Slashdot Mirror
Intel Claims No DRM
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.
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.
"[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?
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.
Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
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.
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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?
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.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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.
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 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.
--
make install -not war
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.
--- witty signature
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
'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.
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.
The more you know, the less you understand.
The "patent pending" icon really isn't on target for this kind of story.
Here, I might suggest a "big brother" icon -- for example, showing the cover of a book with the words "1984" and "Orwell" visibly readable.
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.
And live without the Internet. :^(
"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.
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:
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I, for one, piss in our new overlords coffee.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you. I do. However, I think that the market suppliers, in this case, can't be trusted. If the market doesn't support this type of measure, you can bet that the companies will lobby the government to make this mandatory instead of giving the customers what they want.
It isn't just the hardware manufacturers that we need to be concerned about, either. If the government gets involved or changes are made to TCP/IP, non-TCPA systems might not be allowed on the Internet.
One good thing, though, is that I haven't seen Cisco's name on the list of companies that support this TCPA. Since they produce most of the hardware that powers the Internet, there is still hope that most of the world will remain free of this draconian measure.
My Sysadmin Blog
Remember DVD Jon? As soon as someone tries to force DRM on us, it will be cracked/hacked/circumvented within a month. If not, screw it, I dont buy their crappy pop crap anyway. If DRM prevents us from accessing the internet, screw the internet. We will share data via lan parties, which will eventually become a constant global lan party.
If (when?) DRM/Trusted Computing becomes the defacto standard and the current Internet shuts out/locks out DRMless hardware/software, it just means a return back to days of Bulletin Board Systems and FidoNet (BBS-based 'Internet') for people who truly care about their interet experience and don't want it tainted by DRM/Trusted Computing. Such an 'Internet' will benefit from the absence of the bandwith-sapping, 'unwashed masses' who only see today's Internet as little more than 'online televison' and/or a 'shopping mall'. Email spam should be non-existant on this 'new' internet as the people who use it would be savvy enough to block/delete spam on sight and blackhole the IPs that spew the stuff pronto.
For all Netizens who truly care about the free echange of ideas and resources, please archive all the legally shareable bits of the current Internet you can so you can share them on the 'new internet' when you have to and let the IP cartels have the current spammed-out Internet as their own 'private' content distribution medium.
The only thing this changes is digital reproduction. People WILL hold a microphone up to the speakers and make an analog recording. Which they will turn right around and import into the computer. The computer will accept it, because people (physicians, lawyers, marketeers) need the ability to record voice messages, and sound discrimination functions take up a lot of processing power.
Same thing with video. It will get imported, unless the microphones and cameras are required to be Palladium compatible. If they are, then of course, people are shit out of luck. I suspect there will be backlash, because lots of people have bought $1200 digital camcorders and will be expecting them to continue to function normally until at least 2010.
Right now, with audio disks putting in all kinds of errors to fool the EFM on optical drives, there's not much difference between a digital "rip" and an analog recording. Hell is hell, whether it's painted pink or Olive green.
When the revolution hits, it's going to drop 10% off the stock market. Be ready. Get out now.
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.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.