Slashdot Mirror
Intel Launches DRM-Enabled CPUs for Phones and Handhelds
squidfrog writes "AP reports, 'The next generation of Intel Corp. microprocessors for cell phones and handheld computers will, for the first time, include hard-wired security features that can enforce copy protection and help prevent hackers from wreaking havoc on wireless networks.' Or more ominously, 'The same technology also can be used to ensure that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder. A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.'" Intel has a press release.
Is that it will sell just as well as non-DRM'd hardware because the masses are clueless as to what it does.
We as geeks need to inform people about this thing.
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
'The same technology also can be used to ensure that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder. A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.'"
Right, unless you hold down the Shift key when you put the CD in... honestly people, as long as its digital, people will discover loopholes around the system and break it. I don't want to say the effort is pointless, but it definitely is a losing battle.
yeah, that's how it works in an ideal world. but then we wouldn't need DRM in the first place would we?
consider the recently released PC game Painkiller that contains SafeDisc anti-copy protection. this contains a blacklist. if you have any of the blacklisted hardware/software, the game won't run. the list includes:
-CD-writers
-Nero writer software
-virtual CD drive software
the net result: people who have legitimately purchased the game cannot run it. they have done absolutely nothing "wrong" in either the legal, ethical or technical meanings of the word. their only hope to use the product they have purchased is to bypass the copy-protection, making them criminals in the USA under the DMCA.
DRM isn't generally as bad as this case, but it is still fundamentaly flawed in that it can only work properly under perfectly controlled circumstances. that means saying goodbye to flexibility, and in some cases usability.
Ok. Now convince everybody who doesn't have a clue or don't care about DRM, to stop buying intel products so it will never succeed...<BR>
Copyright doesn't grant you anything resembling the rights granted by DRM.
Assuming it does is philisophically/economically/legally bankrupt.
I live in a giant bucket.
How the fuck did we get to the point where music needs to be "secure content"?
What happened to kids having jam sessions in their parents' garages?
What happened to aboriginies hitting sticks against each other?
Or bands playing gigs in pubs?
Yes, these are careers and corporations, but just think about then and now. Music for the love of it then, music for the money in it now.
RIAA/MPAA & friends need to step back and take a look at what they're doing and requesting from hardware, software, and people.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Rightsholders not only want to exercise their rights, but also forbid you from exercising yours.
That is the true heart of the problem, and the protest. Personally I've got far more paid-for content than not, and I'm very willing to pay for content as long as I can make full use of it.
However, I am not going to shell out my cash for content I can only use at home, on a Tuesday, if it's sunny, and I can get my DRM-enabled software to work. Furthermore I'm unwilling to repeatedly pay for content every time the distribution method changes - ie: from tape to CD, from VHS to DVD, etc. I want to be able to make the choice to "upgrade" my media based on the benefits of the media or the media delivery system. There are real benefits to be had by buying my movie collection as DVDs, but I want to be able to make that choice not have that choice forced on me.
If DRM becomes ubiquitous then you can guarantee that content will be "leased" and not sold. The sale model will be deprecated and all your content will be rented on a schedule dictated purely by the rightsholders.
DRM means you say goodbye to the general purpose computing machine. It means you say goodbye to home-brew software, homebew hardware, homebrew content creation - all that creative endeavour becomes illegal, or impossible. No more listening to CDs of your friends garage band - they can't afford a key to "sign" their content, and your CD player won't play unsigned content, and the DMCA says you can't hack it so you can.
Fuck that.
Pierre
The fact is that DRM is not designed to protect content creators. It is designed to protect the profits of the publishers and distributors that have a near monopoly on the channels of distribution. This gives them the ability to say take it or leave it to both consumers and the artists. This also allows them to keep the vast majority of talented artists out of the distribution channels artificially keeping supply out of balance with demand and inflating their profits. Their biggest fear is the loss of control of the distribution channels not that the artists will be cheated. Here At Roland we are awash in talented musicians that can't make a living at their art because the channels are controlled so tightly. Most of them don't expect to become rich, they just want their music heard.