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)
Liar Paradox (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this like one of those "This statement is false" paradoxes?
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.
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.
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.
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?
So it's all *Announced* DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah, the great question! (Score:4, Insightful)
The day they started selling chips to their customers.
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.
DRM locks out open source (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
Serial # Fiasco (Score:5, Insightful)
Need a new icon for these "big brother" stories. (Score:1, Insightful)
The "patent pending" icon really isn't on target for this kind of story.
Here, I might suggest a "big brother" icon -- for example, showing the cover of a book with the words "1984" and "Orwell" visibly readable.
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: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: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.
-
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:3, Insightful)
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: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: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.
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.
-
I'll take a latte, whip cream, hold the urine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Serial # Fiasco (Score:2, Insightful)
it's now a US requirement for ISPs to implement Trusted Connections for people to get net access. the only way to do that is for hardware level DRM.
so maybe it'll happen a little later for apple users. but the only way to really counter this, is for everyone to cooperate and attack this DRM all over, from the media, to college campuses, every place that they can reach people.
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't just the hardware manufacturers that we need to be concerned about, either. If the government gets involved or changes are made to TCP/IP, non-TCPA systems might not be allowed on the Internet.
One good thing, though, is that I haven't seen Cisco's name on the list of companies that support this TCPA. Since they produce most of the hardware that powers the Internet, there is still hope that most of the world will remain free of this draconian measure.
Relax (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'New Internet' - My thoughts.... (Score:2, Insightful)
For all Netizens who truly care about the free echange of ideas and resources, please archive all the legally shareable bits of the current Internet you can so you can share them on the 'new internet' when you have to and let the IP cartels have the current spammed-out Internet as their own 'private' content distribution medium.
Music and Movies (Score:1, Insightful)
Same thing with video. It will get imported, unless the microphones and cameras are required to be Palladium compatible. If they are, then of course, people are shit out of luck. I suspect there will be backlash, because lots of people have bought $1200 digital camcorders and will be expecting them to continue to function normally until at least 2010.
Right now, with audio disks putting in all kinds of errors to fool the EFM on optical drives, there's not much difference between a digital "rip" and an analog recording. Hell is hell, whether it's painted pink or Olive green.
When the revolution hits, it's going to drop 10% off the stock market. Be ready. Get out now.
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:Well (Score:1, Insightful)
To be honest though, I'm not quite sure of the specifics used to implement such a thing. And when I first heard the idea proposed by Hollywood, I thought it was a joke, and that someone deserved to be fired for it.
I do think that the higher level it is, the less cost it will require (cycle/memory-wise), but the easier it will be to hack.
Out of curiousity, can you tell me how the DRMs are expected not to be hacked in the long term?