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.'"

Comments

Easy to buy is nice...

[iminplaya]

Easy to use is even nicer.

What this really means...

[Saven Marek]

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"

Re:What this really means...

[Lehk228]

you mean like threaten anyone who tries to make it easy to install an x86 operating system on generic x86 hardware?

With apologies to the original.

[Tackhead]

The original:

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're *lying*. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid =14107454

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.

What You Wanted To Hear

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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?

Common sense prevails!

[Y-Crate]

"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 think it is safe to say that the iTunes Store halo effect has a lot to do with this assumption. While the iTunes Store hasn't squashed piracy altogether, it has sold over a billion songs and tens of millions of videos that it is safe to say would not have necessarily been purchased if they had not been made available for sale so readily and easily through one mouse click.

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.

Re:Consumers should buy DRM-free hardware

[rubypossum]

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!!