Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Insider DRM Risks Monopoly Investigations

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the by-any-other-name dept.

Intel 217

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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Umm.... what? (-1, Troll)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791826)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791882)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (0)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792076)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792274)

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?

Re:Umm.... what? (1)

godefroi (52421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792860)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791886)

And how exactly can it be "sneaky" when Intel makes all this information about this technology public [intel.com] . They even have a webpage [intel.com] all about it. This is about as far from "sneaky" as one can be.

Re:Sneaky (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792868)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791976)

Except that x86 code doesn't only run on x86 processors...

Re:Umm.... what? (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792456)

And besides, not all x86 processors are made my Intel.

Re:Umm.... what? (4, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791986)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (3, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792092)

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 [dailyfinance.com] .

Re:Umm.... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792850)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792114)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792828)

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."

Re:Umm.... what? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792380)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792664)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792936)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (2)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792988)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792132)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792436)

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.

Re:Umm.... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792462)

Blu-Ray?

Re:Umm.... what? (0)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792580)

Nonsense, it absolutely is DRM. Just read the other article linked in the summary that describes why it's not DRM:

Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates, but still lets you enjoy your legally acquired movie in the best possible quality.

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.

DRM fails (2)

koro666 (947362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791832)

It has to be decrypted to be displayed. There is always a way to tap into that. DRM fails again.

Close the analog hole by making video games (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792668)

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.

Re:Close the analog hole by making video games (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792974)

No need to do that, HDCP is a joke to crack, just record off the hdmi link.

not surprising (1, Insightful)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791844)

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.

Re:not surprising (3, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792120)

Once Intel solved their heat problem and stopped adding latency layers, and thus began beating the pants off of AMD in benchmarks,

At what price point? The $900-per-processor range?

I've been extremely happy as an AMD customer. And every time I run price-for-performance, AMD comes out king even today. They haven't won the "fuck it I'm a millionaire money is no object" speed crown in a while, but I can get a much faster AMD CPU for the same price in the $100-200 range every time.

Re:not surprising (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792402)

No, about $250. I consider it an investment to get a good processor, but I am a gamer, and I heavily overclock. (i7 930 @ 4.2 right now). It's really a matter of how much money you're willing to spend on that performance. Since I compile applications (on Windows; I program), play video games, and do video encoding, I see big benefits in paying a few bucks more and getting better performance.

Re:not surprising (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792696)

I am a gamer

Any AMD GPU will clean any Intel GPU's clock, even an overclock. Intel GPUs are up there with a Radeon 9000 from 2003. GMA? Graphics my ass.

Re:not surprising (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792422)

Not only that, but AMD has what, half as many different sockets as intel? I built my machine out of $100 components and when the lowest-grade Phenom II X6 hits that price (I predict it will happen within six months, but I've been wrong before) then I will likely upgrade from my Phenom II X3... because I can. (And because I need more cores for video encoding.) I won't have to upgrade anything around my processor.

lntel only got ahead of AMD by bullying (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792540)

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.

Re:not surprising (1)

DBCubix (1027232) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792940)

Intel doesn't exactly have a history of being open and honest, but then again, what major corporation does?

Apple. Oh wait...

Not (not) DRM (2)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791860)

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.

Intel Inside (1)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791864)

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 not DRM! (1)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791866)

It's "an extra layer of content protection." wink, wink.

Re:It's not DRM! (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792460)

fucking blatant-ass liars.

quoting intel:

DRM means ‘Digital Rights Management’ and is used to control the use of digital media by controlling access, and preventing the ability to copy media such as movies.

nice selective omission, there, buddy. but its not just for MEDIA, but its also does include data that travels from src to dest. yes, drm is THAT vague and encompasses anything, not just 'media' like you seem to imply.

lets read further what the fucking liar intel says:

So Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection. Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates, but still lets you enjoy your legally acquired movie in the best possible quality.

content protection. how the FUCK is this not drm? asshole liars. they really piss me off. don't give me hamburger and tell me its filet mignon. we're not that fucking stupid, ok?

"it keeps data safe from pirates". well since you label almost anyone a pirate these days (even fair-use situations) then I guess you are really saying 'keeps data safe from YOU, the viewer'.

nice.

I hope this not only fails but fails big. I still do love intel tech on their cpus and north/south bridge (ich, etc) chipsets. intel makes great hardware. but this arm of intel is simply coddling to hollywood and wasting cpu real estate and power for nothing that can benefit the end user. we don't need DRM to be technically able to stream data from one internet node to another. your cpu is not 'helping' a thing but line hollywood's pockets and show that you're a good little lapdog for them.

Re:It's not DRM! (2)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792704)

Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates...

You wouldn't want those nasty pirates to hijack your data and replace little Susie's episode of Dora the Explorer with donkey porn, would you? Think of the children! Dear God, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Thank you, Intel, for the safe and secure armored truck of Intel Insider!

DRM is just a delay (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791868)

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.

Re:DRM is just a delay (1)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791996)

Well, you could work on an "untrusted" principle. Google for Analog hole; the various *IAA have been trying to plug it for years.

It is possible to turn off the video output if the monitor is "untrusted", and to encrypt the entire video stream, from source to pixel.

The problem is that the technology right now is fragile, and would cause a huge uproar. It might also run afoul of some anti-monopoly laws, as only certain "approved" hardware platforms would be able to display the video stream.

Re:DRM is just a delay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792136)

But the picture does have to get to a human eye eventually.

All it takes is a company to start selling CCD panel attachments for 'display calibration' that clip onto 'trusted' monitors and capture every frame in an analogue but near-perfect way, directly off the pixels of the trusted device.

Can't camcord a video game (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792742)

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.

I smell the old Pentium III Serial Number feature (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791876)

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 [cyber-rights.org]

Astounding Hypocrisy (5, Informative)

dr.newton (648217) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791894)

From that link to Intel's website:

DRM means 'Digital Rights Management' and is used to control the use of digital media by controlling access, and preventing the ability to copy media such as movies. ...Intel Insider is NOT a DRM technology.

...Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection...

So it's not Digital Rights Management, it's just Content Protection. I feel better.

Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (4, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792210)

FTA "Currently this service does not exist because the movie studios are concerned about protecting their content, and making sure that it cannot be stolen or used illegally."

No, obviously this isn't DRM, it is a technology to protect their rights to their digital content. Completely different. Not related. Nothing to see here, move along. Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34793042)

Well, if it's not DRM, then it shouldn't be illegal to circumvent it.

Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (1)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792212)

To enhance that warm, fuzzy feeling you just got:

But why stop at just movies, could this technology bring a myriad of services to the PC?

(Also from the Intel blog post)

Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792376)

so would you consider TLS/SSL DRM? it is a form of multi "Content Protection"

Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792464)

That is not how "content protection" is generally understood. TLS does not attempt to prevent the receiver of a message from forwarding the message to your adversary; "content protection" usually refers to systems that do attempt to prevent the receiving party from forwarding the message.

Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (1)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792914)

FWIW BBC use TLS/SSL to lock down content to specific devices, using vendor-specific root CAs, for their "iPlayer" online TV. TLS/SSL definitely can be used to build DRM.

Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792644)

But you missed his most important distinction that convincingly proves that Intel Insider is not DRM:

DRM is a piece of software, not hardware.

Can't argue with that iron-clad, and not entirely arbitrary, logic.

Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792754)

It's not DRM, it's a special peripheral that you stick in your ass so that the MAFIAA can *literally* fuck you while charging you for the privilege. If you pay for the "Deluxe Edition", they even use lube!

Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792968)

That explains getting pummelled by KY Jelly ads on Hulu lately.

Liars (3, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791952)

From TFA:

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.

Re:Liars (2)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792426)

Modern marketing at work. If a label get a bad vibe, find a new label for the same "product"...

Re:Liars (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792518)

I wonder if Intel's marketing team considered the possibility that calling the technology "Intel Insider" might backfire on them, by creating an association between "DRM" and "Intel" (and perhaps their slogan, "Intel Inside").

Re:Liars (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792444)

From TFA:

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.

I like that his full explanation for why it isn't DRM is basically that "DRM is software."

Of course, Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and a Google search [google.com] seem to disagree with that, but I guess Intel gets to make up their own definitions for terms to suit their (or Marketing's) needs.

Re:Liars (2)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792572)

Avoid words like protection, rights when talking about DRM. It's about restriction, limitations, disabling. Those words capture what it actually does.

Re:Liars (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792684)

I was just quoting the article. Personally, when I talk about these sorts of systems, I use the term "restriction technologies," because that is exactly what the systems are.

intel insider will be cracked in a week (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791960)

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.

Re:intel insider will be cracked in a week (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792916)

Hm, like having one of the largest market caps, ever?

Screen capture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791980)

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

Just buy 'em already (5, Interesting)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791984)

Ars [arstechnica.com] had a nice writeup of this yesterday, referencing a 2006 post [arstechnica.com] 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.

Bad Idea (5, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792556)

Just take a look at Sony - they are even more paranoid about piracy as a result of owning a movie studio.

Re:Just buy 'em already (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792698)

Want more movies on iTunes, Apple? You've got the cash, so BUY a production house.

Of course, if they go buy a raft of crap like Netflix did they can inflate their numbers without actually adding anything anyone wants to watch...

Not DRM! (1, Insightful)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791988)

It's "Content Protection"

Which of course is, entirely different.

Monopoly Investigations...? (1)

Jahava (946858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792034)

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.

Re:Monopoly Investigations...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792236)

Intel attempts to prevent AMD from offering such a service, that monopolistic behavior comes into play.

Phew, I'm so glad we don't have some sort of system where you could file documents describing how your new "original" "invention" works and then sue the crap out of anyone who tries to implement it. Glad we don't live in that world.

"Intel doesn't copy-protect, DRM copy-protects" (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792036)

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.

Re:"Intel doesn't copy-protect, DRM copy-protects" (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792158)

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.

Anything that limits the usage of digital content is DRM, hardware or software.

Re:"Intel doesn't copy-protect, DRM copy-protects" (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792176)

Oh crap, I screwed up the quote. There's my genius shining through, I suppose.

Re:"Intel doesn't copy-protect, DRM copy-protects" (1)

qw(name) (718245) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792560)

From the article:

"DRM is a piece of software, not hardware."

It seems to me that very few things can truly be defined as "hardware" these days. Even our hardware has software or firmware embedded in it.

I think Intel saw the $$$s and wet themselves with the joy of renewed opportunity and threw the consumer out with the bath water. Or just sold their soul to the devil.

Re:"Intel doesn't copy-protect, DRM copy-protects" (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792584)

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.

As already pointed out, Wikipedia says otherwise. Of course that isn't necessarily a reliable source, but a quick search [google.com] seems to corroborate the gist - DRM does't specifically apply to hardware or software, it is generally considered "a system for protecting copyrights of digital media."

HDCP? (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792038)

I thought that since HDCP was cracked [theinquirer.net] 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?

Re:HDCP? (1)

InEnacWeTrust (1638615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792246)

You have to create your own HDCP receiver with the key to decrypt the thing.

Re:HDCP? (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792750)

Which means that they should be shipping from Taiwan any day now.

Re:HDCP? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792250)

HDCP comes in various flavors, i.e. new versions bump the security up a notch. You've been able to get strippers for years, but they aren't cheap, so kid groups that rip these things aren't going to be doing it.

Audio is already watermark protected by Cinavia on some blu-rays. This means even if you rip the data, it won't play on an unauthorized device, like media players. They demand the source is a stamped BR disc rather than file. Nice eh?. Early BR players ignore it, but later ones and the PS3 honor it. Once this is in PC hardware, you can be sure they'll ignore it too.

Consumers don't care. When they hit a protection scheme that's not working, they'll go out and buy the latest $whatever.

Re:HDCP? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792474)

the HDCP crack was the master key for which you make device and content keys - it makes HDCP usless - this might be it's replacement. Remember the HDCP leak was sourced from Intel.

either way this is not DRM per say but rather a HD video optimized encryption/decryption device.. (best i can tell) so it wouldn't be anymore DRM than TLS/SSL

Re:HDCP? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792622)

either way this is not DRM per say but rather a HD video optimized encryption/decryption device.. (best i can tell) so it wouldn't be anymore DRM than TLS/SSL

Perhaps the best term to describe it would be "hardware assisted DRM." TLS is only intended to prevent your adversary from reading your messages in transit; this goes a bit further, in that it is supposed to prevent the receiving party from forwarding the message to your adversary after decrypting it. If this were just a crypto accelerator, they would not be spending so much time talking about how this will "enable" HD movies on your PC; they would be talking about how it improves your security and whatnot, and they would be advertising it for their server processors.

Re:HDCP? (3, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792578)

my understanding is that if you own a bd player and 'risk' putting bd discs into your system (maybe even network) that it can detect hardware and handshake down and disable (!) hardware it does not, uhhh, like.

if you do not ever mount a bd disc then the block-list part of the bd spec won't ever run. I think your hardware won't ever get on a local blacklist.

but if you DO mount a new enough bd disc, it could very well detect some rogue hw and try to stop it.

evil!

I boycott bd. bd is just not for me. thanks though ;)

Monopoly? Anti-competetive? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792108)

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.

Re:Monopoly? Anti-competetive? (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792490)

Of course. Being the only processors that can stream most online media totally wouldn't make them a monopoly.

Re:Monopoly? Anti-competetive? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792824)

That is assuming that every major media partner demands consumers have this processor, which hasn't happened yet.

Do you think iTunes is going to require this? What about Amazon video on demand?

And even then, having a large market share due to an exclusive feature still isn't illegal. Anti-competetive practices are.

For instance, EA has an exclusive partnership with the NFL for video games. That isn't illegal. You can still make a football game like Backbreaker, but Madden commands massive market share due to the exclusive EA license. That is legal and fair. If you don't like it, outbid EA for the NFL license.

DRM (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792142)

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.

Re:DRM (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792268)

They know that. You aren't smarter then they are, you don't know anything they don't in this regard.

Get a clue. It's uaefull for PR until they move to be big players in the next delivery system. They want to control the channel and the media.

Re:DRM (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792846)

They know that. You aren't smarter then they are, you don't know anything they don't in this regard.

Well, that leaves me wondering why DVDs are still being shipped with CSS...

Re:DRM (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792880)

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-12/mf_morris [wired.com]

I can give you story after story about major executives who all said digital media will fail, and how consumers don't want digital media, or how it is impossible to do right.

I can give you story after story about executives who insisted consumers will never legally pay for digital media.

I can show you stories of executives saying Hulu was doomed for failure, and NBC only allowed the project to end the debate that putting full episodes of TV on the web was a valid business model.

Hollywood, video game executives and the music industry demand DRM beacause they don't know better. Even worse, they spend money on DRM. It costs them money to "protect their investment", which in turn costs them that much more in tech support and customer nightmares.

If they knew better, they wouldn't do it.

Re:DRM (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792532)

but.. but.. customer service - no one like customer service.. what would we invest there..

Re:DRM (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792832)

All true, but I think the major point of your assertion, and the one that they always miss, is that EVERYONE doesn't have to break their DRM.

I think there is some assumption that if it takes an elaborate setup to break the DRM then it's OK, as not many people will bother, but the reality is once the DRM is broken, someone will release the content on P2P networks WITHOUT DRM. At that point, an easily copyable version is out in the wild. Game over.

That's what I don't get. They throw all this copyprotection on a Blu-ray, DVD, CD, downloadable file, etc, as if a pirates primary source for copying something is finding a friend with it and snagging their copy. In the 80's with VHS tapes that might have been the case, but today? If I want those files I don't even worry about what DRM is on them. I go to The Pirate Bay because, well, someone else has already done the heavy lifting on that stuff.

Re:DRM (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793064)

I meant to imply that. All it takes is one person to break DRM and then it is worthless because it is stripped for everyone else.

And for many of the pirates, simply the challenge of DRM, or the antagonizing by the executives is enough to motivate them.

No one hacked the PS3 when Linux was a legal and valid option on the console. When Sony decided to piss in the face of their consumers, it motivated GeoHot to truly break the console and release the hack in the wild.

Uncle Moneybags has become a corporate lobbyist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792160)

Why is it that Intel always seems to win second prize in the beauty contest?

Not DRM, but copy protection. Still just as bad. (1)

MazTaim (1376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792206)

Fair enough, using the strict definition of DRM, Intel Insider isn't DRM, but it is still copy protection.

Re:Not DRM, but copy protection. Still just as bad (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792628)

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?

Intel don't care a bit about hollywood (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792262)

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 = Don't Read Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792414)

DRM is OK in the following situations with me (as a consumer):

#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 .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!)

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.

In other words (1)

Kitsune Inari (1801214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792554)

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.

Access Control is DRM (1)

DjArioch (620342) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792642)

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 [wikipedia.org]

Go ahead, Intel and Hollywood, make my day. (2)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792708)

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?

Pfft (1, Funny)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792718)

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.

Excellent! (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792884)

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.

I wrote this to them on their blog... (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792946)

Thanks for the explanation but it seems like a distinction without a difference. If Insider is only available on Intel hardware then it prevents anyone from running another processor from accessing that content. Further, this is not a limitation based on clock cycles or rendering--it is based on encryption. Yes, it is hardware encryption but to the end user it still looks a lot like DRM.

Lastly, it is difficult to believe Intel won't face antitrust concerns if this technology is not opened up to all chip makers. This kind of thing leverages a dominant market position rather than actually innovating. As a user, and investor, I expect better of Intel.

I really don't like the notion of upselling encryption as a "feature" particularly when it is used for the benefit of people external to the user. In fact I really really hate it. i can see why Intel is doing this because it makes for a nice marketing pitch. "Now on Hulu, stream HD directly to your laptop or to your HD TV! (Sandy Bridge processor and Intel WiDi required)." I mean, i get it but bleh...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?