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.
Argh.
So will I now have to get a mod chip for my mobile phone?
it can be hacked.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
'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.
How long before someone finds a workaround for these security features? Until now, no DRM has been left standing.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I always figured that no matter what the makers try, if the machine is programmable then a layer can be built on top of the hardware, a virtual machine, that can in effect incapacitate any DRM.
If there is some sort of foolproof hardware that can't be circumvented, no one has ever explained to me how such a thing could work without being non-programmable.
Maybe software could be written that needs to hook into the DRM to run. But software is crackable, or seems to have been so far.
Person: I think that I would like to buy some stock.
Broker: Well chip maker ***STATIC*** is doing well, you should buy them.
Person: What company? I could not hear you.
Broker: ***STATIC*** you know they compete with Intel?
Person: Oh AMD, are they doing well?
Broker: What did you say? I could not hear. Did you say ***STATIC***?
From the article:
To provide system and application engineers the ability to fully utilize the features of the Intel PXA27x processor family, Intel is providing the Intel® Compiler and Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives, as well as optimized board support packages with drivers and power management software. Key OS vendors and ISVs like Sony Music Entertainment* have utilized these tools to create a comprehensive library of applications optimized for the new processors.
The way I read that, is that this processor has a few commands built into it that help make or validate keys. Notice how the DRM is built into the application and not the OS. The article also says this:
The Intel 2700G multimedia accelerator delivers DVD-quality video playback on VGA displays and supports a wide range of video formats such as MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and Microsoft* Windows Media Video9.
I take that to mean that it can do some key-type checking, but again - it's not part of the OS. In fact, the article also says this:
The phone platform supports full-featured operating systems from companies like Microsoft*, PalmSource*, Symbian* as well as MontaVista* Linux and Java* environments.
It runs Linux, so...DRM is already optional.
So, unless there's other documentation somewhere stating otherwise, I don't believe this is true "trusted computing" big-brother-knows-best DRM. I'd guess that the CPU has a few custom instructions that help doing RSA or something like that.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
In my office I'm the guerilla marketer. I buy the latest and greatest and most useless tech and hype it up while I swagger around the cubes all day.
...A week later...
It's done like this:
"hey Fred, nice laptop!"
"You betcha Bob!!! This is the latest thing, it has DRM"
"ohhhh really!?!?" -- looks confused.
"Really Bob."
"Gee nice laptop Bob, looks like one of those new DRM models"
"Yeah, but none of my MP3's work!"
"But you got more features Bob... and besides, MP3's are illegal."
"Really???"
"Really Bob."
dit-dit-dit-diddit-dit-dit
brrt-brrt-click
"Hello, John?"
"Yes, John Ashcroft here...oops, damn, I wasn't supposed to say anything, was I?"
"wtf! What are you doing on my friend's phone?"
"Just remember, son, it's all Clinton's fault."
"Tell him he's either with us or against us!"
"Damn Intel!'
"That's what I say, we need better intel."
"Did he just say something bad about my intelligence?"
"No, Mr. President. So you see we'll be able to listen in on Iraqi terrorists like this."
"WHAT ARE YOU DOING? BUGGING CELL PHONES?!!?!"
WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!
"Ow! That hurt! My ears are ringing, have him arrested for assaulting the President of the United States."
"Oh, we'll get around to him, sir, we'll get around to all of them."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
If you have some cash, print up some nice stickers that say "WARNING: DRM Enabled Product. This device is a half-assed product" or something, and go stick em all over the products at the store :)
I've seen this sort of thing done to RIAA CDs somewhere, but i dont remember the URL
...is to understand that copyright holders have the right to dictate how their IP is used.
It's NOT a right! It is a PRIVILIGE provided by the gov't without the consent of the public. Not only is it a right to break bad laws, it's an obligation. The only way bad laws are repealed is through violation of the law. It is because of lawbreakers that we enjoy the freedoms we have today. If nobody broke the law, we would still have alchol prohibition(still working on other drugs). Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus. Hell, the U.S. would still be a colony. But... if you're so dependant on the status quo, I can understand why you would say that. "Don't make waves."...right? Some people are just too comfy with the way things are to let a bunch of lawbreakin' hippies get in the way and try to set it right.
What?
Sorry, but the alarm sound is (c) Britney Spears and only your father had the rights to this sound. Your watch is now disabled untill you pay Britney Spears 50c.
copyright holders have the right to dictate how their IP is used. If you buy a song, and use it in accordence to the agrement that you purchased it's use under, you should have no problems
Who determines these rights, and are this rights fair and in accordance with the law.
On the other hand, if you buy it for your own use, then use some flawed logic to give it away to all your friends, well, that ain't going to fly. This is as it should be.
That's the thing you see. Some artists / peformers actually want you to crank off a copy to a friend and consider this form of distro free advertising. I agree if the artist / peformer doesn't want you to you should respect their wish.
It's neither immoral nor unethical for you to play a track for a friend. Nor is it illegal for you to bring your media over to a friends player and play it. DRM may have the unseen effect of actually taking normal tame use of our rights with physical media.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
DRM is frowned upon for many reasons. Personally, I find it distateful because it erodes our property rights (i.e. the ability to control the computer I payed a substantial amount of money for) and that it operates under the basic assumption that we are all criminals, which I find offensive. I have yet to see copy protection that didnt hinder honest users more than those who steal it. The people who crack software are barely slowed down, and so really its the person who payed for it that gets bitten by the copy protection (and this holds true for all copy protected content.)
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.'
"I know this comment will be modded down, but really why is DRM frowned upon by Slashdotters?"
Mostly it's the notion that hardware is a tool, and we should be able to use a tool that we bought however we want, even if that use isn't specifically intended by the manufacturer. Also, DRM's big backer is Microsoft. Given their history of anit-competitive behavior, it seems reasonable to assume that DRM would be used to keep the commodity x86 hardware we like so much from booting an unsigned (read: non-commercial) operating system. Lastly, it seems like a futile effort. We think Intel should be designing better and faster processors, instead of wasting time trying to handicap their users.
"Suppose DRM were required to prevent abuses of the GPL -- would it be OK then?"
No. Nobody should be able to tell people what software they're allowed to run on hardware they bought and paid for.
"If DRM enabled devices will make content creators feel comfortable making more content available, then I'm all for it. Also, since theft won't be an issue (unauthorized copying) they won't have to try to recover their losses by charging more for the content."
They wouldn't *have* to, but they would keep prices high anyway. CD and DVD prices aren't high to compensate for piracy, they're high because the market will bear that price. If all illegal copying stopped tomorrow, there would be no reason for the record labels to lower their prices, because music isn't a commodity. No two labels sell the same music, so there is little competition between them to drive down prices.
0 1 - just my two bits
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.
You can't emulate a private key that you don't have.