Slashdot Mirror
Intel Insider DRM Risks Monopoly Investigations
Blacklaw writes "Intel's Sandy Bridge line of processors is impressing the tech community with its power, but a sneaky little feature designed to appease Hollywood has some concerned about Intel's intentions: Intel Insider. If a major video streaming service, such as Lovefilm or the US-based Hulu, were to implement Intel Insider technology on their movie streams — as a way of convincing Hollywood to release films sooner and in high definition without worrying about piracy — it would mean that only those who use Intel's very latest Sandy Bridge CPUs would be able to stream movies. Not only would those using older Intel chips that don't support the technology be cut off from the service, but those on systems featuring CPUs from rival manufacturers such as AMD and low-power specialist VIA would also be excluded."
In a blog post about this new feature, Intel denies that it is DRM.
It has to be decrypted to be displayed. There is always a way to tap into that. DRM fails again.
Intel doesn't exactly have a history of being open and honest, but then again, what major corporation does?
This is going to be scenario where I vote with my dollars. Once Intel solved their heat problem and stopped adding latency layers, and thus began beating the pants off of AMD in benchmarks, I switched to Intel processors in my builds. And if Hulu, Amazon, Netflix et. al. join in on the fun, I'll abandon them as well.
I'm switching back, benchmarks be damned. I'll have plenty of processing power regardless.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
WP sez:
Digital rights management (DRM) is a term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the usage of digital content and devices.
From TFA:
...it would mean that only those who use Intel's very latest Sandy Bridge CPUs would be able to stream movies.
So Intel Insider could be used to limit the usage of digital content.
Intel, you are dirty, dirty liars.
Sent from my CR-48
Seeing "Intel Inside"r makes me realize how far that company has come.
I miss MMX technology.
Incidentally, the word "Inside" is one of those words that loses its meaning the longer you look at it.
It's always confirmation bias!
It's "an extra layer of content protection." wink, wink.
Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~
No matter what, at some point, the data has to be made displayable for a TV/monitor/whatever. Until movies start being beamed directly into our brain, there will always be a way to get the unencrypted stream.
This is like a rerun of the old Pentium III Serial Number Feature to help prohibit copyright violations in software.
That worked well for Intel then too.. LOL
http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/intel-rep.pdf
Intel Insider DRM Risks Monopoly Investigations
Why? Because the blogger says so?
it would mean that only those who use Intel's very latest Sandy Bridge CPUs would be able to stream movies. Not only would those using older Intel chips that don't support the technology be cut off from the service, but those on systems featuring CPUs from rival manufacturers such as AMD and low-power specialist VIA would also be excluded."
Duh? Of course if you are using a CPU that doesn't implement the technology that the service is based on you wouldn't be able to use it. This is like saying that "Intel Faces Monopoly Investigation" because x86 code only runs on... x86 processors.
After all, corporations can do no wrong! We must therefore protect and defend them by minimizing, excusing, and downplaying any wrong that they do because after all it wasn't really wrong anyway.
And how exactly can it be "sneaky" when Intel makes all this information about this technology public. They even have a webpage all about it. This is about as far from "sneaky" as one can be.
From that link to Intel's website:
So it's not Digital Rights Management, it's just Content Protection. I feel better.
Just another proletarian malcontent.
I will say that Intel Insider is NOT a DRM technology.
So Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection
Talk about doublethink.
Palm trees and 8
these guys really need to try and do something like Steam and offer their stuff at reasonable prices if they want to protect their profits. I am surprised shareholders are not giving them hell for the insistence on crap business practices that are proven time and time again to not work.
Except that x86 code doesn't only run on x86 processors...
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
If they intend to display the media on the screen, any half decent media recorder is more than likely going to be able to detect the DirectX or OpenGL region and record it. This hardly bullet proof at all, it only inconveniences people not using Intel processors that are up to date.
captcha: funding
Ars had a nice writeup of this yesterday, referencing a 2006 post of theirs. The basic gist is/was that DRM simply CANNOT be a good sell for tech companies, and given that Intel and the other consumer electronics companies are so massive when compared to production costs, why don't they just buy one? Intel could piss on its shoes and come out with the budget for a dozen major films, which they could then release DRM free, to the joy of all of their customers. Hollywood is big, but there are only six major production houses and a number of smaller ones... all of which are worth far less than the major tech companies. Want more movies on iTunes, Apple? You've got the cash, so BUY a production house.
I didn't mean to editorialize, but I think I started to convince myself by the end there.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Duh? Of course if you are using a CPU that doesn't implement the technology that the service is based on you wouldn't be able to use it. This is like saying that "Intel Faces Monopoly Investigation" because x86 code only runs on... x86 processors.
Congratulations, you just proved the point. Intel DID face monopoly investigations for x86 instruction sets. That's why AMD exists, because Intel was forced to license the i386 instruction set.
If Intel doesn't license out this technology, and it becomes the dominant media distribution platform, they'll likely face the same problems again. However, Intel has learned, and these days AMD and Intel cross-license quite a bit. x86_64, for example, is AMD tech that Intel has licensed.
.
It's "Content Protection"
Which of course is, entirely different.
So if I am the only company that offers a service, I risk a monopoly investigation? Intel isn't trying to squash competition, nor are they trying to obtain market exclusivity. They have included a feature that they think will be appealing to people / industry. Nothing's stopping AMD or any other manufacturer from introducing a similar feature (save, perhaps, patents?).
Now, granted, a stream destined for an Intel Insider system will not work on an AMD equivalent, but there's nothing in there to preclude the same source from providing an identical stream targeting the AMD equivalent as well. It's only when content providers refuse to provide such a stream, or when Intel attempts to prevent AMD from offering such a service, that monopolistic behavior comes into play.
From reading Intel's blog post, it sounds like they're defining DRM to be a software component and pointing out that Insider is a hardware feature, so not DRM. I think they're probably even right. But it sounds like Intel Insider is a hardware feature that's intended for implementing DRM (although maybe it has other uses) and that they're marketing it as being an improvement for DRM. It seems a little bit misleading to say "It's not DRM but it has these benefits ". But that's just my take on the blog post, maybe more technical information would change the picture.
I thought that since HDCP was cracked it's possible to make high-def copies via HDMI? So it doesn't matter what encryption exists inside the playback device since if it's going to be output to an HDMI device, it can be captured and recorded?
Or was the HDCP crack mitigated by new keys on new devices? Or is HDMI copying not practical in the real world?
After all, corporations can do no wrong! We must therefore protect and defend them by minimizing, excusing, and downplaying any wrong that they do because after all it wasn't really wrong anyway.
You message insinuates that the actions of producing a computer chip with some technology is clearly and inexcusably morally wrong. I don't understand this claim and I think it needs more elaboration then false dichotomy quips along the lines of "If you don't think it's wrong then clearly you think corporations can't do ANY wrong!"
As far as I can tell their creating a product that will convince other companies to provide extra content that would be accessible by their product. They bear no moral or legal responsibility to make sure that content is also made available equally to all other platforms. This isn't elementary school where if you bring in a birthday invite you have to bring one for everyone. If the other kids/companies want a invite from the cool kids in Hollywood maybe they should find a way to stop their guests from stuffing their pockets full of silverware when they get invited over too.
The bigger joke is, pretty soon this DRM-crap will be in just about every new processor. So it'll only be people with older CPU's (read: anything not 1-2 years new) that lack.
Sort of the way that people with Windows Vista or Win7 get fucked for video quality hooking a laptop or HTPC up to a TV or projector that happens to have a VGA input rather than DVI or HDMI.
Welcome to "the future", where DRM is fucking everywhere and your rights as a consumer mean precisely Jack and Shit. And if you wonder how we got there, look no further than the two-party system where both sides are bought out by the same businesses.
When Intel refused to ship purchased product unless a vendor refused to carry AMD, that was illegal. When Intel strong-armed vendors in other ways not to carry AMD, that was illegal.
Offering an exclusive feature with partners is not illegal. That is just an exclusive feature.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Congratulations, you just proved the point. Intel DID face monopoly investigations for x86 instruction sets. That's why AMD exists, because Intel was forced to license the i386 instruction set.
Wrong, that had nothing to do with a monopoly investigation or anything to do with such. It had to do with the fact that Intel broke an agreement made with AMD to provide them the technical details of their CPUs because IBM required all chips put into their PCs to be made by two sources. In the end, Intel wasn't forced to license anything and in fact due to the legal uncertainty over implementing the Intel microcodes, AMD was forced to do a clean-room implementation.
This is another example of a real point being quickly considered as a troll.
The blogger is trying to spin this into DRM. The feature the blogger is talking about is not a DRM, but a special instruction set that only works on Intel GPUs, which allows for accelerated content.
There is no way that "Hollywood" wants to severely undermine their market share just to combat piracy.
It has been said before, but it needs to be repeated by high-profile writers until Hollywood listens.
DRM will always be cracked. You are not stopping pirates. You are punishing paying customers by treating them like criminals. Hollywood is convinced (like the music industry was) that no one would willingly pay for digital content if they have the capability to pirate it. The reality is that iTunes is the #1 seller of music, with Amazon #2. People do actually like paying for legal, digital content.
People will pirate. DRM isn't the solution. Finding ways to reward paying customers and treating them well is the solution.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Why is it that Intel always seems to win second prize in the beauty contest?
Fair enough, using the strict definition of DRM, Intel Insider isn't DRM, but it is still copy protection.
They care about creating their own streaming standard so that people have to buy media boxes with intel chips or intel licences.
As long as it's only used with content that would be DRM'ed anyway it's not something that strikes me as incredibly controversial.
if you charge me again and again for the same beatles album (or, relevant to kids today, the same star wars movie) then, YES, we have the moral right to stuff our pockets with the silverware on the way out.
fair is fair. you stop and we'll stop. deal?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
However, Intel has learned, and these days AMD and Intel cross-license quite a bit. x86_64, for example, is AMD tech that Intel has licensed.
Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with learning, that has to do with AMD beating Intel to the market with a useful 64 bit instruction set (Itanic is a joke and will always be nothing more than a footnote) and Intel having no choice but to follow AMD's lead. It's an illustration of what happens when you rest on your laurels.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
DRM is OK in the following situations with me (as a consumer):
.epub book, listening to a .mp3, watching a .mkv), can be read and displayed by anybody willing to write a program to display it. You can't predict what the consumer is going to use even a year from now. (Will they buy a new TV? Whoops, now you can't watch any of your movies!)
#1: The content inherently requires connection to the server in question. (Pretty much all online games, certain SaaS applications)
#2: The DRM is minimal, comes with additional services, and in general, replaces the annoyance of DRM with additional convenience. (Steam, Apple App Stores, etc.)
The lesson here is there are very specific use cases for these. For instance, when you're playing World of Warcraft, there's only the clients that Blizzard has written for the game. That's it, there's no other way to play the game.
DRM is absolutely not OK, even in the slightest bit if:
#1: It's strictly text, video, music, pictures, or other common bits of data.
The lesson here is that common formats for data (reading an
The point is, this falls under the "not OK" category in the strictest sense, because the DRM is on the hardware. Epic Fail Intel, you've lost my business.
Some where a duck is wondering why he's suddenly meowing...
If you don't think Hollywood would cut its nose to spite its face, you clearly haven't been paying attention.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
And besides, not all x86 processors are made my Intel.
Blu-Ray?
lntel only got ahead of AMD by bullying dell and other to only have there shit P4's cutting amd R&D funds slowing them down for coming with new chip after they real good X2 amd 64's.
by the time core2 came out that was better then the p4 the bullying stopped.
If I understand correctly, if a major video streaming service were to implement Intel Insider technology on their movie streams they would immediately lose most of their clients, even if just temporally. I mean, they would be unable to access their service at all.
Just take a look at Sony - they are even more paranoid about piracy as a result of owning a movie studio.
Nonsense, it absolutely is DRM. Just read the other article linked in the summary that describes why it's not DRM:
Sounds like DRM to me. He's only argument for why it's not DRM is that, in this words, "DRM is a piece of software, not hardware." which is just mind-blowingly stupid. So a (theoretical) piece of hardware that did the exact same function as DRM wouldn't be DRM only by virtue of the fact that it's not software. That's a stupid distinction.
Fair enough, using the strict definition of DRM, Intel Insider isn't DRM, but it is still copy protection.
What strict definition of DRM? The one Intel made up to suit their purposes? None of the sources I've seen in a few quick searches say anything about DRM being software. In most cases it is referred to as a system, where it is not explicitly stated that it can be software, hardware, or a combination of the two. So where does this strict definition come from that you refer to?
From Wikipedia, Digital rights management (DRM) is a term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the usage of digital content and devices. The term is used to describe any technology that inhibits uses of digital content not desired or intended by the content provider. The term does not generally refer to other forms of copy protection which can be circumvented without modifying the file or device, such as serial numbers or keyfiles. It can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. Quacks like a duck then it must be a duck. Limit the use through technology then it must be DRM. I will be moving to AMD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with learning, that has to do with AMD beating Intel to the market with a useful 64 bit instruction set (Itanic is a joke and will always be nothing more than a footnote) and Intel having no choice but to follow AMD's lead. It's an illustration of what happens when you rest on your laurels.
Depends on your viewpoint. I like AMD, and typically buy AMD, but realistically, it was moreso AMD that was resting on it's laurels. There is nothing really wrong with Itanium. It's a perfectly viable 64-bit instruction set. It's only major fallback was that well, it wasn't x86. Technical problems had little to do with it.
AMD basically shoe-horned 64-bit instructions into the x86 architecture. A far less creative and less impressive feat, but the reality is that market forces decide what succeeds and what doesn't - and the market didn't WANT creative or impressive. They wanted something that they could ease into without breaking backwards compatibility. Notice that just now are people really starting to move to Windows 64-bit in numbers - many years after the chips have been available.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
It has to be decrypted to be displayed. There is always a way to tap into that.
At the cost of millions of dollars to put probes directly into the chip. The point of DRM, as I understand it, isn't to make things impossible to decrypt but to A. make it cheaper to write, film, edit, and promote your own original work than to break a DRM system, and B. provide a hook for a circumvention lawsuit. If you're talking about analog reconversion, this works only for noninteractive media such as movies, not for interactive media such as video games.
The tighter you squeeze, the more sand slips through your fingers, Hollywood; the more restrictive you make things, the more you encourage people to find ways to circumvent your systems of control, and the less profitable you become. Why can't these people understand that their business model doesn't work anymore?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Not only would those using older Intel chips that don't support the technology be cut off from the service, but those on systems featuring CPUs from rival manufacturers such as AMD and low-power specialist VIA would also be excluded.
Hey, welcome to Linux. We stream our movies the old-fashioned way - from hard drives of friends.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
So you're talking about camcording the screen. This might work for movies but will never work for video games: a speedrun or Let's Play is no substitute for playing it yourself.
IBM required all chips put into their PCs to be made by two sources.
Then why doesn't Lenovo, who bought IBM's PC division half a decade ago, continue to insist on this? "License it to AMD, or we'll unleash ARM laptops that dual-boot Ubuntu and Windows/ARM with Windows Mobile application compatibility."
Sort of the way that people with Windows vista or Win7 get fucked for video quality hooking up a laptop or HTPC up to a TV or projector that happens to have a VGA input rather than DVI or HDMI
Easily bypassed. And at least you don't have to deal with XP's jittery as FUCK synchronisation issues, and can take advantages of additional filtering and decoder offloading.
How exactly did they force you to buy anything? If you don't like the game they're playing, you're free to not participate.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Because suddenly those nice happy streams you were enjoying get yanked away from you and are only eligible on Sandy Bridge chip machines. However, we only learn about this in January after you already bought a generic Windows 7 machine.
So now we not only have everyone making software lockins, we are seeing the first hardware lockins. You'll have to carry a chart around to figure out the dependencies.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I've always wanted my machine to not support DRM - if restricions management will require a processor feature that I don't have, then there's no way that me or my kids will put DRM-infected content on the computer. As for the 'access to the content' - anybody who wants my money will find a way to offer it without DRM, and pirates will have access anyway.
There is nothing really wrong with Itanium. It's a perfectly viable 64-bit instruction set. It's only major fallback was that well, it wasn't x86. Technical problems had little to do with it.
That is a load of dingo's kidneys. Intel can not get anything like the promised performance out of Itanium and where they get close it requires massive code changes because they have not managed to get enough magic into the compiler, which is why everyone and their mom is dropping it. Nobody bought Itanium on purpose, it was all crap like being forced to upgrade to it because the old system is on Alpha and the only upgrade path for the software you are running is to go to Itanium. I saw this happen personally at a community college which is now hosting their student info on an 8-way itanium that is maybe using 10% of its capabilities. A two-processor system would have covered their needs nicely for decades.
AMD basically shoe-horned 64-bit instructions into the x86 architecture. A far less creative and less impressive feat,
That's a load of nonsense because "the x86 architecture" is a meaningless phrase. x86 is an instruction set, full stop. amd64 processors bear no resemblance whatsoever to an i386 except that they can handle processing the same code. Everything that makes Hammer look like an x86 is in the LSU and op-decode.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Incorrect. Itanium's ISA makes much much greater demands of compilers than x86 does. Much of the reason for Itanium's failure is that Intel could not squeeze sufficient performance out of it because of this. Clear technical reason contributing to its failure.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
everyone's forgetting about intel's consumer division Set-Top-Box CPU, which is specifically banned / restricted (by intel themselves) from being sold as a Laptop / Desktop CPU. it's a SoC with an embedded 1ghz Intel Atom Core, combined with PowerVR SGX 3D and 1080p60 HD Video playback, which means that to do HDTV the Intel CPU Core is idling at about 3%. it does NOT use Intel's own GMA Graphics, nor Intel's own MPEG decoder, because they're too crap.
why am i mentioning this CPU? because it only has HDMI 1.4 - absolutely no LVDS, VGA or RGB/TTL out. why is that? it's to *stop* people from bypassing the DRM!
the holywood companies etc. are so paranoid, and so "in control" that even companies like Intel bow to them and create this kind of insane restricted cartel hardware.
i remain deeply unimpressed and i am hoping that the reduced price and the "freedom" afforded by the Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean markets (irony to call the Chinese markets "free" but that's by comparison to what hollywood+intel are up to), results in at least *some* mass-market CPUs being at least open enough to work with.
but, one thing that stops that is the fact that many of these Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean companies have to utilise Linux (because it's not Intel). that means that they are typically ignorant of the GPL; that means that they treat the Free Software Community's hard work and efforts with blatant disregard.
So, for those people reading this who actually want to make a difference: start doing GPL investigations of products and their firmware, get onto the gpl-violations mailing list, help to pressurise these Asian companies to comply, by educating them on their obligations. each person who does that takes up that company's time, to the point where eventually, like Ingenic did and VIA have (finally) and amazingly even Telechips recently, they will get the message and release GPL source code.
Back when MMX extensions first came out Intel set up some deals for content that were only available on processors with the new MMX extensions, but it was insignificant enough that nobody cared. Now they're doing it again, but with bigger content providers so it'll be noticed more.
Because Intel can laugh at Lenovo if Lenovo said that today.
Intel couldn't laugh at the "two source" requirement back then.
Because Lenovo doesn't have the marketshare sway that IBM did to make such demands?
Lock-in as in: video streaming company getting a "stream" of unsubscribing users because they no longer can use the service...
0 comments on this piece of PR bullshit? What a surprise, the PR is leading to censorship!
All I can say is fuck off Intel, I will not be buying your products again. I do not pay for anything if it contains any form of anti-feature, no matter how appealing the features might be. When your hardware contains features that hand control of my property to a third party, that feature suddenly becomes an anti-feature. That third party will use their control ability to interfere with what I might want to do with my property, and just because some IP laws say that I am not allowed to copy some data, I will still do so if I want.
The internet exists, and computers exist. So when the market offers copies of data at n currency units (eg a DVD movie for 15UKP), but a person can make their own copy of the data at n x 10^-5 or -6, it is obvious what will happen. Industry reacts by name calling (pirates) and law-buying, and when that fails they send their slush-funds to other corrupt corporations to make their products shittier.
I'm kinda glad I moved away from Windows after XP (I have used fista once, and only a release candidate of 7), so as I use Linux moving away from intel compatibles will be easier than changing CPU architecture and OS - I know how to use the OS, so moving to ARM, Sparc, PPC, etc. is a possibility. Though in the mean time AMD will sell me a chip without anti-features.
Shit, even your boyfriend Microsoft is looking at ARM processors. I guess with the Wintel duopoly drifting towards the rocks you are looking for other sources of money without offering what the customer might actually want. So you've got into bed with Hollywood. I hope you catch something!
Car analogies break down.
Buy AMD.
Don't consume DRM'ed products.
You don't need Hollywood or RIAA products, all of which are trifling bullshit that can be dispensed with.
If you WANT them, then shut up and KNOW that by spending your MONEY on them you are gorging on corporate cock.
Vote with your wallet or grab your ankles.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Whatever it is that Intel put into the cpu can always be done in software. Having the process native inside the CPU will make it faster, and means that a special DLL wouldn't be required. However, it will still be possible to do the same thing in software. So whatever it is, it will be cracked. QED.
I'm utterly confused what you're talking about. My laptop has ONLY a VGA out. I have a screen that is VGA. I can play blu-ray movies at 1080p on that monitor. No hacking required, just through the bog standard PowerDVD that shipped with the system. I've had no video quality issues whatsoever over VGA in Vista or 7. Please explain in detail to me a situation where I would be bemoaning the DRM in my OS, so that I can reproduce it...so far, there have been no problems...
When you monopolize a market you basically kill it except for yourself. Death of a market means no competition and higher costs. You can also use certain markets to lock out other markets. DirectX is one of them. Most programming is done to Microsoft's tune using their tools. There used to be others such as those product produced by Borland. If you can keep those areas locked down then you can keep your main monopoly alive for significantly longer periods of time.
So, if Intel implements this DRM scheme and it is used by many in Holywood, it means that content only plays on their platform. The hell with Android, or any ARM based CPU. It neutralizes competition from AMD. Any new product such as Tegra2 is a goner before it gets off the ground. It keeps Intel in its monopoly position for another few decades.
Not only that, there's no DRM that's good and none that are friendly to the legitimate end-user. What, every AMD based user is supposed to quit Netflix or Hulu? We are supposed to stop using any video disc technology? No more .MP3s?
By controlling the content you control the markets outside of yours. This is precisely why it was very important to not let Microsoft get a foothold in the DRM market because everything produced would have required that we use Microsoft's product. Bill Gates said very clearly a few years ago: computers are no longer primarily used to generate content. They are used to consume it. Hence, if you control content you control consumers.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
If I somehow lose the ability to play DRM video on my general-purpose hobbyest computer, I won't miss it. An HD Roku box is $99 - I can watch streaming TV from that.
This is more interesting for phones and netbooks and iOverpaids. Handheld devices are rapidly replacing general-purpose computers, and while the DRM war is already lost on most of them, none of them use this new Intel chip, and many of them couldn't. Handhelds and set-top boxes are the primary customers for video in the years to come, the general-purpose computer is an afterthought, really.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
dump the obsession with the PS3 and focus on keeping desk/lap/mobile CPUs in the control of their owners, instead of the Content Lords.
The problem "only CPU-X will be able to stream movies" already is true, except it's not Sandy Bridge it's a different processor that is the winner.
Originally the major HD streaming services (like VUDU) could only stream blu-ray quality content to boxes running BroadCom video decoders (that have a fancy hidden-key system, obfuscated internal logic, and decrypt and decode H264 to HDMI/HDCP within the same chip).
Then after the studios started smelling profits they started getting looser with their requirements so now you can stream blu-ray quality on PS3s and other (heh) open systems, starting the day the DvD is released
But they won't allow high-quality video on PCs yet. If sandy-bridge gets blu-ray onto the PC, its only a matter of time before it will be everywhere. The studios would be stupid to fall for that. They probably will.
NVidia/ATI are the ones that need to integrate the decryption into the hardware accelerated video decoding and make an impervious package.
Or, you can look at this as Intel just trying to force the public to buy new computers (chips) because that is the only way to get the service they want. Can you say "Iphone and AT&T"?
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I believe he's talking about the idea of being forced to re-buy what you already have once you have it instead of freely being able to back it up though I could be wrong.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
It's a informal term that was coined just a few years ago, there is not even a general community consensus of what it means, let alone a strict definition. In other words, we get to define it, at least for a few more years before it settles down. =D
In my book, Intel Insider definitely qualifies as DRM. My rationale? It Digitally Restricts individual freedom under the guise of benevolent Management.
But you won't stop. You're compulsive.
Why are you buying an album or Star Wars disc set over and over? OCD? Example:
You never bought the CD version or the Digital Deluxe version when it was released on vinyl. You bought the vinyl version.
Do you think that Apple (the other Apple, confusing I know) should track down all people who bought original albums and give them digital downloads? Run a server and just offer old music for free using the CD key hidden inside the vinyl case in case of this eventuality?
If they spend the time to reformat it or whatever, why should they just give it to you because you've been a customer before?
I don't think it's worth it to upgrade my whole DVD collection to BluRay and pay all over again, but I'm not going to go and download all the BluRays. Even if I do, I don't feel as though I'm entitled to - at least I'll admit I'm stealing it. I have the DVDs, and they haven't been taken from me.
Interesting.
No, you couldn't be more wrong.
AMD produces x86 processors because Intel wanted government contracts with people like the military and NASA. The government doesn't buy important things like processors its entire business is going to depend on if there is only one source.
In order for Intel to get these big deals, they had to license x86 to other companies, such as AMD and Cyrix and the like, so they wouldn't be the only vendor ... allowing NASA to purchase x86 CPUs from Intel because there were multiple sources (preventing Intel from having control over the governments purchasing by being the sole vendor of a required item).
AMD makes x86 chips because NASA said so, not because of some court case.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I see, a limited number of plays idea. I agree that that seems more morally shady.
Interesting.
Actually, you are only partly right. Intel originally licensed x86 processor technology to AMD and Cyrix because they could not produce enough chips to meet demand. Intel understood at the time that they had the opportunity to become the standard for personal computers, but only if people could get enough of their chip design to meet demand. If manufacturers could not get enough x86 chips to meet demand, they would go with someone else's chips. If that happened, there would be people out there who were not subject to Intel's vendor lock-in. Unfortunately for Intel (but fortunately for everybody else), by the time Intel had enough manufacturing capacity to keep up with demand, they had licensed enough of the x86 instruction set to AMD, that AMD could reverse engineer any advances Intel made in its chipsets. That combined with the fact that the courts refused to allow Intel to trademark 80x86 meant that Intel could not keep AMD out of the x86 market.
This is not to contradict your point but to augment it, because the point you made played a role in the situation as well.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You message insinuates that the actions of producing a computer chip with some technology is clearly and inexcusably morally wrong.
In this case, that insinuation is considered by many to be correct.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Once a hugely-powerful system like this is fully-implemented, "stupid DRM tricks" are actually the least worrisome aspect. What government can accomplish in the way of control of everyone's information & digital communications is far more worrisome.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Then AMD invented x86-64 and Intel was forced to license it after Itanium failed. They have squabbled a couple times about this mutual-licensing thing, but neither can really take their ball and go home. Intel plays really dirty when it comes to ensuring their dominance over AMD. Apparently there's no such thing as a non-abusive monopoly.
</history>
You would have problems if you were trying to play the video from a retail BD-rom disc, but you are more than likely watching .avi or .mkv files encoded with H.264 or xVid codecs, which have none of these problems and will remain unaffected by intel's new DRM instruction.
It's sneaky in respect to the hundreds of millions of users that will have no idea what's happening or that they are going to be limited--regardless of what their buried technical pages specify.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Ok, let's be more specific. How did they force you to repurchase anything you'd already purchased? Did your VHS tapes stop working suddenly?
He decided he wanted some (real or perceived) benefit of a newer format, and they wouldn't give it away for free, so he sees that as justification for copyright violations. I don't agree.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
This is exactly what I was thinking. If I was forced out of Netflix(possibility) or Hulu because of this, then I would just go to reading books(still paper because they are cheaper than digital and free if the library has it), and doing things outside in my downtime. I may be a nerd, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy time outside in the garden(mmm...fresh veggies to support my cooking addicti..err...hobby: I freestyle meals since I hate using a recipe.) Cold winter days or at night i'll just have the PS3, however, until I get a new laptop.
Is that why they used a constant instead of a random number?
I was umming and ahhing about CPUs for my next PC, then waited until Sandy Bridge came out at the advice of a friend who keeps informed about PC product developments.
Unfortunately AMD isn't the superior manufacturer at the moment but they are at very attractive price points. I can't financially support DRM.
Didn't you see the story a few months ago about how the HDCP master key generation matrix is available?
This is true of HDCP, but as SuricouRaven pointed out, not necessarily true of the successor to HDCP.
The discussion is about CPUs.
If you buy a motherboard designed to take an AMD CPU, you get an AMD integrated GPU. if you buy a motherboard designed to take an Intel CPU, on the other hand, you get Graphics My Ass.
Gee, it reminds me of the betamax versus standard video players. Even if your technology is great, there will not be any users. And the problem with incorporating DRM in the processor is that the data still has to come down the pipe, and someone will determine how to attack the actual input file. Why don't they just use the TPM, which is motherboard based.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
I have no problems playing from my retail BD-ROM discs. Sorry, but it still sounds like FUD to me. In fact, right now I happen to, on my desktop, be watching Battlestar Galactica, from a Bluray disc, over a VGA cable, at 1080p, on a CRT monitor, in Windows 7. And it's working absolutely 100% fine.
I don't think Intel will get into any trouble with this, because it will most likely flop. What do you think will happen when Netflix all of a sudden told their customers to go out and buy a new computer with intel DRM, or else they would no longer be able to stream movies? There is no incentive for any streaming service to implement this DRM.
I just saw a new Motorola Andriod phone that can be connected to a monitor and keyboard and used like a normal computer. It runs on an NVidia Tegra 2 chip. No Intel, no Microsoft. Mobile phones are now powerful enough to play HD movies. Do you think NVidia is going to waste their time and money to implement DRM on their chips? Market forces decide what should be built. Market forces are against DRM, therefore DRM will not be everywhere.
I can tap into the LVDS lines that connect the TV's flat panel display.
And watch makers of devices that can record from LVDS get sued. Besides, recording the output still won't work for breaking protection on video games.
basic digital electronic skills, and soldering skills
I imagine that most end users who want to format-shift their lawfully purchased copies of films lack soldering skills.
I think you neglect the value of Open Source Hardware.
Unlike open source software, open source hardware isn't as easy to put together as ./configure && make && sudo make install.
All of the game consoles are jailbroken.
And the console makers have been successfully suing companies that sell jailbreak tools, even those marketed as "homebrew" tools for developers that don't meet the console makers' criteria for authorized developers. Two words: Lik Sang.
You can mix and match your CPU and discrete graphics all you want, including using an ATI (AMD) card with an Intel chipset/CPU.
I am aware of this. One of my desktop PCs has an Intel CPU and a Radeon card. But how easy is it to add a discrete video card to a laptop?
Actually, you're right, the blu-ray in encrypted, so if you didn't have the DRM decoder installed, then you would be having problems. The DRM code lets you play your copy-protected discs, and doesn't care about regular video files. The only problem you would ever experience is when you try to be the original pirate for the video, which every consumer doesn't need to do. Someone somewhere will be able to circumvent the copy-protection, and then someone will upload the video, so really there's no problem for anyone except the media companyies. (They do get 3 or 4 years of actual copy-protection before it breaks sometimes, which is pretty good because I don't like to wait that long before watching my movies)
The information does not seem to be public. I've searched Intel's web pages, and I can't find any information on what exactly is in the CPU. Are there particular instructions that is uses? Are there particular algorithms that it implements? If so, which ones? There's basically nothing there. From the web page, you can't even tell if there's actually anything special in the processors at all or if it's just software that Intel only allows to run on those CPUs.