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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?