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.'"
Easy to use is even nicer.
What?
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"
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!
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.
What if I wanted to screw your girlfriend, I'd be willing to pay you, but if you won't sell her to me then does that give me the right to just take what I want?
"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...
Maybe not the right, but it sure gives him a helluva good reason. So long as it's easier to buy then pay for something, people will generally pay for it. But if you want something, and nobody will sell it to you, and someone else says, "here, have it for free..." well, then thats where cause and effect come into play.
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
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.
Why this isn't modded Flamebait, I don't know. C'mon "Trecherous Computing", are we all in pre-school now? If you honestly believe that intel will not allow developers to release free products for their platform, you're certifiably insane. Which is unfortunate, since I think it would be GREAT. As much as I love free software (I'm typeing this on Slackware 10.1), I'm also a professional software developer. I would LOVE to prevent people from stealing my software. If you refuse to use my software under my terms, then you should not have access to it. It's that's simple. A system that prevented people from running unsigned code would be the greatest boon for the development community possible. No more would you find yourself paying for thousands of people to download your product - only to crack it and not pay you. Listen to me programmers! As much fun as Open Source projects are, you rarely make any money with them. Money is necessary in life to pay for the costs you incurr as you live. A small time developer would actually be able to quit side jobs and just sell their software if the wacko Trecherous Computing is addopted. Hooray for Trecherous Computing!!
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
Yes, I'm sure that everyone would welcome DRM that isn't used as a means to screw consumers.
One question: What possible use could DRM have besides screwing consumers?
Seriously! As far as I can tell, screwing consumers is the only thing DRM is good for. It prevents you from doing what you want to do with the data on your computer. That doesn't help you, it only hurts you.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.