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.
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
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.
"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.