Intel to Build DRM into Next-Generation CPUs 952
mdecerbo writes "The Boston Globe is reporting
that next year's Intel processors will include
hardware support for Microsoft's "Palladium"
DRM system. There are chilling privacy implications. AMD, here I come."
I have an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have an idea (Score:2, Insightful)
So, yes, the best way to stop this technological inflation is simply to exploit what we have to the most of their capicities
Re:I have an idea (Score:2, Insightful)
This could be a good way for smaller chipmakers to break into the market. If they refuse to quit selling non-DRM processors, they'll guarentee themselves plenty of geek customers.
Re:I have an idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I guarantee that by the time such chipmakers (Cyrix, AMD, Brand X) decide to produce non-DRM chips in defiance of Intel/MS/Hollywood's monopoly, the act of producing or selling such chips will be deemed illegal, in small, politically-digestible steps.
I also warrant that the penalties for ignoring the law will outstrip those for murder.
Stockpiles, kids. When the last generation of non-DRM CPUs are made, buy as many as you can, and put them in a safe place. Ditto mobos and components, 'cause data drives will be DRMed to only work with approved "protected" CPUs.
I'm not saying that some company won't be manufacturing Freedom Chips. I'm saying that the consequences for owning such devices will be so dire that the market will shrivel and the rogue companies will find themselves bankrupt.
And other nations will not be a safe harbor for manufaturing US-banned equipment for long, either. We're (the U.S.) are the world's only economic and military empire now, and business interests will dictate changes in international and extranational laws at their whim. The majority of the legal shafting has already been accomplished, prepatory to the arrival of DRM-mandates in the near future.
This is why I'm switching to an art career.
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's all just keep our current computers.
I have a better idea: just don't buy a computer with Intel Inside. Let 'em incorporate as many DRM gadgets as they want. Then we buy as many non-DRM compliant gadgets as we want.
In other words, let 'em spawn a whole new market and let theirs wither on the corporate cube vine -- the only place you'll find DRM 'puters in large numbers.
Palladium is waaay overblown (Score:3, Insightful)
Palladium comes down to copy protection of *Windows* software and music in *Windows*, and can, in any event, be disabled.
Worst case Windows users can crack software to make it play even with Palladium turned off, which is pretty much what people already do to attack copy protection on software.
How does it affect us? Why should we care?
And answering "Because MS will make Windows not talk to Linux and isolate it", as some other poster did in these responses, is not good enough. MS has been trying to keep Windows from talking to Linux for a long time.
Re:Palladium is waaay overblown (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Palladium is waaay overblown (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have to. Even if Microsoft owns some patent, it doesn't change anything. Their patent is not valid where I live. It even seems to be the case, that I'm allowed to reverse engineer their software, if that is the only way to get Linux running.
And then you might say, Microsoft can do enough lobying to get other products forbidden by law. Now I'm gonna compare this to countries that already have laws limiting peoples freedom. What do we say about people breaking the laws in those countries? Do we call them criminals? No, we don't, we say they are fighting for their freedom.
I guess in case laws are changed in favour of Microsoft, I'm willing to violate them, because I think that is the right thing to do.
Sorry but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re:Sorry but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I will buy Taiwan Hardware, I scrap My Harley Davidson and Buy and Daewoo right now
redhat and AMD. (Score:5, Interesting)
Say what you want about Redhat being the next Microsoft, but they always release their code. I don't see them going into this if there wasn't some non-DRM products coming from AMD.
--
Mike
Re:redhat and AMD. (Score:3, Informative)
secondly, DRM doesn't imply closed source, and open source doesn't imply "without DRM". it would be perfectly possible to release an OS with a media player under a open source licence and just keep some cryptographic keys secret, without breaching the protection of "secure" content.
Re:redhat and AMD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the future, where you have to get permission to run computer instructions. The penalty for "hacking" this system is $500,000 and 5 years in prison. That's right. If you figure out a clever way to play an MP3 file on your TCPA machine, you're eligible for more time than a drunk driver that killed someone is.
Re:redhat and AMD. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pretty amazing, but this sort of thing has always happened in our technological state. Killing someone is one thing, but impeding "progress" (note the quotes) is severly punished. Of course, "progress" usually involves strenthening the position of the current winners, which is why its usually subject to resistance at some level by the population at large, and why people in power are far more interested in punishing people who impede the furthuring of their interests than punishing the DUI driver who kills somebody they'll never meet.
I think its crazy, but there you have it. This is pretty much a plutocracy (you need money to have your voice heard a la "lobbiest", "analyst", etc), so I'm not sure what methods we can use to oppose these things.
Re:Sorry but... (Score:5, Funny)
Which boat? The Titanic or the Lusitania?
Re:Sorry but... (Score:2)
Now, it may well end up that Windows users end up having to enable it because Windows Media Player or something refuses to play copyrighted movies with it off...but that's why you're using Linux, RIGHT?
Besides, you'd be no worse off on a system with no Palladium support (well, you'd pay maybe $5 less for fewer ICs on hardware in your system...
Re:Sorry but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Adobe is pushing Acrobat as a Web standardd, and has been for years. They make money by making the best, not the only, PDF software out there. They have no interest whatsoever in trying to keep people from using PDF at all.
This isn't MS we're talking about. Slashdot and Adobe have had differences before, but Adobe has a solid reputation for making good (if expensive) products and beating their competition on merit.
Microsoft will do the same thing with Office. It will require applications to get Palladium keys from MS before they will run in Microsoft Windows XXP. Those same applications will not run and documents will not be accessable under a non_MS operating system. Bye bye WINE.
WINE and attempts to read Microsoft formats are fun from a technical perspective, but from a market standpoint, they're mostly pointless. A company does not want to migrate to Linux and have their Win32 pograms work *some* of the time, or be able to read MS Office documents 4/5 of the time.
Trying to out-reverse engineer Microsoft is a losing game. MS can *always* make their software too complex to reverse engineer. In this case, they would be doing exactly what they did with DR-DOS -- checking to see whether their apps are running in their own OS and terminate if not, and keep trying to patch loopholes that let people get the apps running. Palladium is one of many, many means to this end...and MS pulling something like this was inevitable if WINE got popular enough.
The other problem with TCPA/Palladium is that you will be forced to use it (probably by law).
Not a chance in the world. You might not get to play some games if you don't use it, but there will never be a specific law enforcing a particular DRM standard. The best you might get (and this is pushing it) is a set of generic DRM requirements for hardware.
Re:Sorry but... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the craziest thing that I have ever heard. The processor guys should be happy when someone "borrows" software or uses their computer to rip their CDs to Oggs. Every cent that Intel's and AMD's customers spend on software and media content is one more cent that they aren't spending on computer hardware. More importantly, sharing media and software is increasingly what people want to do with their computers. Given the choice of an old slow PC that allows them to rip MP3s and a new computer that doesn't (and that costs a pile of money) many folks are going to choose to stick with their old hardware. If AMD and Intel think that the PC market it soft now, just wait until they start treating their customer like criminals. Especially since you don't really need a new computer unless you are working with multimedia. If all you want to do is some word processing your old machine is almost certainly fast enough.
You want to know when Linux is going to be truly ready for the home desktop? It will be ready when Microsoft starts really pushing Palladium. Until that time users in North America and Europe will gladly pay a little extra to stick with what they already know (Windows). When Microsoft makes it impossible for people to use their computers like they want, all of a sudden folks are going to realize that Linux isn't that hard to use after all.
These companies are writing their own epitaph.
Re:Replace it when it breaks (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you that the computer is becoming an appliance. But Intel and AMD shouldn't be accelerating this process along! They should be doing everything in their power to make sure that the computer is useable as a general purpose device, and the reason for this is simple, they would make a lot less money if computers had 10 upgrade cycles as opposed to 3 year upgrade cycles.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is happy to switch to the idea of the computer as an appliance because they are tired of forcing their customers along the upgrade treadmill. They want to charge their customers a monthly fee and then pare down their research to a much lower level. As long as the PC remains an open system this isn't likely to work in the long term because Linux will eventually pass them up if they slow down. So Microsoft is using their current market clout to close down the market.
Not that this is likely to work, but that's what is happening.
Time to rush the stores (Score:2)
Does this really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:5, Informative)
Currently, you can play DVD's on linux with a minimum of hassle, and you can do perfectly normal and legitimate things with them like make backups, copy and manipulate screen shots, etc. After the adoption of Palladium, DVD's (or their successors) could be designed to play only on trusted players that don't allow you to do these things, and circumventing these restrictions will require hardware modifications.
Do you see a problem now?
--Bruce F.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shortly thereafter, expect MS "enhancements" to IE that can allow web sites to disable the view source, copy, paste, and print functions on web pages. You'll have to have palladium enabled to view those sites.
You'll start see processor ads relating the processor to the internet that aren't lying. "See more of the internet with the new Intel Pentium 6 processor."
Welcome to the Microsoft only internet. You'll have to purchase a new computer and OS license to participate.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
This will happen. DRM is "optional" in that you can turn it on or not turn it on. The trick, of course, is that anyone can ask and rely on the trusted client to tell it whether it is on or off. The countermeasure that we MUST be prepared to do is this: we must configure our web pages, content, and programs to require that it be off. That is, we must force users to choose whether they want to see our stuff or DRM stuff.
I would go so far to say that we should set up IP blacklists for people who are "caught" turning DRM on. Palladium is a nasty measure -- we are going to have to fight back with equally nasty responses.
I also predict that when this is finally cracked, somebody will write a virus that cannot be deleted.
POC: Cookies (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect most people got tired very quickly of deciding and just accept all cookies. Now site designers say, "Oh, people don't mind, we never get complaints. Most people have them enabled anyway." They don't complain because once you give in you never know how many cookies you're getting (except by the increase in your spam percentage maybe).
Palladium on the Web will work the same way. Lots of people will leave it off at first, but when half the sites they want to visit (including things like online banking, for example) require PD to be switched on for entry, they'll be worn down into leaving it on all the time.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can hide your head in the sand and pretend that you don't want to polarize people over this, but that will result in an "optional DRM" becoming the non-optional standard, and then in a few years DRM will become mandatory.
The critical factor is that we must have better content value than them. Disney and the "cool games" sites you refer to will be for pay, so I definitely think this is possible.
The other side has chosen the route of polarizing, not us. They will only deliver content to people who adopt a certain subserviant mentality and technology. We must make people understand that in addition to accepting shackles, they lose access to things they like.
The only route that leads to information freedom is to polarize and then extinguish the other side.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
For true DRM to work then the system will have to reject all non-licensed software. This is especially true at the OS level. After all, if you can get at the bits (say use Linux or DOS to access an NTFS partition) then you're more than half way to breaking the protection.
So, generation one support of DRM probably isn't too bad a thing. It'll be an option like the ol' CPU ID thing that Intel got flamed over. It's generations two and three that we have to worry about. (Especially if any of the Disney Senators' legislation passes.)
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their model is not based on locking people in at the hardware level. Rather they're trying to build a web of interdependence.
You need to decide if there's something you can't live without which is tied into Palladium (or anything else, for that matter.) If you decide you can't live without the latest Video game, which runs only under Palladium, then you'll be running Palladium. If some Top 40 boy band hit is your only reason for living, you'll either buy the DRM-protected CD, or you'll do without. Microsoft's strategy is to build a web (no relation to html or http) of interdependence which involves your paying money to them at some point. You can always choose to avoid microsoft, but you'll have to also choose to live without everything tied into them as well.
Some examples: Perhaps you've decided that you can't live without a call phone. So Microsoft builds a dependency between having a cell phone and using windows: an earlier slashdot story relates how this was done through Verison using the requirement for a Microsoft Passport.
Another common example is the proliferation of Internet Explorer-only web pages. If you can't live without a certain web site, and that site goes IE-only, then you'll be running Microsoft software for as long as you need that site, and you'll be running IE under Windows just as soon as Microsoft feels they can drop support for other operating systems.
It begs the question of how long it will be before such common necessities as voting, cashing a paycheck, getting a drivers license, applying for a job, paying your bills, accessing healthcare, etc will require an active account with Microsoft? I suspect it will happen rather sooner that most of us expect, after all, for the majority of people who already use a Microsoft product at home or at work, such a requirement is not a barrier because it's already met. For them that day has already passed, and we didn't even notice as it flew by.
It's the same model Red Hat is using to maintain and build their customer base, despite the claim that all of their software is free and open. Try installing a kernel source package from the Red Hat 7.3 distribution onto a system using Red Hat 7.2 without forcing against the dependencies. The package dependencies are built such that eventually you have to upgrade RPM itself to the 7.3 level, which cannot be done (AFAIK) using RPM on a live system. To use 7.3 packages, you have to install (or upgrade to) 7.3.
We already have the same dependencies built into the telephone; try to get a job, access government services, or get emergency assistance without a telephone. The result there was a monopoly (for decades) in a single, highly regulated, provider. The phone company was authorized to charge you out the wazoo for basic phone service, and develop new innovations at a snails-pace, prevent you from attaching unapproved equipment to their system (at one time it was illegal to attach a plastic cone to the receiver to block outside noise).
But I wonder: If we hog-tie our technology innovation as much as we did with the development of telecommunications, will the tech industries of our foreign compettitors be as willing to wait for us to get our act together? Or will they just write us off as yet anoyther former technology leader who couldn't keep their act together?
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:2)
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can run on Palladium class hardware if you like and still not use Palladium. The only restriction being that then you cannot receive or display or do anything with Palladium controlled content.
A ripped CD is not Palladium controlled content. Nor for that matter is any mass produced physical media going to be Palladium controlled unless consumers are going to suddenly take to calling up a hotline to register their copy of the latest U2 album...
Also note that the original story in the Boston Globe has not been confirmed by an Intel press release. It would be somewhat 'off-message' for a company to announce support for Palladium on the same day they launch a completely new line of chips for laptops.
What Intel did announce is that they are embedding private keys into their Banias line of chips [yahoo.com] which provide integrated support for 802.11a/b.
This is a journalist looking to invent a story.
Paul Otellini, Intel's president, said the chip maker would include no copyright protections in LaGrande, but he acknowledged that digital publishers could use the technology with software programs such as Palladium to create their own.
You can't do DRM without trusted hardware but DRM is not the only use for trusted hardware, nor is any old trusted hardware sufficient for DRM.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:2)
If push comes to shove, I'll buy a fucking Macintosh and Billy Gates can eat my shit.
Time to stock up on pre-ban CPUs I guess... (Score:2)
Don't worry! It's opt-in! Everything will be OK! (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2, Informative)
MS users - have a nice day - if you can!
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
You might want to look at the poll today. At this time only 34% are Linux users and 47% are using 95 thru XP.
Besides, eventually Linux will not be 'allowed' to run on this processor. So you *better* care.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
Besides, eventually Linux will not be 'allowed' to run on this processor.
At which point I use another processor.
So you *better* care.
Why? Can't I wait until this actually happens to care about it?
Actually, I don't use Linux, so I guess I don't even care about that. Though by the time they implement this I will hopefully have switched.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, this affects everyone. Mind you, I'm told that Palladium will always be able to be shut off via the BIOS, so you can always buy a Palladium-enabled processor and make it act as if it isn't. That's not the problem, really.
The problem is that Palladium is hardware-embedded Digital Rights Denial. It's paving the way for music and movies that won't play at all unless you have a Palladium-enabled processor. And if you do enable Palladium, you'll be subject to the same restrictive crap that the media cartels have been trying unsuccessfully to push over the last several years. Movies that you can't move to other computers, and that only work as long as you remain subscribed to MovieConglomerate.com or wherever your got them.
Will this all work out in the long run? Well, it depends on how people react. If they continue to reject hightly restricted content, we should be fine. If not, well, say goodbye to the Open Internet. It was fun while it lasted.
8mm Jack (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
If you're right about that, then slashdot-type geeks will tend to keep one DRM-enabled computer for games and movies, and another DRM-disabled computer for hacking. The cost of doing so wouldn't be prohibitive these days.
I'm less concerned about that scenario than I am about CBDTPA-style edicts that would take away our right to use free software by force of law.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
I simply won't buy (and won't play) their movies.
Besides, think about it: how much do you really want to watch movies on your computer anyway? I'll gladly play DVDs on my big-ass television, go to the theater, or -- gasp! -- read a book.
Actually, this is slightly off-topic, but all this DRM has been one reason I've been staying *away* from all things computer as much as possible. I've been rediscovering the pleasures of reading -- reading actual books, not encrypted PDF files -- and (again, GASP!) I really like it.
This isn't the only reason I'm trying to make an effort to reconnect with deadwood books, but it's got me thinking -- especially as I'm sitting outside on a sunny day with my feet up -- how much I enjoyed reading as a kid (pre-computer days, BTW) and how little I've done it recently.
Stuff I've read recently:
- Virginia Woolf _Orlando_
- Ursula LeGuin, _Left Hand of Darkness_
- Joseph Conrad, _Under Western Eyes_
- Tolstoy, _Hadji Murad_ (You think this stuff with Russia and the Chechens is news? Try reading Hadji Murad. You realize it's been going on for over a hundred years.)
- Robert Jordan, first WOT book
- Robert E. Howard/L Sprague deCamp, a couple old Conan books I dug up in my boyhood box of books
- Abraham Cahan, _The Rise of David Levinky_ (Great book about coming to America at the turn of the century and growing up in NYC)
- Henry Roth, _Call it Sleep_ (Another great coming-of-age story. Coming to America from Europe.)
- W.G. Sebald _The Rings of Saturn_ (sort of a Borges meets Bruce Chatwin -- fascinating and very eerie.)
- Frank Herbert _Dune_ (Never read it. Loved it!)
- Heinrich Boll, _The Silent Angel_ (German soldier comes home and in the final days of WWII finds his hometown in ruins. Powerful, powerful book -- very moving, very sad.)
- Camus, The Stranger (Wow. Never read this either. Sat down and read it straight through. Renault is one interesting dude. This is the book where he kills an Arab for no (apparent) reason. But I guess that's the question: why did he kill the Arab on the beach?)
Anyway, no one hardly talks about this stuff here -- reading deadwood books (not that there's any particular reason to) -- but I just thought I'd add my two cents. I sincerely believe that the end result of any DRM technology is an intense, intense interest in retro-technology. Not that books are exactly retro, but you know what I mean. A rediscovery of all the cool things that Microsoft and Intel brainwashed us into thinking were dead -- the "good enough" technology.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
How can you load data into your encrypted (trusted) HD?
How can you bypass the trusted supervisor and convince it to allow you to do the things we take for granted now?
The reason MickeySoft wants to trust the computer, is so they can tell the computer to not trust us....
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
Point/Counterpoint (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast majority of people (read; the EULA oblivious) will not adopt it anyway and;
Microsoft will not make it impossible to talk to untrusted machines.
I won't draw any conclusions from this and I won't talk about how the world is going to hell in a digital handbasket, but it's food for thought.
Re:Point/Counterpoint (Score:2)
I have over 800 cans of tomato soup in the lead lined bomb shelter underneath my house. I can eat those for a loooooong time. Think I'd hit can 800 before opening the bulkhead?
the same issue came up with the pIII (Score:5, Interesting)
however, due to the public backlash about having "big brother" track what their computers were doing, they allowed users to disable that hardware code from being detected.
the hardcoded serial on those pentium III were just a precursor to palladium, however. think of it more of a proof of concept that such a device would work. intel was always heading toward palladium.
Re:the same issue came up with the pIII (Score:3, Informative)
Intel initally insisted that since all models where shipped with this functionality disabled, there was no privacy threat. In fact, Intel contended that only users could reactivate it, and therefore only users who wanted to be tracked would be exposed.
This was untrue. [heise.de]
This time, howover, Intel is not alone....
No geek apeal (Score:2)
If they want hacker followers they should call the personal information sharing agent "My Women"
Everyone Should Read This (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Re:Everyone Should Read This (Score:2)
I believe the reason that the clipper chip did not take off is because _business_ does not trust the gov't not to snoop. Business is less enamored with dogma and more committed to dispassionate pragmatism. The ability for the FBI et al to snoop on the so-called mafia also gives them the ability to snoop on Microsoft (there's that good/bad dichotomy again ;-). Since business ultimately rules the government, the needs for secrecy in business will weigh against the grant of skeliton keys to governments.
IMHO.
Comprehensive Details about Palladium (Score:5, Informative)
Being a geek I got more mileage out of reading the technical details on palladium by a member of the EFF (Seth Schoen) who was at a presentation [loyalty.org] and TCPA and Palladium: Sony Inside [kuro5hin.org] an article on kuro5hin by a former Microserf.
Disclaimer:The opinions expressed in this post are mine and do not reflect the opinions, thoughts, strategies or plans of my employer.
Oh well (Score:2)
But this does raise an interesting question: Does Windows XP already have these types of systems in it, and the processor support will make it come to life?
25 Million Mac users stand up and applaud (Score:5, Insightful)
While i've been telling my Windows colleagues that this was coming - none of them believed.
And now - bonus - XP.5 and Intel both, in the same week - prove me right.
God.. its good to buy from the "most dangerous company to Intellectual Property today"
Re:25 Million Mac users stand up and applaud (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe not a big deal, but to me (someone pondering buying a mac) that's one of the big things seperating OSX and other *nix. Perhaps I've just not used it enough.
Not only MS. (Score:3, Interesting)
But every single interest group out there will pressure Apple to conform. Do you really think that they would leave a major American manufacturer to be the hole in the wall? They are going to have enough problems with Taiwan/Asian manufacturers as it is.
And isn't Apple rumored to start using x86 chips soon?
Re:25 Million Mac users stand up and applaud (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:25 Million Mac users stand up and applaud (Score:2)
Hmm... That looks a little bit familiar...
Re:25 Million Mac users stand up and applaud (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, Mac will lose too (Score:3, Insightful)
Very simply:
1. Palladium-encrypted (broken) content media helps keep Content Industries (contrast with: Artists) alive by giving them control, so they like it.
2. As soon as it's profitable to do so, the CIs will Palladium-encrypt (break) every piece of media they can.
3. When Palladium is available everywhere, it will be profitable for the CIs to digitally Palladium-encrypt (break) every piece of Mass Market Content that they create.
4. Any piece of Palladium-encrypted content--DVD, Music CD, software program--that is not signed will fail to play unless Palladium is there to decrypt it.
5. The MS monopoly (and Intel's and AMD's respective complicity in that monopoly) can make sure that Palladium is available almost everywhere at once.
6. When broken content is the norm, Mac and Linux will not be able to use that content any more without supporting Palladium.
7. Mac and Linux will have to either support Palladium or (illegally!!, in the US) circumvent it to be useful.
8. Linux is not an organization, so it will likely go in both directions at once.
9. Mac is an organization, and it will probably not support circumvention.
This is very, very bad. Our best hope is for a severe Microsoft anti-trust penalty, and for our legislators to wise up and stop passing laws to prop up business plans.
Was there, tried that... (Score:2)
According to the link in my sig, Intel has a knack for attempting product 'innovations' that aren't very consumer-friendly. My what short memories people have - this is what the Intel CPUID debacle was all about. Now they're going after it again, only under a more righteous-sounding moniker: "Palladium". It sounds like a place you'd go on Friday nights to have fun, but I suspect that fun is the last thing that will come of this mess.
AMD will do whatever MS says (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you guys forget the rumors that Microsoft's support of X86-64 was due to AMD standing behind them?
If Intel is doing this, AMD will be right behind them. They'll do anything to preserve their relationship with Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong, I love AMD, but they're just as corporate as the rest of the semiconductor industry.
Re:AMD will do whatever MS says (Score:2)
Also, Microsoft has realized for a long time being dependent on Intel is bad news; they've been trying to find options for quite a long time. I still remembr the folks at Intel weren't very happy when Microsoft demoed an early version of Windows NT (back in the early 90's) using a non-intel platform (can't remember if it was MIPS or Alpha). Being able to show Intel that they're not *that* badly needed would probably be good for Bill's boys.
Apparently then the AMD-Microsoft relationship is mutually beneficial for them.
No AMD for me as well (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think you'll find much comfort in AMD. They are in that DRM working group with MS & Intel. They are also much more eagar to suck up to MS. Their ex-CEO Jerry Whatever said something like: "Wake up, MS has won. I ain't supporting Linux.." in that interview a couple of months ago (it was posted here). I think more appropriate response is: VIA/Apple here I come!
Can't this be turned off? (Score:2, Insightful)
Time to email again... (Score:2)
I plan on sending out 2 emails, one to Intel and one to AMD. They will state that I will buy whichever processor has the same support to turn this OFF in the bios that the cpuID had and if neither of them do this, I will move to only Mac's.
Now, I don't usually get all email-y/petition-y about this kind of thing, but it's worked before. We're the consumers here. Let's tell the manufacturers what -we- want.
Any responses I get will be posted on the web for all to read.
--
Mike
What about Transmeta (Score:2, Interesting)
overhead (Score:2, Insightful)
Time to bug out! (Score:3, Insightful)
This will only encourage my move towards Apple stuff - or Motorola and IBM announced hardware DRM as well?
anyone noticed (Score:2, Funny)
shouldn't that be "The Man"?
or "Bill's The Man"?
or maybe even "All your privacy are belong to us Man"?
h357
The future, viruses, and adoption (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, I think the adoption rate of people Using this will be low. I know MS will want everyone to run only certified and signed code - but will a critical mass of companies actually agree to (pay?) MS 'approving' there software? And how is this going to work with security breaches in software? What if a piece of software is found to be exploitable, and hijacked into spreading viruses?
I don't think enough software will be signed to allow the average user to only run signed software.
Also, ppl like to own things they purchase. Video On Demand is an interesting idea, but there are lots of problems that keep people away from it. Worries about losing the connection, a crash and having to reboot (and losing the 2$ spent to do it), watching things on a computer screen, archiving, connection speed problems.. the list goes on, and when you add in the whole DRM stuff, it's a lot less attractive..
So I don't see enough people trying to get content that will rely on this feature either.
All in all I think it will kill itself - though I admit to still being worried it succeeds. The possible bad future is too severe to be ignored.
Y'all are PARANOID. (Score:2)
Don't worry about it. All DRM is defeatable, and it's MUCH better than the alternative (unrippable CDs, anyone?)
- A.P.
So what? (Score:2)
PS: I don't endorse Intel, nor Microsofts DRM bs, I'm just voicing my worthless opinion..
Responding to consumer demand (Score:2)
Many people on Slashdot just don't seem to understand how having completely free markets in the USA leads to companies supplying the best possible products for their customers. This is just an example of that.
(Yes, this is sarcasm).
good article at the register (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/27047.html [theregister.co.uk]
AMD won't be immune (Score:2, Insightful)
Suffice to say, all of this is going to blow.
Negative effect for MS? (Score:2)
I have struggled with MS vs Linux for quite some time now. Over the past several years I have set up various Linux boxes and used them initially, but I always found myself migrating back to the Windows box for simple and daily tasks. Tasks that would seem a lot easier and quicker on Windows vs the Linux boxes (only desktop/office/school tasks though, my OpenBSD box has a permanent place on my shelf as my designated household router/firewall). However, if Palladium interfaces caused enough of a problem with my fair use rights (and perhaps even some non-fair use) I would be forced to leave my Windows boxes and set up some Linux boxes for my permanent use. And I have a feeling that there are a lot of people out there that may be in a similar situation: they know about Linux, perhaps have checked it out a few times, and are just waiting for some sort of bomb shell to put them on the other side of the fence. If people suddenly could no longer play their music collection, or open up important documents, they might decide to take a dive into the alternative(s).
Sorry Connectix... (Score:3, Interesting)
No more Virtual PC - well, not any Virtual PC's which require Le Grange.
Unless they come up with some way to emulate a valid key that changes with each install.
I don't know - how is Connectix going to deal with this? Can they?
See Cringely Commentary (Score:5, Interesting)
Bob said it much better than I can.
You said it Bob. Thank you.
Remember the CPU ID Fiasco? (Score:2)
Now that Intel has is planning to make it concrete and real, it will be interesting to see if the backlash is to the same level as it was for the CPU ID.
Two omissions in the article (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose they're making a decent effort at reporting on this in an even-handed way, but the Globe missed two important points.
Okay, I take it back... (Score:2)
What does this mean for Verisign? (Score:2, Interesting)
What will China and other countries do? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't seem like a very smart business decision to lock yourself out of the fastest-growing market in the world.
Not necessarily a bad thing (Score:2)
From what I can tell, the overall thrust of this technology is to allow Microsoft(tm) to prevent a user from doing anything to patch or change certain behaviors of the OS. Basically, it's purpose is to prevent people with physical access from "rooting" the box. If we could leverage that tech to prevent a server at a co-lo from being trojaned, wouldn't that be a good thing? Perhaps there will be whole classes of expliots which will become impossible, or at least controllable? It's hard to say without knowing more. But I don't think we should automatically write off the technology just because some vendors plan on using it to screw their customers.
Peripherals are the real problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I encourage this. Here's why ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?
Because it will herald a great (and much needed) rebirth of "personal computing." It'll launch (IMHO) a fairly comprehensive reassessment and reappraisal of why we use computers in the first place. And it'll most likely start a significant portion of us back on (or near) square one -- the late 1970's where the notion of "personal computing" really took off.
I'm serious. For those of us alive in the late 70's, it was a great time to be a "hobbyist." There weren't geeks and no real "hackers" or "script-kiddies". Just a bunch of people who -- especially here in America -- shared a common passion for building little boxes out of solder, wires, and circuit boards so that -- after everything was assembled correctly -- we could watch a couple lights blink on and off.
Later, once stuff like the TRS-80 and AppleII gained ground, it was really pretty cool. I still remember hanging out in the arcades and trying to write stuff like a TRS-80 version of Pac Man or Donkey Kong in Z80 assembly language with -- what? -- 127 X 47 blocky, black and white graphics.
(Insert snide comment here about old, outdated graphics, but if you do, you miss the point.)
I see this sort of "community hobbyism" in the Linux community (even though they don't call it that) but I think if Microsoft pushes forth this Palladium, we'll see a pretty significant split between those who embrace whatever new technology comes down the pike and those who take a hard look at where we've been and what we've achieved vis a vis Palladium and realize that better technology doesn't necessarily mean much. It means better technology, maybe, but it certainly doesn't herald or promised a better "user experience."
Palladium will also, I think, significant a fairly radical leap in the notion of "personal computing." This DRM technology is not personal computing. It's corporate computing. There's nothing personal about it. There's not much fun about it either. It leaves the "hobbyists" -- now called geeks, I guess -- out in the cold and looking toward all the nifty retro-tech.
The retro-tech movement, I think, will be stronger than ever if Palladium -- or something like it -- comes to pass. What that means -- retro-tech -- I'm not entirely sure, but I think it will be a gradual awareness that "good enough" really is "good enough" and something along the lines of "personal computing is dead, long live personal computing!"
It's easy to disable, but it won't help (Score:3, Insightful)
The real question is how obnoxious Microsoft will make the OS restrictions.
Incidentally, we ought to be seeing some Palladium-enabled games soon, ones where modified clients can be detected by the server. That will be how the technology gets debugged.
What to do with friends who pirate? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've talked to this person and they say "Oh, I just copy movies I wouldn't rent anyway." (I assume because they are too expensive) They have a valid point since some products are just ridiculously expensive. But they are not helping the problem. If they spent their effort protesting, or finding alternatives as they did pirating, we would be in good shape. I would probably be better off paying them $10/month and having them rent the movies, than to spend it writing letters.
What should I do? Do I turn them in? Do I hassle them? Do I pay them to stop doing it? It's my rights they are taking away, but turning them in seems ridiculous. Is there somethnig we can do in mass that could prevent this problem?
BS aside, here's a serious question. (Score:3, Interesting)
My first thought would be some sort of cryptographic challenge/response would be used to signal this fact. But client B is totally under our control, since we've disabled the secure mode of the CPU, or we're running a non-DRM OS, or we have a legacy CPU, or whatever. So now it appears that we're back to the same situation as the content scrambling system on DVDs. There's some secret key or challenge/response protocol imbedded in the secure OS that's supposed to be running on client B. But we've hacked that software, found the key, whatever. As long as we have the binaries to this OS, someone will eventually find the secret key and that will be the end of that.
In short, how could this form of digital rights management ever work? The situation is almost exactly analogous to DVDs, as far as I can tell -- you have the "trusted" clients (consumer DVD players -> Microsoft's future palladium OS) and the "untrusted" clients (standard PCs with DVD ROMs -> standard PCs running non-DRM OS.)
How does this protect anything? Why go to all the trouble?
Re:Put on your tinfoil hat!! (Score:2)
Re:Put on your tinfoil hat!! (Score:2)
In this case, the masses are stupid enough to accept DRM-enabled machines for the tradeoff that they get to view some neat-o movie clips on their computer. The masses have some culpability in this, but one could argue that this is one place where the government should step in and prevent a few companies from greatly changing the landscape of information exchange in a way that only benefits a few.
Re:Put on your tinfoil hat!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because we're not required to use it doesn't mean it won't do anything. When Microsoft controls 95% of the desktop market, and they're regulating those desktops, that gives them a lot of power. And they've proven that they'll stoop low to push out competition.
I won't go any further than that, it would be speculation, but don't tell me that because we're not forced into buying it that it doesn't affect us.
That also doesn't take into account the wonderful people in Congress who are looking at the TCPA as law.
Re:Put on your tinfoil hat!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Now consider the fact that there will be a huge amount of money (i.e. the content providers) pushing legislation to make certain that ALL computers are sold with DRM. How long do you think that will take? I'm sure they'll be doing it 'for the children', too.
Re:Mod up! (Score:2, Informative)
That's why they run ~95% of the desktop market.
Look around! That libertarian "vote with your money" argument doesn't work often in the real world, simply because most folks are not intellectuals. Most folks don't care.
Re:wonder how... (Score:2, Offtopic)
delete from inbox subject like '%amd%' or like '&gnu&' or like '%gpl%';
something like that.
that'll get rid of all that nasty spam that they decide is bad for you.
DO NOT trust people who can make money off you.
Re:wonder how... (Score:2)
That means that M$ can now "embrace and extend" themselves to spam now and make $$$ tons of money sending targeted spam.
How is it targeted? They'll find a way.....
Re:Three words for Intel (Score:2)
Pants down... bend over... here comes Microsoft and Intel!
That was 9 words, dude.
Not as funny as you might think (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, once they hammer all the fun out of it by making it like cable TV what's the fucking point?
Re:Not as funny as you might think (Score:4, Insightful)
"I mean, once they hammer all the fun out of it by making it like cable TV what's the fucking point?"
Hey, it was inevitable. Really.
Let's look at how the other "media" have fared:
"Knowledge is power." But knowledge doesn't travel by itself, it must be communicated. He who controls that communication controls everything. The wealthy and powerful know this, and will always strive to control what we see, hear, and hence, what we think. That's why every means of communication will inexorably move from one-to-one to a broadcast paradigm.
Why should networked personal computers be any different?
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
Maybe AMD will take the entire geek market, by ofering a ClawHammer Lite all of the power that you have come to love with none of the DRM.