Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Intel Hardware

Intel Claims No DRM 350

Posted by Zonk
from the whos-got-the-facts? dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Claims No DRM

Comments Filter:
  • by Akaihiryuu (786040) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:33PM (#12730537)
    If it's unannounced, I don't expect them to admit to it even if it is really there. The ID on the Pentium 3 was still there as well, even though they claimed to have disabled it after the uproar.
    • Well (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:36PM (#12730559) Homepage
      Now that they've said it isn't in there, if it turns out later that they were lying and it is in there, isn't that class-action-lawsuit worthy material?

      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)

        by nEoN nOoDlE (27594) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @05:30PM (#12731034) Homepage
        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.

        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)

          by SacredNaCl (545593) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @10:59PM (#12732749) Journal
          The key words here are do not have unannounced DRM. They already announced the DRM in their press release, so apparently it just doesn't have some other form of DRM other than the vaguely announced DRM it already has.... This is just playing with words, they haven't changed anything. Its still shipping with the DRM in the chipset, fully activated and ready to go.

      • Interestingly enough the grounds for a class action lawsuit have recently become a lot more stringent. Basically, forget any help from the feds, though I'm not certain that state statutes have been preeempted.

        That happened earlier this year.
      • 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.

        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)

        by KillShill (877105) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:34PM (#12731675)
        they've already started.

        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)

          by Baricom (763970) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @08:03PM (#12731870)
          I don't understand the answer to this, and perhaps somebody more knowledgable can explain it to me.

          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.
    • This is like the question "Do you still beat your wife?"

      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?
      • "when did it become their job to discount every allegation just to make some folks happy?"

        The day they started selling chips to their customers.
      • Mu
    • "Nope...no DRM. These chips do however offer our new "DRP" technology...aka...Digital Rights Prevension, 'cause let's face it...you guys don't deserve any."
    • If it's unannounced, I don't expect them to admit to it even if it is really there. The ID on the Pentium 3 was still there as well, even though they claimed to have disabled it after the uproar.

      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 with

    • we have not added any unannounced

      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 eva
  • Liar Paradox (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Keeper (56691) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:35PM (#12730549)
    "[Intel said the] Pentium D and the 945 chipsets do not have unannounced DRM technology embedded in them"

    Is this like one of those "This statement is false" paradoxes?
  • by OmegaBlac (752432) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:36PM (#12730551)
    "It's a trap!"
  • You missed a word. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eofpi (743493) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:36PM (#12730554) Homepage
    The statement says "no previously unannounced DRM". That's a far cry from saying "no DRM whatsoever", which the submitter (and editor) seems to take it as.

    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.

    • Since they had not officially announced DRM support in the Pentium D processor and the 945 Express Chipset, I think those folks at 'The Register' are justified in taking this Intel statement at face value.

      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 custome
      • by jimicus (737525)
        What is the current situation with DVD regonal codes?

        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).
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Actually corporations would be the first to balk. If a virus writer gets his hands on the DRM-layer keys, he could whipe out all the hard drives on all the computers in a corporation, make the hardware prevent installation of any media, and use the corporate computers as a distributed spam bot. Alternately, the same technology that can be used to format hard drives remotely (without the knowledge of sysadmins) can be used to plant copyright infringing files on computers. If those files are kiddie porn, some
    • Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:2, Informative)

      by codergeek42 (792304)
      So, for that matter, have AMD and Via, so running to them won't help much.

      AMD is supposedly making their hardware DRM entirely optional [geek.com], though. :-)
      • This is a complete non-statement. Hardware DRM was always intended to be optional. PCs are backwards-compatible, so you always can run an OS that knows nothing about DRM chips.

        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.
        • by bit01 (644603)

          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.

        • But if internet access starts requiring this...

          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)

        by Alsee (515537) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @04:50PM (#12730858) Homepage
        AMD is supposedly making their hardware DRM entirely optional

        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
        • by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot@@@monkelectric...com> on Sunday June 05, 2005 @04:59PM (#12730881)
          Thats the scariest thing Ive ever heard. Lucikly nobody will stand for it :)
          • Lucikly nobody will stand for it :)

            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
        • Yeah, that's when I delete every windows partition and switch fully to Linux.
        • Could such a scheme be foiled by running "untrusted" software within a "trusted" virtual machine that interfaces with the outside world?

        • 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

          • by dustmite (667870) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:10PM (#12731559)

            "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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

            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 mic
        • I call bullshit. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by PCM2 (4486)
          This is "informative"? Care to cite a source for all this wisdom you're disseminating? I've heard nothing about special chips in any of the numerous Longhorn press releases (which keep getting re-issued as the ship date marches further and further forward). Microsoft's own page on Trustworthy Computing [microsoft.com] says they have no illusions that achieving "trustworthiness" will be a quick or easy thing, though it does say the initiative includes things as innovative as (whoah) integrating anti-spam and antivirus featu
          • 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, the

          • by Alsee (515537) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:45PM (#12731762) Homepage
            Care to cite a source for all this wisdom you're disseminating?

            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.

            -
        • [Longhorn] will run with a reduced graphics interface and various other portions of the system will not work at all on non-Trusted hardware

          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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:36PM (#12730558)
    DRM = DRM. whether announced or unannounced. You added support for DRM to your hardware. That means I can't buy Intel gear anymore. End of story.

    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.
    • by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @04:07PM (#12730703) Homepage Journal
      Nor anyone else's, if you want to be consistant..

      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.
    • 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'.

    • by badriram (699489) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @04:12PM (#12730730)
      I hope you realize that drm in some form already exists in your computer. For example macrovison is supported by ati, nvidia and intel. So waht are you doing to do, quite using graphics boards...

      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.
      • 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]

        • You expect to be taken seriously, when you take something to be "most likely" because of a sci fi story by RMS?

          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?

          • by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Sunday June 05, 2005 @05:42PM (#12731103) Homepage Journal

            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.

      • drm... a perfectly valid system, as long as any of my rights are not affected.

        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
        • If the DRM supporters weren't liars, they'd be forced to support the DMCRA instead of oppose it - or else they'd be inconsistent.

          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
      • 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.

        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 peop

    • DRM = DRM. whether announced or unannounced. You added support for DRM to your hardware. That means I can't buy Intel gear anymore. End of story.

      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 ar

      • If Intel, AMD, and Via all follow suit, then you will be doing your computing on a wooden instrument moving plastic beads around.

        Or a Mac, or a Sun workstation, or...there are many platforms other than x86 which run Linux very well.

        • 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 o

          • 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.

            Yeah, I remembered about that just after I posted. The point remains, thanks to Pegasos [pegasosppc.com], though they're not really cheap either.

          • You missunderstand how insidious Trusted Computing rollout is. There is no reason to hold onto old 'non-DRM' machines. The new machines can do everything and anything an old computer can do.

            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
  • by billstewart (78916) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:38PM (#12730566) Journal
    OK, so they've actually announced all the DRM as "features". Doesn't mean anybody realized the damage that those features they could do, except the folks on the Dark Side.
  • TERRIBLE Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by mattdev121 (727783) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:42PM (#12730593) Homepage
    Macrovision has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with macromedia.

    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.
  • But... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gregor-e (136142) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:43PM (#12730596) Homepage
    Doesn't having DRM on board just mean that the user can successfully play DRM'ed IP they purchase? Is there anything in this DRM scheme that prevents construction of arbitrary device drivers that divert the un-DRM'ed content on it's way to the speakers/screen?
    • It stops good honest people from making the unauthorized copies from friends.
      • And also prevents good honest people from playing their perfectly legal, original media on an operating system of their choice. Do you think the corps will give Linux developers, for instance, access to DRM specs and code that will facilitate communication with media drives? I don't think so.
  • by bersl2 (689221) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:49PM (#12730621) Journal
    Also, I think everybody should look at this roadmap [c627627.com]. If you look at the chips for the upcoming socket M2, and also the X2 processors that will be shipping in the coming weeks, they are all supposed to have the Presidio "security technology." Isn't that a euphamism for the same thing we're accusing Intel of putting in their chips? I would like it if somebody would get to the bottom of this.
    • Isn't that a euphamism for the same thing we're accusing Intel of putting in their chips?

      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
    • The Presidio technology is supposed to prevent viruses, kind of the the NX bit. It has nothing at all to do with trusted computing or DRM. It's there to make computing more secure. Or at least that's what they're telling us. :S
  • True Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:57PM (#12730653) Homepage Journal
    Even if their denial of including hidden DRM tech is completely true, it justifies the original story, and the community reaction against the idea which clearly produced this denial. Preemptive criticism of such tech from early adopters and qualified critics is valuable. Once the DRM is in the chips, it's much more costly to get it out. And some critics will be quiet, accepting the fait accompli as less likely to be reversed than other priorities with less committed vendor investment.

    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.
    • Even if their denial of including hidden DRM tech is completely true, it justifies the original story, and the community reaction against the idea which clearly produced this denial.
      In other words, "When will Intel stop beating its wife?"
      • If Intel's exwife is all beat up (nonmaskable unique CPU serial# broadcast), and its best friend is a pimp whose bitches are always beat to crap (Microsoft DRM), then, yeah, it's entirely justifiable to ask at least "are you beating your new wife?", even if she hasn't even gotten into her gown yet. And if someone asks "have you stopped beating your wife", they've perhaps gone too far, prematurely, but the rest of us will still want to know. Especially if she's going to live in our houses, and work in our of
  • It's there (Score:2, Informative)

    by northcat (827059)
    So they're not denying that DRM exists in Intel stuff. They're just saying that DRM is not there on Pentium D and the 945 chipset. Other Intel stuff have all that crap they listed - Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and "others".
  • by Darth Maul (19860) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @04:00PM (#12730672) Homepage

    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.
    • Intel started the whole hardware DRM thing. Microsoft only took over the leadership role.

      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.
  • by Xoo (178947) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @04:04PM (#12730687) Journal
    This entire slashdot news post is misleading.

    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.
    • 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.

      Today, it's the media...tomorrow, it will be the computer itself.
  • by mysidia (191772) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @04:09PM (#12730713)

    '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.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    There is no DRM anywhere in our hardware! We do not tolerate any abuse of fair use, and those who do will be encouraged to throw themselves from the roof of our corporate headquarters.

    </iraqi information minister>
  • Serial # Fiasco (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maelstrom (638) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @04:15PM (#12730745) Homepage Journal
    It sounds like Intel may have learned a little something after the fiasco with the unique ID embedded on the chips. AMD took advantage of that gaffe rather quickly, and I believe that was one of the things that helped AMD with mindshare in the geek community. AMD execs would love to see Intel stumble with some braindead DRM in the chip, all they'd have to do is highlight their non-DRM nature and watch their sales increase.

    • AMD and VIA are just as commited to supporting DRM. They claim they will be less evil about it, like giving more options to shut it off, or whatever. Whether it makes any difference remains to be seen.
    • I believe that was one of the things that helped AMD with mindshare in the geek community.

      And here I thought it was the whole "better performance at a lower price" thing.

  • If hardware DRM implemntation is to be the defacto standard in future hardware, then fuck the industry. I've got a 2.8Ghz P4 HT chip and I'm not about to sell it anytime soon. I've got more CPU cycles then I know what to deal with. (for now I suppose) Once DRM enabled chips hit the market, I can see a future where the resale value of current hardware would be exceptionally high.
    • 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

  • Or does this color the appleIntel story from a few days ago? I was thinking, with this Trusted Computring stuff, sounds like time to jump ship to Apple ...but if they switch to intel, there will be no place to hide.
  • All the planning charts and digital rights management orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centuri for 50 of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complains and it's far too late to making a fuss about it now!
  • by KidSock (150684) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:39PM (#12731722)
    I don't understand why someone cannot simply fool DRM-ized software into thinking it's running on a DRM platform through emulation. Meaning why can't someone just implement the Pentium D's DRM chips in software?
  • by The_Wilschon (782534) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @08:00PM (#12731854) Homepage
    I, for one, piss in our new overlords coffee.
  • China? Taiwan? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cpghost (719344) on Monday June 06, 2005 @12:45AM (#12733202) Homepage

    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.

This screen intentionally left blank.

Working...