×

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 Claims No DRM

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the whos-got-the-facts? dept.

Patents 350

pallmall1 writes "The Inquirer has an official statement from Intel claiming the Computerworld Today Australia story from May 27th was incorrect, and the Pentium D and the 945 chipsets do not have unannounced DRM technology embedded in them. The statement says Intel products support or will support several copy protection schemes such as Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others. The statement concludes: 'While Intel continues to work with the industry to support other content protection technologies, we have not added any unannounced DRM technologies in either the Pentium D processor or the Intel 945 Express Chipset family.' The Intel Chip with DRM story has been previously reported on Slashdot. Update: 06/05 20:12 GMT by Z : Fixed the Macrovision link.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

350 comments

Of course they're going to deny it! (5, Insightful)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730537)

If it's unannounced, I don't expect them to admit to it even if it is really there. The ID on the Pentium 3 was still there as well, even though they claimed to have disabled it after the uproar.

Well (5, Insightful)

mcc (14761) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730559)

Now that they've said it isn't in there, if it turns out later that they were lying and it is in there, isn't that class-action-lawsuit worthy material?

Because I for one consider a chip which purposefully takes control of my computer away from me and gives it to someone else without my authorization to be broken.

Ah, the great question! (2, Insightful)

DietCoke (139072) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730560)

This is like the question "Do you still beat your wife?"

For god's sake. Intel's been decent overall, when did it become their job to discount every allegation just to make some folks happy?

Re:Ah, the great question! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730576)

when did it become their job to discount every allegation just to make some folks happy?

On the day that they denied the allegation that the pentium had a bug concerning the fdiv instruction, and their credibility died.

Re:Ah, the great question! (0, Troll)

black mariah (654971) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730605)

Eleven years and you'r still being a fucking whiny cunt about that? Go die and save us the oxygen. Fucking pathetic retard.

Re:Ah, the great question! (3, Insightful)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730599)

"when did it become their job to discount every allegation just to make some folks happy?"

The day they started selling chips to their customers.

Re:Ah, the great question! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12731002)

Nah, companies don't really care about their customers. They care about their shareholders.

Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730569)

"Nope...no DRM. These chips do however offer our new "DRP" technology...aka...Digital Rights Prevension, 'cause let's face it...you guys don't deserve any."

Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (1)

mAineAc (580334) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730601)

"DRP" technology...aka...Digital Rights Prevension
With your spelling I took that as "Digital Rights Perversion." I think mine would be more accurate ;)

Lying Means Class-Action Liability Suit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730644)

Intel's management is telling the truth when it says that there is no DRM technology in the processor [phrusa.org]. The management knows well the potential lawsuits that could arise if it told a lie.

After all, we are living in the USA, and Intel is still headquarted in Santa Clara (even though the majority of workers were born in China or India, where honesty is viewed as a liability).

If Intel were a Chinese company headquartered in Taiwan or mainland China, then we would have good reason to suspect that Intel is lying. Lying is considered fun, and casual in Chinese society.

Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730782)

How Intel previously announced its DRM technology:

It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (1)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730868)

If it's unannounced, I don't expect them to admit to it even if it is really there. The ID on the Pentium 3 was still there as well, even though they claimed to have disabled it after the uproar.

Can't there be massive returns saying they sold a product different than advertised? A class action lawsuit?

And what if the NSA wants an ID on the Pentium 3, can they force Intel to have it, while also forcing Intel to keep quiet about it?

I know in the patriot act, the FBI now has powers to do searches without a warrent, and to order the people involved with the search to deny any knowledge you were searched. They do this with banks all the time. They search the account of Mr. T, then order the bank to never tell Mr. T that his account information was taken by the government.

Since Intel is so large, and there are not that many alternative choices (AMD), I can see how it would be easy for government to make these orders and for very few people to know.

And if there is an ID on a pentium 3 chip, how does the internet trafic comming out of a machine look any differet? Is it easy to detect and alter? Is this like the dots printed on HP's that tell the make and where it was sold, to stop people from printing money?

Re:Of course they're going to deny it! (2, Insightful)

SeventyBang (858415) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730987)

we have not added any unannounced

I agree completely. Now we have to go back through all of their announcements, minor and major, to determine if there's something which has been said which can be interpreted as DRM.

This is a case of where the media need to reask the question: "Q: Instead of making us reread everything to see if something has been intimated to know what was or wasn't announced, will there be DRM technology incorporated?" There are only two answers: Yes. and No. And if they appear evasive, the media either needs to repeat the question or realize the answer is yes.

And because the spectre of DRM still looms, there are going to be plenty of people who will hold back purchasing the Intel chip until someone reports a problem (you really can't prove there isn't one - back to the old issue of trying to prove a negative) or there will be a mass exodus of people who want to control their environment to AMD; i.e. those of you who haven't already done so.

Intel et al. are going to continue to find themselves in a pickle: do they bed with fellow corporate entities which exert pressure upon them to incorporate these technologies to make it more & more difficult for us to cheat or face "election day" where everyone votes with their checkbook. Some (on the pro-DRM side) may feel people will vote one way with their personal equipment and be forced, in spite of their decision-making position, to make a different choice in the corporate environment; i.e. a "pebbles vs. boulders" situation but it's been my experience the corporate world really doesn't care what's under the covers if the budget and end-users are both happy.

The only thing (other than AMD) which would help keep Intel in check is the same as US politics: three participants. Then it goes from zero-sum to cut-throat. The strategy changes dramatically and it's a lot more fun to watch!

Liar Paradox (2, Insightful)

Keeper (56691) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730549)

"[Intel said the] Pentium D and the 945 chipsets do not have unannounced DRM technology embedded in them"

Is this like one of those "This statement is false" paradoxes?

Re:Liar Paradox (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730586)

Now that you mention it... "do[es] not have unannounced DRM technology" Could easily be interpreted as it's still there and it is announced.

Re:Liar Paradox (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730591)

It just means that if there is specific technology for digital restrictions management in the new hardware, then Intel will announce its presence. For instance, Intel may announce that a particular chipset supports a "Trusted" Platform Module.

Re:Liar Paradox (2, Insightful)

GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730704)

Isn't it obvious?

There's no DRM that they haven't already announced.

No go out there and find an announcement by Intel about including DRM in their products, and your imaginary paradox will collapse.

Obligatory Adm. Ackbar (5, Funny)

OmegaBlac (752432) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730551)

"It's a trap!"

Re:Obligatory Adm. Ackbar (1)

mankey wanker (673345) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730659)

Oh man, how lame am I? This caught me by surprise and I was actually laughing out loud at the absurdity of it all.

I thank you and my endorphins thank you.

Re:Obligatory Adm. Ackbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730879)

Geeze, keep the Fark memes on Fark if you please. ;)

You missed a word. (4, Insightful)

eofpi (743493) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730554)

The statement says "no previously unannounced DRM". That's a far cry from saying "no DRM whatsoever", which the submitter (and editor) seems to take it as.

They've mentioned TCPA-style hardware DRM before; it's just been a while. So, for that matter, have AMD and Via, so running to them won't help much.

Re:You missed a word. (2, Insightful)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730617)

Since they had not officially announced DRM support in the Pentium D processor and the 945 Express Chipset, I think those folks at 'The Register' are justified in taking this Intel statement at face value.

Intel also appeared to have realised that people are 'not keen' on this technology so maybe there is hope yet that it won't become mandatory on all Processors/Chipsets. I suppose the best we can hope for in the ling term is DRM on hardware sold to corporations and none on hardware sold to private customers.

What is the current situation with DVD regonal codes? They were supposed to be mandatory, but I thought it was still easy enough to get stuff without them.

Re:You missed a word. (2, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730643)

What is the current situation with DVD regonal codes?

Here in the UK it is trivial to get a region-free DVD player from a high-street store, and nobody will bat an eyelid. Many of the cheap chinese models are region-free from the factory.

Non-region 2 DVDs are somewhat scarce in the shops, though I understand Amazon will deliver anywhere (and they make clear if a DVD will require a multi-region player).

Re:You missed a word. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730747)

Actually corporations would be the first to balk. If a virus writer gets his hands on the DRM-layer keys, he could whipe out all the hard drives on all the computers in a corporation, make the hardware prevent installation of any media, and use the corporate computers as a distributed spam bot. Alternately, the same technology that can be used to format hard drives remotely (without the knowledge of sysadmins) can be used to plant copyright infringing files on computers. If those files are kiddie porn, someone is going to be seriously in trouble. If the sysadmin is able to log the time when the porn was added and how it got there, the company may escape procecution, but if now, some's head is going to roll. Of course, it works both ways, if the RIAA accuses you of having copyrighted material, you can always claim that the RIAA put it there after you proved to them that "Madonna - Rain.mpg" was a shot of "La Madonna in Italy taken during the rainy period". The RIAA simply put it there because they didn't want to get counter-sued by you.

This is very dangerous technology. After DeCSS, you'd think that the media corps would have realized that keys can be cracked. After Nimda, you'd think that people would have learned how dangerious unpatchable systems (like the Intel system) would be.

Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (3, Informative)

codergeek42 (792304) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730618)

So, for that matter, have AMD and Via, so running to them won't help much.

AMD is supposedly making their hardware DRM entirely optional [geek.com], though. :-)

Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (2, Informative)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730719)

This is a complete non-statement. Hardware DRM was always intended to be optional. PCs are backwards-compatible, so you always can run an OS that knows nothing about DRM chips.

The problem only comes when you are required to (or want to) use an application that uses Hardware DRM, in which case you will need to turn it on.

Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (4, Informative)

Alsee (515537) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730858)

AMD is supposedly making their hardware DRM entirely optional

That story is two and a half years old. I can clarify the actual situation and industry planned future.

When Longhorn comes out in about a year it will only fully function on a Trusted Compliant computer. It will run with a reduced graphics interface and various other portions of the system will not work at all on non-Trusted hardware or if you decline to "opt-in" (if you leave the Trust chip off).

No PC hardware maker can realistically survive selling hardware that is not compatible with the latest version of Windows. No one would buy it, and anyone who does will return it when Windows refuses to run properly. If you ask Microsoft about the problem they will blame it on the hardware manufacture for making "incompatible" hardware.

AMD has announced a project to make Trusted Computing Group compliant chips, exactly the same specifications as Intel is implementing. In fact Intel is shipping an "inactive" version of it already inside the Prescott CPUs and probably others. Exactly the same specification Transmeta is already shipping inside some of their CPUs.

The specifcation requires that the chip be inactive when you buy the computer. Naturally the first thing Windows will do on startup is ask to activate it.

If you buy a coputer without it, or you refuse to turn it on, you will be increasingly screwed. As I said Windows will only run in a brain damaged mode. You will be unable to install any software that makes use of the Trust system. Applications, games, all sorts of stuff will require a Trusted install. Without the Trust system you cannot install, register, activate, and *DECRYPT* the software at all. New file types will be unreadable if you do not "opt-in". You will be increasingly locked out of websites if you do not "opt-in".

And best of all the Trusted Computing has announced a specification called Trusted Network Connect (TNC). Microsoft has issued a press release that they are implementing TNC, but they call it SAP Secure Access Protection. What does this system do? A network access point uses it. When you request a 'net connection, it first checks if you have a Trust chip. If you do, it then checks that you are running an approved and compliant operating system then checks that you are running all mandatory and compliant software. If you are not you get "quarantined", denied internet access. If you do not "opt-in" to the trust system and run mandatory and approved software then you are denied internet access.

It's all documented right on the Trusted Computing Group website. Of course THEY give it a positive spin. The system can ensure you are not infected by a virus or trojan and it can ensure you are running a mandatory and approved firewall. This way the network can protect itself against you being infected and spreading viruses and worms on their network.

Obviously ISP's can't start making this mandatory right now. The Trust system doesn't really begin to roll out until the Longhorn release next summer. It would then take another few years for the majority of PCs to be replaced. PCs get replaced rather quickly through the normal obselecence and upgrade cycle. You can potentially see mandatory Trust compliance for internet access somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

Oh, by the way... the President's Cyber Security Advisor gave a speech at the Washington DC Global Tech summit calling on ISPs to plan on making exactly this sort of system a mandatory part of their Terms of Service for internet access. There's a transcript of the speech on the BSA website. He calls for ISPs to "Secure the National Information Infrastructure" against "Terrorist Attack".

Oh, and have you noticed the stories lately about taking internet government out from under United States Government control? ICANN and the other organisations? Obviously the world will not allow the United States to impose this sort of system on them. Instead Internet Governance will be turned over to UN groups. There's already an alphabet soup of UN workgroups on the future of Internet Governance. Workgroups on the Next Generation Network (NGN). This way all countries can participate in establishing new internet standards. This way it gets "imposed" on the US as well, rather than the US imposing it on the world.

I realize it sounds like a really bad SciFi movie, like a serious TinFoilHat conspiracy. But virtually every single thing I've said can be confirmed with a little Googling and a handful of links.

-

Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (3, Funny)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730881)

Thats the scariest thing Ive ever heard. Lucikly nobody will stand for it :)

Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730999)

Yeah, like nobody stood for a bunch of neonazis (PNAC) seizing control of the most militarily powerful nation on earth.

The only way "nobody will stand for it" is if WE ALL do something about it, don't rely on "everybody" [else] to sort this mess out!

Intel, it doesn't matter. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730558)

DRM = DRM. whether announced or unannounced. You added support for DRM to your hardware. That means I can't buy Intel gear anymore. End of story.

You can wrap it in acronyms. You can attempt to misdirect, obfuscate, or otherwise try to hide the fact that Intel sold out to corporate interests.

No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever.

Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730697)

a corporation giving in to corporate interests.
Gee theres a shocker.

Cant buy intel gear anymore.. (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730703)

Nor anyone else's, if you want to be consistant..

Its all tainted at this point, unless you make your own.

And if you are using anything that is fairly new, I bet you have some components of DRM that you ( or the rest of us consumers ) dont even realize are there.

Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (2, Insightful)

The Woodworker (723841) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730726)

or otherwise try to hide the fact that Intel sold out to corporate interests.

Intel IS a corporate interest. How could they sell out to them? The word you're looking for is 'synergy'.

Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (4, Insightful)

badriram (699489) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730730)

I hope you realize that drm in some form already exists in your computer. For example macrovison is supported by ati, nvidia and intel. So waht are you doing to do, quite using graphics boards...

Look, I realize some people on slashdot just hate drm, but there are others who think it is a perfectly valid system, as long as any of my rights are not affected.

I would rather have my rights protected, and have value to the product that i purchased, than a bunch of theives to copy it to the extent it has no value what so ever.

Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730834)

I realize some people on slashdot just hate drm, but there are others who think it is a perfectly valid system, as long as any of my rights are not affected.

Problem is that your rights most likely will be affected. See "The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman. [gnu.org]

Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730931)

I would rather have my rights protected, and have value to the product that i purchased, than a bunch of theives to copy it to the extent it has no value what so ever.

Yeah, I know what you mean. With all the music "theft" that has gone on over the years, I can't seem to find any CDs that cost more than the price of production and a modest royalty percentage.

RIAA, if you're listening, please add the "value" back into CDs and increase the price of them. I can't live with myself thinking you're not making as much money as you'd like on them.

badriram: I hope one day to hear a wet, sucking pop come out of you when a media publicist finally pulls his or her hand out of your ass and you quit being a muppet. I'll buy you a pint or something.

Cheers.

Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (1)

l_bratch (865693) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730767)

As a Linux user, can I simply choose not to use the DRM but not compiling support for it into my kernel?

Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730996)

Once both residential broadband ISPs in your area adopt a policy of giving you an IP address only if your router and all computers connected to it are "trusted", Linux without DRM won't be worth much. Alsee will probably come in and explain more.

No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever (2)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730878)

DRM = DRM. whether announced or unannounced. You added support for DRM to your hardware. That means I can't buy Intel gear anymore. End of story.

You can wrap it in acronyms. You can attempt to misdirect, obfuscate, or otherwise try to hide the fact that Intel sold out to corporate interests.

No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever. Yeah, wait til you have a choice.

If Intel, AMD, and Via all follow suit, then you will be doing your computing on a wooden instrument moving plastic beads around.

Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730915)

If Intel, AMD, and Via all follow suit, then you will be doing your computing on a wooden instrument moving plastic beads around.

Or a Mac, or a Sun workstation, or...there are many platforms other than x86 which run Linux very well.

Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever (1)

linguae (763922) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730998)

You might want to hold that thought [slashdot.org]. Apple is planning on switching to Intel chips next year. Whether or not those chips will be x86s or not is something we'll find out tomorrow at the WWDC.

We still have the Sun SPARC, though, but Sun workstations with SPARC chips aren't exactly affordable. Plus, Sun is already starting to sell Intel x86 workstations, meaning that there is a possiblity that the SPARC can disappear, too.

Oh well, if Intel, AMD, and Via all follow suit, at least we still can buy and use old non-DRM-encumbered chips and run the latest FOSS software (or non-DRM-encumbered proprietary software). We might have to put up with our old and slow chips when everybody else is running their terahertz machines, but at least we're still computing freely and without any encumberances.

We need Open Source Motherboards!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730894)

It's time we used FPGA chips and some fast 32 bit off the shelf cpu's to make an open source motherboard design that contains no DRM technologies.
It wouldn't be cheap, and, probably not legal (in the future, publishing any anti-Drm info will be illegal, and buying such equipment will be illegal too.), to publish how to make such a system.
Perhaps, the CPU's to use, is the Sony Cell processors, as they can be parralled etc.

Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730930)

What about a DVD player? Have you ever played any DVD movies on your computer?

How about... (0, Offtopic)

pomo monster (873962) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730561)

Apple's FairPlay?

"Intel products support or will support several copy protection schemes such as Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others."

Re:How about... (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730622)

Apple doesn't license it to anyone

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730638)

And it isn't implemented in hardware. Well, not for computers at least.

So it's all *Announced* DRM (3, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730566)

OK, so they've actually announced all the DRM as "features". Doesn't mean anybody realized the damage that those features they could do, except the folks on the Dark Side.

DRM-hell awaits (1)

Enoch Lockwood (889602) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730573)

While they didn't do it this time, they've shown their cards in the sense that they're hellbent on implementing those nasty DRM schemes in the near future. Yet another reason not to buy Intel.

TERRIBLE Link (5, Informative)

mattdev121 (727783) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730593)

Macrovision has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with macromedia.

The Real Macrovision [wikipedia.org] was developed by a company called Macrovision [macrovision.com] and is used to prevent copying of VHS and DVD video streams with data that interrupts the picture.

Re:TERRIBLE Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730736)

Mod parent up!! (And fix the orignal posting!)

Re:TERRIBLE Link (1)

leathered (780018) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730829)

Yes but I hate Macromedia almost as much as Macrovision, so if the two get associated that's a good thing in my book :p

Re:TERRIBLE Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730994)

Don't you just love the MM_Crap dreamweaver spits out?

1st grade garbage indeed!

But... (2, Interesting)

gregor-e (136142) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730596)

Doesn't having DRM on board just mean that the user can successfully play DRM'ed IP they purchase? Is there anything in this DRM scheme that prevents construction of arbitrary device drivers that divert the un-DRM'ed content on it's way to the speakers/screen?

Re:But... (1)

SQLz (564901) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730615)

It stops good honest people from making the unauthorized copies from friends.

DRM locks out open source (2, Insightful)

Enoch Lockwood (889602) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730641)

And also prevents good honest people from playing their perfectly legal, original media on an operating system of their choice. Do you think the corps will give Linux developers, for instance, access to DRM specs and code that will facilitate communication with media drives? I don't think so.

Re:DRM locks out open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730788)

Do you think Linux developers will use whatever spec knowledge they have to bypass copyprotection mechanisms? I do.

Re:DRM locks out open source (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730921)

Do you think Linux developers will use whatever spec knowledge they have to bypass copyprotection mechanisms? I do.

Do you think Linux developers who follow that path will go to prison under foreign counterparts to the DMCA? I do.

AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730625)

It seems that AMD is also wanting to add TCPA style "features" to their hardware. Will we have a choice of what processor to use when buying a new computer?

Re:AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730742)

Of course you'll have a choice. You can take it in the ass, the mouth, the nostril, or the ear. Such choice! Further, you can choose whether "it" will be a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire, a flaming hot poker, or a young sapling evergreen tree. So many options! You should be so lucky!

I like to refer to this as the "American Politics" choice system.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730884)

No... It means that the user can't play DRM'ed material if they havn't paid...

It is like putting a chip in your car so you never could drive faster than the speed limit...

Re:But... (1)

dismentor (592590) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730942)

No. It means that the user can't play DRM'ed material even if they have paid, if the copyright owner feels that way inclined. Which is BNR, as copyright only restricts distribution and public display.

they're playing games with semantics (4, Interesting)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730621)

Also, I think everybody should look at this roadmap [c627627.com]. If you look at the chips for the upcoming socket M2, and also the X2 processors that will be shipping in the coming weeks, they are all supposed to have the Presidio "security technology." Isn't that a euphamism for the same thing we're accusing Intel of putting in their chips? I would like it if somebody would get to the bottom of this.

True Lies (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730653)

Even if their denial of including hidden DRM tech is completely true, it justifies the original story, and the community reaction against the idea which clearly produced this denial. Preemptive criticism of such tech from early adopters and qualified critics is valuable. Once the DRM is in the chips, it's much more costly to get it out. And some critics will be quiet, accepting the fait accompli as less likely to be reversed than other priorities with less committed vendor investment.

A major problem with the press these days is their total disinterest in covering a "developing story" of a threat, until it has already caused irreparable damage. While threateners are much better at keeping threats secret until they do that damage. Even worse, many of the threats come from preemptive actions that do much damage, before the press reports on the threat itself, or even the preemption, until it's too late.

Julian Bajkowski, in his CTA article [computerworld.com.au] took a vague Intel announcement that new chipsets "support" Microsoft DRM to mean that DRM itself is embedded in the chipsets. Since MS DRM requires all kinds of tech in the chips to support its features that are much more general purpose than just DRM (even simple 8086 memory access and register logic "supports DRM"), that leap is unsubstantiated speculation, though possible. So Bajkowski/CTA presented the analysis unprofessionally - though the analysis itself is worthwhile to discuss.

The modern press is afflicted with a major problem: its staff is so automated, so powerful in research, publishing, and fraternal immediate communication, that journalistic professionalism is no longer necessary to get one's content consumed. The lowered barrier to entry fills the field with unskilled workers; their essential reporting less useful. Because the bad logic undermines credibility, while the slick stationery, flashy handwriting, and express delivery market the message more widely than ever.

I would point out the broad applicability of this criticism to most modern journalism, well beyond chip technology, but that scope seems obvious. Tech is a business long accustomed to PR masquerading as journalism, with informed professionals consuming such journalism with skepticism, cross referencing, and a twitchy BS detector. Beyond the tech beat, most news consumers just accept the journalism at face value. And base much more important decisions on it than which CPU to buy.

butts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730663)

someone at Intel likes doing people's butts, I bet.

It's there (2, Informative)

northcat (827059) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730670)

So they're not denying that DRM exists in Intel stuff. They're just saying that DRM is not there on Pentium D and the 945 chipset. Other Intel stuff have all that crap they listed - Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and "others".

So, they still don't get it (4, Insightful)

Darth Maul (19860) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730672)


So there is an uproar from various web sites, people, etc that there is DRM. Intel has to scramble and respond that there is not. Doesn't this give anyone in the business a SMALL CLUE that their customers actually *do not* want DRM?

It's a shame that the market is not as strong as it should be in real capitalism to let people and their pocketbooks speak loudly. People will buy the next Intel chip that has DRM in it because Microsoft says to put it in.

Re:So, they still don't get it (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730688)

Intel started the whole hardware DRM thing. Microsoft only took over the leadership role.

But your point about the market is still valid. Real capitalism only happens with successful information flow end-to-end, and there are several points where it is disrupted.

Re:So, they still don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730954)

there is an uproar from various web sites, people, etc that there is DRM. Intel has to scramble and respond that there is not.

They didn't say this. They only said that there is no unannounced DRM.

Re:So, they still don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730967)

Until they find out they can't do things they used to and then it is finished and just an expensive mistake in computing history

Re:So, they still don't get it (1)

Hymer (856453) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730992)

I'm sorry to inform you that your assumption that "market powers" rules the market are false.
We (the customers) are not getting what we want or need we are getting what the megacorps want to sell us.

If a manufacturer really wnat to deliver what customers want he will be terminated by the megacorps, either in a court, in the press or simply by beeing bought by a megacorp.

We are not customers any longer we are now consumers...

Clarification On Intel's "Press Release" (4, Interesting)

Xoo (178947) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730687)

This entire slashdot news post is misleading.

Intel's press release [theinquirer.net] is based on the fact on that Computerworld's article [computerworld.com.au] claims that Intel is adding unnounced DRM features to their new line of Pentiums. If anyone actually read the article, it does not say ANYWHERE anything about unannounced DRM features. In fact, I would say that the Computerworld article and the Intel press release are saying basically the same thing, with their respective biases present. Honestly, the only thing newsworthy here is that Intel announced the specific DRM implementations in their chipsets.

Lastly, an opinion... DRM is not something I really would like to see implemented on the CPU-level. I don't think "THE MAN" should be controlling what I can or can't do with media that exists on my computer.

Re:Clarification On Intel's "Press Release" (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730821)

DRM is not something I really would like to see implemented on the CPU-level. I don't think "THE MAN" should be controlling what I can or can't do with media that exists on my computer.

Today, it's the media...tomorrow, it will be the computer itself.

Re:Clarification On Intel's "Press Release" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730905)

It's not just about media, it's potentially about all content. It's also about your right to modify a computer vs. the vendor's desire to lock you in to a specific product line.

Essentially, it's about freedom. And, specifically, the decided lack of it from the user's perspective that many chip manufacturers and Microsoft are gunning for.

Ok, but it is DRM... (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730713)

'Macrovision, DTCP-IP, COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A'

These are all DRM technologies. The fact that they are not in themselves a complete DRM solution does not mean they are not DRM technologies: they are significant and have an effect on consumers' digital freedom when combined with other technologies.

the real press statement (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730731)

There is no DRM anywhere in our hardware! We do not tolerate any abuse of fair use, and those who do will be encouraged to throw themselves from the roof of our corporate headquarters.

</iraqi information minister>

Serial # Fiasco (4, Insightful)

maelstrom (638) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730745)

It sounds like Intel may have learned a little something after the fiasco with the unique ID embedded on the chips. AMD took advantage of that gaffe rather quickly, and I believe that was one of the things that helped AMD with mindshare in the geek community. AMD execs would love to see Intel stumble with some braindead DRM in the chip, all they'd have to do is highlight their non-DRM nature and watch their sales increase.

Re:Serial # Fiasco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730810)

Rather, it sounds like Intel hasn't learned anything. They are still incorporating DRM, against their customers' disapproval.

The only thing their press release says is that the DRM isn't "unannounced." In other words, it is announced.

That said, I hope you're right about AMD taking Intel's market share, but for the time being it looks like both AMD and Intel are adding DRM features to their products.

Re:Serial # Fiasco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730869)

And then MS will give discount on Windows to those companies shipping Intel based PCs...

Unannounced Mac DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730799)

Intel has not yet announced the processor that protects Apple from users who wish to run Mac OS X on hardware other than Apple's.

time to leave Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730818)

Does AMD have similar plans? Maybe I should look to the Cell for me next major upgrade!

Need a new icon for these "big brother" stories. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730824)


The "patent pending" icon really isn't on target for this kind of story.

Here, I might suggest a "big brother" icon -- for example, showing the cover of a book with the words "1984" and "Orwell" visibly readable.

DRM, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730887)

This DRM uproar will die down after a while together with all the other(previous) privacy-related issues.

There are just too many people who want computers and who are not concerned about DRM. Tell the guy on the street that just because this X was bought from Company Y, Company Y will only let you play X on Y's hardware. And the guy on the street will go, "OK, that's all right."

Just because people on /. know and want to be able to use stuff which are DRM-uncumbered, there are many out there who do not know the implications of DRM.

Many large corporations are unlikely to bother because I guess it's more expensive to lobby for no-DRM than to just accept a good cheap contract from the main DRM-provider.

DRM is really a tough issue. The people who don't want it can't do anything about, at least not with strength in numbers. Those who possible can do something about it (the large corporations) will rather not do anything.

Re:DRM, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730935)

You're wrong. Rather than list all the reasons why, I'll just explain one.

The hacking community will always triumph over any direct attacks on its freedom. This technology, representing an overt attempt at oppression and suppression is precisely the sort of challenge that we love to rise to. Within months of the initial release, many workarounds will be well-known and implemented. This, I guaruntee.

Cheers.

Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value (1, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730897)

If hardware DRM implemntation is to be the defacto standard in future hardware, then fuck the industry. I've got a 2.8Ghz P4 HT chip and I'm not about to sell it anytime soon. I've got more CPU cycles then I know what to deal with. (for now I suppose) Once DRM enabled chips hit the market, I can see a future where the resale value of current hardware would be exceptionally high.

Is it just me ... (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730958)

Or does this color the appleIntel story from a few days ago? I was thinking, with this Trusted Computring stuff, sounds like time to jump ship to Apple ...but if they switch to intel, there will be no place to hide.

I blame it all on Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730971)

Yup, I blame Apple for the dominance of WinTel.

There are two major home-based OS (Win and Mac). Linux is around but realistically, it's just not as home-ready as Win or Mac. Sure, sure, it's more secure, virus-free, free and all that, but the bottom line is that it's just not ready. It could be superior technically, but in terms of marketing, publicity, it's in the stone ages.

A lot of people are detered from switching to Apple because of price. The last time I checked, Dell's basic system is $550 (with 15" LCD) while the Mac mini is $500 (with NO screen). That's a premium of about 20% assuming a 15" LCD is $150. Does Apple really expect people to make that switch?

Why doesn't Apple lower it's price to make it comparable to WinTel(ala Dell)? If it must make a loss in the first few months or even a yr or two, why not? I'm sure there would be tons of people from WinTel switching. And, they can stop whining about lack of marketshare. Furthermore, with the marketshare of iPod, it'd be an added incentive. iPod alone is never going to be enough to make people switch, price is still a huge consideration.

Re:I blame it all on Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730986)

You're full of it pal. Realistically , Linux already has a greater install-base than Mac. So, I don't know what the hell you're smoking.

the real news (1)

tota (139982) | more than 8 years ago | (#12730979)

is that Intel feels the need to issue a press release about *not having any new DRM in there, look a few years back and the news would have been about the presence of new DRM... times they are changing, for the better.

Come on Intel. Come clean. What have you done? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12730990)

Intel's Denial is vague and less than convincing.

"... includes unannounced embedded DRM technology"? How about "does not include any DRM technology, period.

"Intel does support various content protection technologies including DTCP-IP technology". Hey, Intel, you CPUs run programs. You support content protection the same way you support pr0n and hate blogs. Unless you mean something more...

And buiried in that last paragraph, drowned by prepositioned and hiding under verbal diarehhea, they're admitting they do have embedded DRMs.

They never explain why their Australian official was so direct either, and that if Intel isn't convertly supporting DRM, what the hell was he blathering about. I smell a rat and a trap.

Come on Intel. Come clean. What have you done?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...