happen in a full "Trusted" Computing paradigm. I linked to it as an accessible description of the consequences of Treacherous Computing. Here are some more factual descriptions: #1 [againsttcpa.com] #2 [gnu.org] #3 [cam.ac.uk]. Please read them and compare TCG's platform as described to what could enable the situation depicted in the story.
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:3, Informative)
Impossible.
The line between infringment and legal use often lies in intent. Short of a mindreading DRM system, it is physically impossible for any meaningful DRM system not to infringe upon Fair Use.
Look, I realize some people on slashdot support drm, but there are others who think it is intolerable to criminalize noninfringing people in some misguided attempt to get DRM to actually work.
I have a question: Do you support the DMCRA? [house.gov] Basiclly what it does is amend the DMCA to say that NONINFRINGING people do not go to prison. That no one goes to prison for making a NONINFRINGING use, or for information, products, or services needed for that NONINFRINGING use.
-
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:3)
See, they claim DRM only stops infringing uses. Even with the DMCRA, it would be illegal to circumvent any DRM that doesn't restrict non-infringing uses.
They claim DRM doesn't do that (a lie). If it didn't - they would have nothing to worry about.
But they know DRM does, and they like the fact that it is illegal to exercise fair use (which is NOT infringement) if in doing so one circumvents DRM.
They like decimating fair use.
By opposing the DMCRA, they will be exposed as hypocrites. If they do not, they will lose their power over us (beyond what copyright with fair use allows them to do).
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
And I would rather have MY rights protected and have the value to the product that I purchased than have a bunch of corporate media congomerates siezing control of MY private property.
So long as I am the one buying and owning MY computer I am only interested in my computer serving my own interests and managing MY digital rights.
If people are violating the RIAA's copyrights, that is entirely the RIAA's problem. I am interested in looking out for my rights, not theirs. You should be also, because I assure you they are not. These people already have enough lawyers, lobbysists and corrupt politicians looking after their rights. If they are going to steal the rights to your own private property, they are most likely not counting on your help in doing it.
No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever (Score:3)
You can wrap it in acronyms. You can attempt to misdirect, obfuscate, or otherwise try to hide the fact that Intel sold out to corporate interests.
No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever. Yeah, wait til you have a choice.
If Intel, AMD, and Via all follow suit, then you will be doing your computing on a wooden instrument moving plastic beads around.
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever (Score:2)
Or a Mac, or a Sun workstation, or...there are many platforms other than x86 which run Linux very well.
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever (Score:2)
You might want to hold that thought [slashdot.org]. Apple is planning on switching to Intel chips next year. Whether or not those chips will be x86s or not is something we'll find out tomorrow at the WWDC.
We still have the Sun SPARC, though, but Sun workstations with SPARC chips aren't exactly affordable. Plus, Sun is already starting to sell Intel x86 workstations, meaning that there is a possiblity that the SPARC can disappear, too.
Oh well, if Intel, AMD, and Via all follow suit, at least we still can buy and use old non-DRM-encumbered chips and run the latest FOSS software (or non-DRM-encumbered proprietary software). We might have to put up with our old and slow chips when everybody else is running their terahertz machines, but at least we're still computing freely and without any encumberances.
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever (Score:2)
Yeah, I remembered about that just after I posted. The point remains, thanks to Pegasos [pegasosppc.com], though they're not really cheap either.
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever (Score:2)
The new computers come with something EXTRA and optional. A new handcuff mode. In normal mode it *is* a normal old computer. You can just buy a new computer and use it in normal old mode. This is how they plan to ensure *everyone* buys Trusted Compliant standard hardware - there's no reason not to.
The catch is that the new software and new files and new websites will only work in handcuff mode. If you are on an old computer, or if you refuse to activate handcuff mode on a new computer, then none of the new stuff works. Old computers get locked out of more and more. Without handcuff mode you are made to suffer more and more. You won't be able to read your mother's e-mail or your boss's e-mail unless you enter handcuff mode. Your mother or boss is going to blame you if you can't read their mail. They're going to complain that you should ave a new compatible computer, that it's your fault.
And in five to ten years you may not be able to get on the internet at all without handcuff mode.
-
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:2)
Once both residential broadband ISPs in your area adopt a policy of giving you an IP address only if your router and all computers connected to it are "trusted", Linux without DRM won't be worth much. Alsee will probably come in and explain more.
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but you won't be able to read any of the new files formats. You won't be able to install/register/decrypt any of the new software. You will get increasingly locked out of websites. In five-to-ten years the Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Network Connect (TNC) system may deny you any internet access at all.
They generously give you a choice. You can voluntarily "opt-in" to using the Trust system and submit to wearing a pair of handcuffs in public, or you can crawl live as free as you like locked inside a virtual prison cell cut off from everone else and everything else.
A chained member of society, or free inside a prison cell.
-
So it's all *Announced* DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
TERRIBLE Link (Score:5, Informative)
The Real Macrovision [wikipedia.org] was developed by a company called Macrovision [macrovision.com] and is used to prevent copying of VHS and DVD video streams with data that interrupts the picture.
Re:TERRIBLE Link (Score:2)
Re:TERRIBLE Link (Score:2)
Re:TERRIBLE Link (Score:2)
But... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:2)
DRM locks out open source (Score:2, Insightful)
they're playing games with semantics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:they're playing games with semantics (Score:2)
Yes. It takes a separate source to document each step, but it is documented that AMD Presidio == Intel La Grande == Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Platform Module specification == Microsoft Palladium "Security Support Component"
You'll also not that Presidio and "Pacifica Virtualization Technology" appear together in Q2 2006. Intel also has a "Virtualization Technology". This is the hardware support for Microsoft's Palladium isolated memory system. It allows software and data to be locked inside a memory "compartment". Even the operating system itself is locked out, that way even the operating system itself cannot peek at memory and defeat a DRM music application for example.
It's hard to dig up any specifications on this Virtualization Technology, but I've seen indications that it *may* involve encrypting the ram itself. If so, software and data would be decrypted/encrypted only when it enters/leaves the CPU internal cache. Even physicaly hacking the hardware to directly read or alter RAM would not do any good. The only way to beat the system would be to physically rip open the CPU itself. And the Trusted Computing specification requires that the chips be boobytrapped to self destruct if it detects you attempting this.
One of the IMP ThinkPad commercials already advertized that they contained 'security chips' that 'self destructed' if you attempt to remove them. Of course they were citing it as security against hackers and theives. They do not mention that the system is explicitly designed to be secure against the owner himself. That it self destructs if the owner attempts to get his own keys out.
-
Re:they're playing games with semantics (Score:2)
True Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
A major problem with the press these days is their total disinterest in covering a "developing story" of a threat, until it has already caused irreparable damage. While threateners are much better at keeping threats secret until they do that damage. Even worse, many of the threats come from preemptive actions that do much damage, before the press reports on the threat itself, or even the preemption, until it's too late.
Julian Bajkowski, in his CTA article [computerworld.com.au] took a vague Intel announcement that new chipsets "support" Microsoft DRM to mean that DRM itself is embedded in the chipsets. Since MS DRM requires all kinds of tech in the chips to support its features that are much more general purpose than just DRM (even simple 8086 memory access and register logic "supports DRM"), that leap is unsubstantiated speculation, though possible. So Bajkowski/CTA presented the analysis unprofessionally - though the analysis itself is worthwhile to discuss.
The modern press is afflicted with a major problem: its staff is so automated, so powerful in research, publishing, and fraternal immediate communication, that journalistic professionalism is no longer necessary to get one's content consumed. The lowered barrier to entry fills the field with unskilled workers; their essential reporting less useful. Because the bad logic undermines credibility, while the slick stationery, flashy handwriting, and express delivery market the message more widely than ever.
I would point out the broad applicability of this criticism to most modern journalism, well beyond chip technology, but that scope seems obvious. Tech is a business long accustomed to PR masquerading as journalism, with informed professionals consuming such journalism with skepticism, cross referencing, and a twitchy BS detector. Beyond the tech beat, most news consumers just accept the journalism at face value. And base much more important decisions on it than which CPU to buy.
Re:True Lies (Score:2)
Re:True Lies (Score:2)
Re:True Lies (Score:2)
It's there (Score:2, Informative)
So, they still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
So there is an uproar from various web sites, people, etc that there is DRM. Intel has to scramble and respond that there is not. Doesn't this give anyone in the business a SMALL CLUE that their customers actually *do not* want DRM?
It's a shame that the market is not as strong as it should be in real capitalism to let people and their pocketbooks speak loudly. People will buy the next Intel chip that has DRM in it because Microsoft says to put it in.
Re:So, they still don't get it (Score:2)
But your point about the market is still valid. Real capitalism only happens with successful information flow end-to-end, and there are several points where it is disrupted.
Clarification On Intel's "Press Release" (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel's press release [theinquirer.net] is based on the fact on that Computerworld's article [computerworld.com.au] claims that Intel is adding unnounced DRM features to their new line of Pentiums. If anyone actually read the article, it does not say ANYWHERE anything about unannounced DRM features. In fact, I would say that the Computerworld article and the Intel press release are saying basically the same thing, with their respective biases present. Honestly, the only thing newsworthy here is that Intel announced the specific DRM implementations in their chipsets.
Lastly, an opinion... DRM is not something I really would like to see implemented on the CPU-level. I don't think "THE MAN" should be controlling what I can or can't do with media that exists on my computer.
Re:Clarification On Intel's "Press Release" (Score:2)
Today, it's the media...tomorrow, it will be the computer itself.
Ok, but it is DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
'Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A'
These are all DRM technologies. The fact that they are not in themselves a complete DRM solution does not mean they are not DRM technologies: they are significant and have an effect on consumers' digital freedom when combined with other technologies.
the real press statement (Score:2, Funny)
</iraqi information minister>
Serial # Fiasco (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Serial # Fiasco (Score:2)
Re:Serial # Fiasco (Score:2)
And here I thought it was the whole "better performance at a lower price" thing.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value (Score:2)
I can see a future where the resale value of current hardware would be exceptionally high.
Doesn't help if you need to network with other people's computers and the makers of those computers decide you can't be "trusted".
I'll say it again, this is free market destroying stuff. The proponents of DRM really have a very naive view of human nature and what vendors are going to do once they have total control.
---
DRM - Democracy Restriction & Manipulation
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value (Score:2)
The functionality exists in 'alternative' operating systems in order to not use Windows altogether, thanks to software like Firefox, OpenOffice, GAIM etc. not to mention that various games companies are starting to support Linux.
Don't worry about it anyway, it'll be a while before Windows actually requires DRM, because MS wants everybody to be able upgrade to their new OS.
This crap will be circumvented. There is a market for it.
Is it just me ... (Score:2)
There's no point in acting all surprised about it! (Score:2, Funny)
Does DRM Really Work? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll take a latte, whip cream, hold the urine (Score:3, Insightful)
China? Taiwan? (Score:3, Insightful)
By reading the frantic comments here, it looks like we were on the verge of a split in the IT world: the DMCA-lobbied part consisting of the US, EU, Australia, etc..., and a DMCA-resistent part consisting of China, Russia and most of the remaining then-free world!
Now imagine a not so far future, where chinese/taiwanese chip manufacturers implemented two versions of their chips: one crippled with DRM for the DMCA-area, the another uncrippled one for the rest of the world and their domestic market. The uncrippled version would have a bit, where one can enable or disable that crap at will, (just like the region-less DVD players, remember that one?), while the DRM in the crippled version could not be turned off.
We'll get the crap, and the Chinese will still be free to get the best of both worlds. Wow! We're living in interesting times.
Re:How about... (Score:2)
Re:I blame it all on Apple (Score:2)