Slashdot Mirror
Info on Intel's Viiv DRM
An anonymous reader writes "CNET went to Intel's Viiv launch in Australia and scored some interesting info about Viiv's DRM scheme. From the article: '[Don] MacDonald also told CNET.com.au that Viiv won't be testing to see if the content being played is pirated from networks such as BitTorrent. He believes that it's not Intel's job to be policing downloads and that it's wrong to assume that all consumers are criminals. As such, Viiv won't test for watermarks or other red flags that reveal pirated content, allowing any type of media to be played.' Another choice quote from the article: 'MacDonald is confident that piracy won't be a significant issue for Viiv, as Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate.'"
I lost count of how many times I said "yet" while reading this...
Maybe I should take my cynical hat off and read it again.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Easy to use is even nicer.
What?
I'm very surprised to hear this, but not releieved. This is a big turning point. DRM-on-chip is about to be mass introduced (not like smaller releases that IBM or HP did on only certain models of computer) and we should make it clear that DRM should be optional for systems. If people don't pay attention, the features of these chips will be slowly activated in future revisions.
I don't get it.
Viiv won't be testing to see if the content being played is pirated from networks such as BitTorrent. He believes that it's not Intel's job to be policing downloads and that it's wrong to assume that all consumers are criminals. As such, Viiv won't test for watermarks or other red flags that reveal pirated content, allowing any type of media to be played.' Another choice quote from the article: 'MacDonald is confident that piracy won't be a significant issue for Viiv, as Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate.'"
Translation: "If we say we're against DRM right from the start, we'll sow seeds in people's minds that we're the good guys, so that when we start implementing really restrictive DRM schemes, it'll be really difficult to turn people against us. Hey it worked for Apple"
What if the copyright owner doesn't even offer the song/movie/whatever I'd be happy to pay them for?
Somebody at the RI/MPAA forgot to mail their "donations" to Intel. Expect Intel to see the error of their ways before long (3 business days for a cheque to clear these days isn't it?).
What? Me, cynical?
VIIV is just a sticker, so of course it doesn't prevent anything. But it doesn't really enable anything, either. A "regular" Windows Media Center Edition PC can do anything a VIIV PC can do. Also remember that just because VIIV doesn't add its own DRM, it also doesn't take away the DRM that is already present in Windows.
What they could do is couch the DRM detection as a "feature" to help user's identify potentially harmful or infringing content. Maybe this could be pointed out to the user in the media player delivering the content, or in the file system where an icon could identify the content that wasn't authorized.
I propose the following DRM and media corollary:
Whenever a DRM scheme is proposed, and a hardware manufacturer, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, uses a phrase along the lines of "make content easier to buy than it is to pirate" -- the manufacturer is *lying*. It intends to abuse the DRM scheme as early and as often as the content industry asks it to.
He's telling the masses what they want to hear. The Furher means you no harm. You will all be protected. These rumors you have heard are too fantastic to be sure. We are civilised, like you, yes?
May the Maths Be with you!
you should get a life?
I really can't imagine how anyone plans to make content easier to buy than to pirate, when any kind of DRM is involved. Oh, unless you forget to add the part where you view the content... which it seems they did.
... which it seems like they may have done.
People are willing to pay to be honest, they just don't like to feel ripped-off by the transaction - something the record labels have yet to learn with their demands that Apple raise prices across the board and closer to the MSRP of physical CDs. One can claim that the labels can demand whatever the market will bear, but I think the whole point of the matter is that we've seen what the market will bear and the creation of the iTunes Store is partially a response to that. No one wants to pay what the labels have been charging for physical media, and that has been reflected in the sales figures. Their stubbornness when it comes to accepting this fact has a good deal to do with their grim prospects.
DRM on these files is rather pointless as anything Apple sells is already widely available elsewhere, and few who chose to buy something from the iTunes Store do so because they cannot obtain the content for free. Their very choice to purchase the content negates the need for DRM. The very presence of it is - surprise - due to contract stipulations made by the record labels. Steve Jobs has gone on the record that he does not believe it is necessary, but he has no choice.
From the article:
Intel's stance surrounding Digital Rights Management (DRM) is that consumers should be able to do whatever they like with legally purchased content. That means backing it up to external drives and streaming it to other devices such as handhelds and networked machines.
This is news to me (and good news!). I kind of had the idea that Intel supported DRM. Most likely Intel caters to whoever brings them money, and since this is being marketed towards users, they take a stance against DRM. Notice they don't prohibit DRM to be used in any VIIV products, just discourage it. Still, any position against DRM is a good position.
Qxe4
It's funny that he thinks it's wrong to treat consumers as criminals, yet endorses DRM.
The entire idea of DRM seems to be that you prevent people from passing the file to someone else. This idea is flawed, because the "someone else" will always be able to get the file from elsewhere, illegitimately, and the "original customer" will probably end up doing the same because DRM is an inferior product when compared with illegitimate versions of the same thing.
This idea assumes that the original customer is a criminal. All DRM treats the customer (the person who has decided to pay for the file) as a criminal.
This just sounds like Centrio however for media center computers not laptops. I sounds like it is just a certification that the parts in the computer meet a specification.
"Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate"
This is funny. Going to the shop, picking up the title and handing over money is still easier than downloading p2p programs, setting up firewalls, understanding how it works, finding where to grab stuff from, waiting around for it to complete, sorting out the fakes or the subtitled German-dubbed clips from the real thing... yet many people do the latter rather than the former. And in many cases, the reason is the M-word...
"Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate."
hahaha
GL HF TTYL ^_^
Intel is pushing a technology called Treacherous Computing, which will prevent unsigned code from running on their hardware. So even if you have the source code, if you try to remove the DRM restrictions, the hardware will refuse to run the modified binary.
The Free Software Foundation admits that the anti-DRM provisions in the GPLv3 will not be enough on their own to prevent the nightmare scenario where users can't trust their own computers.
People who understand the dangers of Digital Restrictions Management at a technical level (ie.Free and Open Source software developers) should warn the general public to avoid buying DRM-crippled hardware. Consumers should know about the great variety of DRM-free computers and accessories built specifically to work with Linux, the KDE desktop, and other Free and Open Source applications.
On the music side, there are plenty of websites that legally sell DRM-free, RIAA-free music by independent artists. Consumers can use a cross-platform, iTunes-like application called Songbird to easily download songs from these sites.
As for movies, building a Linux media center works just as well as the DRM-crippled offering from M$FT. Just download MythTV and run it on a computer equipped with the pcHDTV HD-3000 card and the PVR-350 card -- these will capture both standard definition (NTSC) and Digital/Hi-Definition (ATSC/HDTV) signals.
Get computers and accessories from Linux-friendly manufacturers
Well, he lost me with that. Unless they can surpass the ease-of-use of:
1) Visit Pirate Bay.
2) Select torrent.
3) Wait until it's downloaded.
4) Watch (or listen to) downloaded media.
Well, let's just say I doubt they'll come close anytime soon.
Can intel be that smart promoting VIIV's DRM capabilities at a time when they are losing market share to AMD?
On Wall Street, AMD is currently gaining market share from Intel. (slowly, but surely)
As a consumer, I see AMD with a better price-to-performance ratio then Intel. Also AMD's chips require less electricity for that performance.
Now throw DRM into the mix and what am I going to buy? A DRM enabled chip that costs more, or a chip that is DRM-Free, costs less, and performs better?
It sounds like Intel is shooting themselves in the foot...
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
nowadays, a lot, and I'd wager to say MOST pcs are controlled by what are softswitches, not hard physical contact switches like on IBM xt's had///
as to "can't turn it on by software" then what are WOL magic packets for?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
OK, I know Don MacDonald personally, and I was the first one to sound the alarm bells about ViiV, then called East Fork. See:/ 170256
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/17
Intel flat out lied about Linux, they said it could happen to my face, but all the docs said otherwise. They are handing the space to MS and the DRM infectors.
That said, Intel honestly does want to do the right thing here, but they are caught between a rock and a hard place. They have no leverage, and are being used until the content industry tires of batting them around like a cat with a half dead mouse in it's grasp.
The sad thing is, Intel can not do anything to prevent being bent over and screwed here. They have to smile and minimize the damage, but the whole process has been coopted. They were planning on making v1.5 and v2.0 a little better each release, but right now, they are in backpedal so hard it hurts mode, so the chance of them being able to do right is next to zero.
The first version will be mostly non-functional, it won't do most of what they hoped, and has more animosity among the vendors than any product that I have seen to date. Everyone I talked to at CeBit last week was something between annoyed and angry that it was being shoved down their throat.
But wait, it gets better. Notice he said that it would be easier, not cheaper. You get a file locked down hard, seriously DRM infected, and restricted. The PRV functionality is already shut down because they MUST support the broadcast flag (HD only though), so basically, they are screwed. If you like PVRing CSpan, VIIV is your toy, everything else, well, not so much.
So, you have the grand plan of selling an inferior, restricted, DRM infect product at a higher price than the competition. Add in that you are selling an expensive box that phones home way to often that says 'NO!' to it owner more often than most find palatable, and you have a recipe for disaster.
My prediction, abject failure. Why? The content industry does not want it to exist, and Intel is a fly under their steamroller. It is a pity, it could have not sucked.
-Charlie
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Maybe I should take my cynical hat off and read it again.
no.
Weak DRM is just as bad as strong DRM.
Any software that makes my computer refuse to obey my commands, even though it is perfectly capable of obeying them, is evil. Any business model built upon such software is equivalently evil.
I always see this kneejerk reaction to DRM on the net...it must be evil, bad, etc.
And yet without DRM, itunes would not be possible. So is iTunes thereby evil? and is Apple evil also?
Or is maybe DRM just a technologicial tool, and the way its used determins if its 'evil' or not. If so, then better DRM technologies I welcome, as they may allow for more digital distribution of media. For example, right now I cant copy a DVD legally to my PC. My entire house is networked, and if I can get a video onto my PC, I can enable all sorts of video distribution scenarios in my house (watching tv downstairs, pause it, go to bedroom, lay down and finish the movie there). Perhaps DRM will allow this scenario, if we can get video content to be transferred as audio content is, and get the trust of the content providers that it's safe and legitimate.
I don't hate DRM any more than I hated looking up the 13th word on the 7th page to play "Legacy of the ancients" or any of the Gold Box DND games. "Content protection" has been around forever, and I respect the rights of content producers to protect thier wares.
I just want them to trust users a bit more so we can do more with it.
"..something that doesn't involve violence, or is this the wrong crowd for that" -Wash -Serenity
Read this:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638
East Fork == VIIV, and some details have changed, but it is a lot more than that. Transcoding, transrating, a store, and a connection framework. It is also a MASSIVE DRM infection, but they try and pretend otherwise.
-Charlie
MacDonald is confident that piracy won't be a significant issue for Viiv, as Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate.
HUH?!?! Since when are they actually not paranoid that everyone out there is determined to undermine their every effort and steal everything? They TRUST consumers?? They actually DON'T want to screw over the people who pay to buy their stuff? Impossible. I'll believe it after I see it and not before.
Intel thinks that consumers should be able to do what they want.....
Unfortunately, their software is a DRM framework and infection that screws the consumers. If I had to go with which side to believe, I would take the functionality over the rhetoric. How about you?
-Charlie
I read the article, the DRM is really not a very big piece when you read the whole thing.
This viiv seems to be just something invented by Intel to boost sales and detract sales from competing brands.
They just slap a viiv sticker on something and then they can say "Well, this PC is VIIV certified which means that it will offer you the best in [whatever subject]!
and of course, that other (cheaper, better) PC is not VIIV certified and therefore does not work"
The piece on DRM sounded more like "There is no DRM".
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
http://outcampaign.org/
Maybe the term "right" isn't appropriate, but the author's refusal to provide access may well give me immunity from infringement liability. Fair use specifically applies when permission is NOT granted, after all. It would all depend on the facts of the situation, which is precisely what the grandparent was getting at.
Of course, DMCA is "fair-use"-free, so there you're in strange waters indeed.
Watermarks are probably one of the less offensive DRM methods--they allow copying and playing, but make it possible to trace content back to you. And they don't have to be perfect to do that--it's sufficient that they are reasonably hard to remove, which they are.
People are pissed off enough with the U.S.'s 'war without end' foreign policy theme. Having DRM, digital watermarks and other unwanted garbage forced down their throats (chiefly) by corporate America will be the final straw for many. Expect a lot of content players and content discs to gather dust on store shelves. Also expect consumers and consumer rights groups in various countries to challenge this new, intrusive copy-protection tech in local courts.
It was all just marketing speak to get them 'in the door'.
You can bet the *AA's know what is going on, and support intel laying low as they slowly invade daily life with more DRM technology that can be activated later, long after its too late for the average joe to turn back.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Joe Shmoe: "I saw an ad for this on TV. It's supposed to be really good, like that Dolby Digital stuff. I gotta make sure to get VIIV"
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Is Viiv like the next generation of f00f?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Quote TFA: Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate
I certainly hope that this is correct. As it stands, piracy is a mixed bag. I'm at college, so I can get a wide assortment of movies literally within a couple minutes for free, no hassle. I don't see how they expect to beat that, but there are a few areas where they could do well.
1. Older works. Make old movies and TV shows, especially unpopular ones, available. Piracy sorta sucks in that regard
2. Guaranteed very high quality. I'm sick of crappy cams and poorly done releases, even DVDrips. DVD quality is the absolute minimum here; I'd expect HD quality where possible
3. No DRM BS. I don't want to have to jump through any hoops to get it to work. Piracy's easy; all your attempts to lock down media will do is piss off actual legit users.
If you get that working, you'll convert me and quite a few people I know. Not that I'm admitting to piracy or anything, but you get the idea
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
Yeah, I agree with all of your post, but who are people going to buy non-DRM hardware from??? Today, AMD (but they are/will follow suit). Alternatives I see (not for the mainstream):
The first two options don't go well if you need to replace broken/stolen equipment either.
As you point out, people won't be able to trust the new Trusted Computing PCs. In my mind, they aren't realy PCs anymore, just as Macintels aren't PCs either, even if they share a lot of the components.
So effectively we will see the end of open/trusted commodity computers. :-(
“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
Using BitTorrent or any other P2P (Peer-to-Peer) software do not make you a criminal. Manufacturing a knife or using a knife will not make you a criminal. Its how you use it. Are you using it for cooking or any other legal activity OR are you using to killing people.
BitTorrent uses a wonderful concept to deliver large content over the Internet (see how it works). Again it can be abused by distributing and downloading illegal contents such as pirated music or movies.
Recently I downloaded an evaluation version of multimedia centric Linux OS named Tomahawk Desktop using BitTorrent.
If not for BitTorrent, its impossible for the company to distribute it over the Internet or for me to download it. It's license allows the evaluation version of the Tomahawk Desktop to be given to others free of charge. While downloading via BitTorrent, you are giving part of it to others free of charge. So, how can I become a criminal by downloading legal content via BitTorrent?
I was at the Intel Viiv launch yesterday. It was a reasonably interesting launch although I will forever have the jargon "the new normal" burned in to me brain.
Whilst the talk of making "content easier to buy than it is to pirate" is nice, you have to remember that Intel is only providing the platform to access the content and not the content itself. This is clearly different from Apple's iTunes/iPod/Frontrow strategy of controlling the software and hardware platform(s) for viewing content *and* being the distributor/supplier of content. Hence Intel itself doesn't have much to say on the crucial issue of the cost of content (in fact, to the best of my knowledge, cost -- in comparison to existing distribution points/media types -- was not mentioned once during the presentation). Its all very well to make content easy to access, but it also has to be priced correctly. Intel is obviously hoping the market and competition (between content suppliers) will take care of pricing. I guess time will tell, but its a far cry from the simple easy-to-remember 99c-a-song (in the US, $1.29 here) model of the iTMS.
Whilst its nice that Viiv won't apply DRM restrictions to content that enters into the system without DRM, that doesn't mean that the content provided through the Viiv platform won't be ladden with DRM. Again, as Intel doesn't control the supply of content supply the best they can 'promise'(as per the Cnet article) is to "[encourage] Viiv content providers to allow users to pass their media to other devices". Personally I would prefer a stated policy rather than some airy-fairy promise about encouraging fair(er) use for consumers.
On a related issue, Dan Warne of APC raised an interesting point during the panel discussion regarding billing. Unlike Apple's system (where, obviously, they are the only supply point through iTunes), because there will be multiple content providers and there is no centralised billing system its likely you will have to provide your credit card details to each content provider seperately (at least for the time being, although MacDonald made some soothing noises about investigating a more centralised model... grain of salt, etc). Ironically, despite making much of the fact that you won't need a keyboard with Viiv for complex tasks (such as networking, etc), some on the panel noted it would be cumbersome to have to enter your credit card details through the Viiv interface with the remote and suggest hooking up a keyboard or visiting the content providers website on another computer.
In case you hadn't guessed, whilst I think Viiv has some interesting uses, I remain very sceptical that this is anything more than a flash in the pan despite Intel's claims of this being the (wait for it) "new normal" and hoping in 50 years time it will be remembered like the introduction of television. It may have more impact in other markets, but given the lack of interest in such basic technologies as Standard Definition Digital TV, trying to get consumers to spend thousands on a PC for the living room (without the buzz of the iPod/iTunes duo) seems like a hard sell to me.
Looks like you don't quite understand what sex is.
Of course I understand. Sex is lossy reproduction, as half of each parent's genes are lost.
Let the brainwashing begin. We're on the edge of the slippery slope.
If you click on Intel's Viiv it's like trying to find out what product an MLM distributor is supposedly selling. Everyone dances around the issue (controlling what you can view on *your* computer) and tries to convince you how good it is without telling you what "it" is or does. Pretty soon we'll pass the point of no return and have Big Brother built into everything we own.
w00t indeed. Mod me down, and you will make me more powerful than you can comprehend...you will have therefore lost a mod point. --The Three AC's
http://www.tonymcfadden.net/tpmvendors.html
/ 2006/02/yes_trusted_com.html
You can see that a lot of intel chipsets do have tcpa/tcg.
And yes tcg is used for drm (and remote identification of your hardware aka "remote attestation"):
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives
Copying is a part of content. It has always been thus. The two are not divisible - content loses value if it can't be freely copied. The only thing that has changed in that equation is that copying has become easier.
.mp3s I listen to any more are the ones being offered up all over the freaking web as free samples, on a "take this and copy freely" basis. They're good enough -- hell, they are way freaking better than whoever the American Idol flavor of the month is - and there's just tons of it out there for the picking, without worrying one whit about DRM or legal issues.
If they want to wall their content into a pen and make copying less easy, who cares? Amateur material, stuff that people can freely copy, will become that which is now "pop(ular)" culture.
It has already happened in my case. For example, pretty much the only
Why would I let the anxieties of the failed business model folks impair my music enjoyment experience? I don't even want to THINK about stupid issues like DRM, when I'm listening to music.
So go ahead and build your DRM casket, and jump right in, content business losers. Sometimes I feel sorry for you - I can see that everybody's out here playing and having fun, and you weren't invited. But most of the time, I just don't give a shit about your increasing irrelevance. Did anybody care about the buggy whip manufacturers when cars came along? And even if they cared then, does anybody care now?
Obsolescence is obsolescence. Enjoy your writhing death throes, and blind flailing. We have moved on.
The entire idea of DRM seems to be that you prevent people from passing the file to someone else.
I disagree. The idea is that you do not use the file in ways other than those explicitly allowed by the copyright holder. Distributing it to someone else would be illegal anyway.
This idea assumes that the original customer is a criminal. All DRM treats the customer (the person who has decided to pay for the file) as a criminal.
Disagree again. DRM only prevents me from doing things that are explicitly allowed by law. It does nothing to prevent me from acting illegally, i.e. downloading an illegally distributed version or removing the DRM restrictions using software that is illegal to distribute.
The stated agenda of DRM is flawed, the reality is not. I'm pretty damn certain many of those who have bought iTunes songs have bought the same song on CD. DRM leads to profit.
You're right, sorry. The advantage is that DRM forces some people to buy multiple copies of the same thing. I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote the original post.
Easy way to defeat DRM ...
.... it will fail.
...
if all the IT support peeps of the world who supports MOM's pc for free when she gets a virus refuse to support any PC with DRM built into it, it will fail.
Every friend who rings asking that obvious support quick question was not helped if they buy DRM crap
Most of the IT peeps I know have already agreed not to support users who buy DRM
rgds
dont you mean the 'three HEADED ac' heh heh heh
.. thee can make things "easier to buy than they are to pirate".
Way the First: You make sure that everyone can buy whatever they please in a manner that is convenient to them, at a price they consider fair, and you basically treat them like a valued customer. This has been the business model of countless organisations for many years, I tell thee.
Way the Second: You make it harder to pirate material. You concentrate your efforts on this, rather than making your products easier to buy or use. You appear on television sounding like something out of a 1950's movie about the American fear of Communism, except you use the word "Pirate". This be a difficult model to sustain, as thee are in a constant arms race with people the world over.
easy choice! Never buy from Intel.....ever again!!
NEVER update any Intel product....ever again!!
Swap out Intel infested hardware and software wherever found as soon as
economically feasable to do so.
Don't install software that uses it. Until Intel requires a DRM-only OS for their chips this is a non-issue for the savvy.
Same with Vista really. Vista will only force DRM on software that has the hooks for it. Use DRM-free content and players.
The bottom line is that there's a difference between DRM-aware and DRM-mandated. The one is fine (if a little disconcerting) and the other is dispicable. At this point customers won't stand for players that only play DRM content. Let's hope it stays that way.
Viiv isn't an actual product or technology, it's just a marketing scheme. It's a new brand name for things that already exist, a la "Centrino".
"If this is the case then why is Intel putting up with it?"
One phrase, Mandatory Remote Key Revocation. When Intel agreed to this, game over. It is the ultimate power, undefendable, given to MS and the content mafia. Intel is bent over an playing bitch.
-Charlie