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.

Comments

Of course they're going to deny it!

[Akaihiryuu]

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.

Obligatory Adm. Ackbar

[OmegaBlac]

"It's a trap!"

You missed a word.

[eofpi]

The statement says "no previously unannounced DRM". That's a far cry from saying "no DRM whatsoever", which the submitter (and editor) seems to take it as.

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.

Re:You missed a word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually corporations would be the first to balk. If a virus writer gets his hands on the DRM-layer keys, he could whipe out all the hard drives on all the computers in a corporation, make the hardware prevent installation of any media, and use the corporate computers as a distributed spam bot. Alternately, the same technology that can be used to format hard drives remotely (without the knowledge of sysadmins) can be used to plant copyright infringing files on computers. If those files are kiddie porn, someone is going to be seriously in trouble. If the sysadmin is able to log the time when the porn was added and how it got there, the company may escape procecution, but if now, some's head is going to roll. Of course, it works both ways, if the RIAA accuses you of having copyrighted material, you can always claim that the RIAA put it there after you proved to them that "Madonna - Rain.mpg" was a shot of "La Madonna in Italy taken during the rainy period". The RIAA simply put it there because they didn't want to get counter-sued by you.

This is very dangerous technology. After DeCSS, you'd think that the media corps would have realized that keys can be cracked. After Nimda, you'd think that people would have learned how dangerious unpatchable systems (like the Intel system) would be.

Intel, it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Intel, it doesn't matter.

[badriram]

I hope you realize that drm in some form already exists in your computer. For example macrovison is supported by ati, nvidia and intel. So waht are you doing to do, quite using graphics boards...

Look, I realize some people on slashdot just hate drm, but there are others who think it is a perfectly valid system, as long as any of my rights are not affected.

I would rather have my rights protected, and have value to the product that i purchased, than a bunch of theives to copy it to the extent it has no value what so ever.

Well

[mcc]

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.

Re:Well

[nEoN nOoDlE]

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.

If you consider that to be broken, then you've got a funny definition of broken, because I consider that same thing to be criminal. I'd much rather have a processor that doesn't work instead of one that you've described.

Re:Well

[KillShill]

they've already started.

it's already in audio cards/drivers.

something called "secure audio path".

it's a way of crippling your sound card; preventing it from recording from its inputs if it detects a copy protected stream.

next up is video. check out some of those old NGSCB/palladium screenshots and intel "lagrande" slides... they are implementing encryption aka DRM from the video chip to the display device.. such that you won't have control over what you can do with the data, as you can right now. no more taking screenshots, capturing video without permission etc etc.

they are using the BTF (boil the frog) method. longhorn will only have one or two of the features and they'll build upon it in each release.

if you cannot figure out that this is something no "individual" customer wants, then you need to read more carefully. there is nothing beneficial about reducing machines capabilities. then you consider that perhaps they don't consider end-users customers, then it becomes more clear. sort of like the tv/media advertising business. you are the product, they sell you to their customers.

something will be done about it... but they'll still keep boiling the frog... so when they don't get full DRM in 2006/2007, they'll introduce one new feature each year, for the next 10-20 years. that way those moronic people who pay for products but aren't customers won't notice.

keep treating us badly, and please digging your own grave. of course you won't notice you're digging, since that requires a modicum of intelligence.

Re:Well

[Baricom]

I don't understand the answer to this, and perhaps somebody more knowledgable can explain it to me.

Why are the electronics and software people so keen to add DRM? It's an added expense in research and development (especially if they're after secure DRM, which would presumably require much more development). Unlike the television analogy, the general public is the customer in all of these cases - they're paying for the computer, processor, and/or Windows.

Are these companies getting kickbacks or something? It seems to me that the logical thing to do if you were a lobbiest for the electronics industry is to tell the PDTAA (Public Domain Theft Associations of America) to go shove it, and tell the manufacturers you represent to boycott DRM so their customers don't raise a big stink when they realize their new purchase is crippled.

Re:Well

[SacredNaCl]

The key words here are do not have unannounced DRM. They already announced the DRM in their press release, so apparently it just doesn't have some other form of DRM other than the vaguely announced DRM it already has.... This is just playing with words, they haven't changed anything. Its still shipping with the DRM in the chipset, fully activated and ready to go.

Re:Well

[Baricom]

Perhaps because they feel there are too many people out there...misappropriating...their content?

That makes perfect sense if you sell CDs and DVDs, but not if you sell computers. Take Dell. They don't create intellectual property, they create tools to use it. Their products are valuable because of their versatility, and voluntarily integrating DRM serves to reduce that versatility.

Shareware authors, who used to release fully functional versions of their applications, no longer do so, even though that change in tactics may have reduced their income (IANASWA).

I would argue that the best software sold under the shareware concept is still uncrippled, except possibly for a nag screen. At the moment, I have no shareware installed except for mIRC and WinRAR. Both are uncrippled except for nag screens, and I've purchased both of them. WinZip is another great example of this.

I would argue that the cream-of-the-crop shareware has morphed not into crippleware or adware, but an evolution of the shareware concept I'm going to call "personalware." Examples of this genre are Ad-Aware, ZoneAlarm, Sygate Personal Firewall, AVG Free, and much more. Each of these programs comes with a license that says "feel free to download and install me, but for personal use only. If you're a business, pony up." You can tell that these programs are polished and that a lot of work went into them. The missing features in these free versions are so minor that most businesses could do without them, if they were so inclined to cheat. The companies behind these products seem to be in good shape, if the fact that their web sites are still up is any indication.

You now have to put money in the box to get a newspaper, whereas before, you could just take one and then deposit your money. That additional machinery contributes to the extra cost of your newspaper.

And yet, these boxes still have a relatively lightweight door that could be forced open without too much trouble, and a design that permits a dishonest person to easily take more than one copy. If we were to "DRM-ize" these boxes, they would be more like a soda machine: you put in your credit card and one copy of a newspaper (printed on special fast-fading paper to ensure you don't share it with somebody else) rolls out.

I'm kind of getting of track, so I'm going to stop here, but I just wanted to point out that in each of these instances, putting further restrictions on the product doesn't translate into more revenues.

So it's all *Announced* DRM

[billstewart]

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.

TERRIBLE Link

[mattdev121]

Macrovision has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with macromedia.

The Real Macrovision was developed by a company called Macrovision and is used to prevent copying of VHS and DVD video streams with data that interrupts the picture.

Re:Ah, the great question!

[ZephyrXero]

"when did it become their job to discount every allegation just to make some folks happy?"

The day they started selling chips to their customers.

they're playing games with semantics

[bersl2]

Also, I think everybody should look at this roadmap. If you look at the chips for the upcoming socket M2, and also the X2 processors that will be shipping in the coming weeks, they are all supposed to have the Presidio "security technology." Isn't that a euphamism for the same thing we're accusing Intel of putting in their chips? I would like it if somebody would get to the bottom of this.

True Lies

[Doc Ruby]

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.

So, they still don't get it

[Darth Maul]

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.

Clarification On Intel's "Press Release"

[Xoo]

This entire slashdot news post is misleading.

Intel's press release is based on the fact on that Computerworld's article claims that Intel is adding unnounced DRM features to their new line of Pentiums. If anyone actually read the article, it does not say ANYWHERE anything about unannounced DRM features. In fact, I would say that the Computerworld article and the Intel press release are saying basically the same thing, with their respective biases present. Honestly, the only thing newsworthy here is that Intel announced the specific DRM implementations in their chipsets.

Lastly, an opinion... DRM is not something I really would like to see implemented on the CPU-level. I don't think "THE MAN" should be controlling what I can or can't do with media that exists on my computer.

Cant buy intel gear anymore..

[nurb432]

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.

Ok, but it is DRM...

[mysidia]

'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.

Serial # Fiasco

[maelstrom]

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.

Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM

[Alsee]

AMD is supposedly making their hardware DRM entirely optional

That story is two and a half years old. I can clarify the actual situation and industry planned future.

When Longhorn comes out in about a year it will only fully function on a Trusted Compliant computer. It will run with a reduced graphics interface and various other portions of the system will not work at all on non-Trusted hardware or if you decline to "opt-in" (if you leave the Trust chip off).

No PC hardware maker can realistically survive selling hardware that is not compatible with the latest version of Windows. No one would buy it, and anyone who does will return it when Windows refuses to run properly. If you ask Microsoft about the problem they will blame it on the hardware manufacture for making "incompatible" hardware.

AMD has announced a project to make Trusted Computing Group compliant chips, exactly the same specifications as Intel is implementing. In fact Intel is shipping an "inactive" version of it already inside the Prescott CPUs and probably others. Exactly the same specification Transmeta is already shipping inside some of their CPUs.

The specifcation requires that the chip be inactive when you buy the computer. Naturally the first thing Windows will do on startup is ask to activate it.

If you buy a coputer without it, or you refuse to turn it on, you will be increasingly screwed. As I said Windows will only run in a brain damaged mode. You will be unable to install any software that makes use of the Trust system. Applications, games, all sorts of stuff will require a Trusted install. Without the Trust system you cannot install, register, activate, and *DECRYPT* the software at all. New file types will be unreadable if you do not "opt-in". You will be increasingly locked out of websites if you do not "opt-in".

And best of all the Trusted Computing has announced a specification called Trusted Network Connect (TNC). Microsoft has issued a press release that they are implementing TNC, but they call it SAP Secure Access Protection. What does this system do? A network access point uses it. When you request a 'net connection, it first checks if you have a Trust chip. If you do, it then checks that you are running an approved and compliant operating system then checks that you are running all mandatory and compliant software. If you are not you get "quarantined", denied internet access. If you do not "opt-in" to the trust system and run mandatory and approved software then you are denied internet access.

It's all documented right on the Trusted Computing Group website. Of course THEY give it a positive spin. The system can ensure you are not infected by a virus or trojan and it can ensure you are running a mandatory and approved firewall. This way the network can protect itself against you being infected and spreading viruses and worms on their network.

Obviously ISP's can't start making this mandatory right now. The Trust system doesn't really begin to roll out until the Longhorn release next summer. It would then take another few years for the majority of PCs to be replaced. PCs get replaced rather quickly through the normal obselecence and upgrade cycle. You can potentially see mandatory Trust compliance for internet access somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

Oh, by the way... the President's Cyber Security Advisor gave a speech at the Washington DC Global Tech summit calling on ISPs to plan on making exactly this sort of system a mandatory part of their Terms of Service for internet access. There's a transcript of the speech on the BSA website. He calls for ISPs to "Secure the National Information Infrastructure" against "Terrorist Attack".

Oh, and have you noticed the stories lately about taking internet government out from under United States Government control? ICANN and the other organisations? Obviously the world will not allow the United States to impose this sort of system on them. Instead Internet Governance will be turned over to UN groups. T

Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM

[Monkelectric]

Thats the scariest thing Ive ever heard. Lucikly nobody will stand for it :)

Re:Ah, the great question!

[dalleboy]

Mu

Treacherous computing

[tepples]

Mr. Stallman's science fiction short story isn't the only depiction of what could happen in a full "Trusted" Computing paradigm. I linked to it as an accessible description of the consequences of Treacherous Computing. Here are some more factual descriptions: #1 #2 #3. Please read them and compare TCG's platform as described to what could enable the situation depicted in the story.

Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM

[dustmite]

"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.

Re:I call bullshit.

[Alsee]

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.

-

I'll take a latte, whip cream, hold the urine

[The_Wilschon]

I, for one, piss in our new overlords coffee.