http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/06/05/1833241.shtml?tid=155&tid=118&tid=137DRM
Now I no why WAVE and INTEL are deploying Quietly.
Mundo
Posted by Zonk on Sunday June 05, @03:31PM
from the whos-got-the-facts? dept.
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.
Slashdot Log In
Nickname:
Password:
Public Terminal
[ Create a new account ]
Related Links
· Review Intel Products
· Review Hardware
· Review IT Products
· Compare prices on Intel Products & Hardware
· Compare prices on Hardware
· Compare prices on Legal Items
· pallmall1
· an official statement from Intel
· Computerworld Today Australia
· Macrovision
· DTCP-IP
· COPP
· HDCP
· CGMS-A
· previously reported
· Z
· More Patents stories
· More Intel stories
· More Hardware stories
Intel Claims No DRM / Log in/Create an Account / Top / 350 comments / Search Discussion
Threshold: -1: 350 comments 0: 344 comments 1: 259 comments 2: 179 comments 3: 46 comments 4: 26 comments 5: 20 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads)
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Of course they're going to deny it! (Score:5, Insightful)
by Akaihiryuu (786040) on Sunday June 05, @03:33PM (#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.
[ Reply to This ]
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday June 05, @03:36PM (#12730559)
(http://allstarpowerup.com/)
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.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
by nEoN nOoDlE (27594) on Sunday June 05, @05:30PM (#12731034)
(http://www.davidbokser.com/)
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.
If you consider that to be broken, then you've got a funny definition of broken, because I consider that same thing to be criminal. I'd much rather have a processor that doesn't work instead of one that you've described.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
by SacredNaCl (545593) on Sunday June 05, @10:59PM (#12732749)
The key words here are do not have unannounced DRM. They already announced the DRM in their press release, so apparently it just doesn't have some other form of DRM other than the vaguely announced DRM it already has.... This is just playing with words, they haven't changed anything. Its still shipping with the DRM in the chipset, fully activated and ready to go.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:Well by Technician (Score:2) Monday June 06, @11:21AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:Well by HiThere (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:25PM
Re:Well by coaxial (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:38PM
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
by KillShill (877105) on Sunday June 05, @07:34PM (#12731675)
they've already started.
it's already in audio cards/drivers.
something called "secure audio path".
it's a way of crippling your sound card; preventing it from recording from its inputs if it detects a copy protected stream.
next up is video. check out some of those old NGSCB/palladium screenshots and intel "lagrande" slides... they are implementing encryption aka DRM from the video chip to the display device.. such that you won't have control over what you can do with the data, as you can right now. no more taking screenshots, capturing video without permission etc etc.
they are using the BTF (boil the frog) method. longhorn will only have one or two of the features and they'll build upon it in each release.
if you cannot figure out that this is something no "individual" customer wants, then you need to read more carefully. there is nothing beneficial about reducing machines capabilities. then you consider that perhaps they don't consider end-users customers, then it becomes more clear. sort of like the tv/media advertising business. you are the product, they sell you to their customers.
something will be done about it... but they'll still keep boiling the frog... so when they don't get full DRM in 2006/2007, they'll introduce one new feature each year, for the next 10-20 years. that way those moronic people who pay for products but aren't customers won't notice.
keep treating us badly, and please digging your own grave. of course you won't notice you're digging, since that requires a modicum of intelligence.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
by Baricom (763970) on Sunday June 05, @08:03PM (#12731870)
I don't understand the answer to this, and perhaps somebody more knowledgable can explain it to me.
Why are the electronics and software people so keen to add DRM? It's an added expense in research and development (especially if they're after secure DRM, which would presumably require much more development). Unlike the television analogy, the general public is the customer in all of these cases - they're paying for the computer, processor, and/or Windows.
Are these companies getting kickbacks or something? It seems to me that the logical thing to do if you were a lobbiest for the electronics industry is to tell the PDTAA (Public Domain Theft Associations of America) to go shove it, and tell the manufacturers you represent to boycott DRM so their customers don't raise a big stink when they realize their new purchase is crippled.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:Well by KillShill (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @08:28PM
Re:Well by The Patient (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @09:21PM
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
by Baricom (763970) on Sunday June 05, @11:35PM (#12732874)
Perhaps because they feel there are too many people out there...misappropriating...their content?
That makes perfect sense if you sell CDs and DVDs, but not if you sell computers. Take Dell. They don't create intellectual property, they create tools to use it. Their products are valuable because of their versatility, and voluntarily integrating DRM serves to reduce that versatility.
Shareware authors, who used to release fully functional versions of their applications, no longer do so, even though that change in tactics may have reduced their income (IANASWA).
I would argue that the best software sold under the shareware concept is still uncrippled, except possibly for a nag screen. At the moment, I have no shareware installed except for mIRC and WinRAR. Both are uncrippled except for nag screens, and I've purchased both of them. WinZip is another great example of this.
I would argue that the cream-of-the-crop shareware has morphed not into crippleware or adware, but an evolution of the shareware concept I'm going to call "personalware." Examples of this genre are Ad-Aware [lavasoftusa.com], ZoneAlarm [zonelabs.com], Sygate Personal Firewall [sygate.com], AVG Free [grisoft.com], and much more. Each of these programs comes with a license that says "feel free to download and install me, but for personal use only. If you're a business, pony up." You can tell that these programs are polished and that a lot of work went into them. The missing features in these free versions are so minor that most businesses could do without them, if they were so inclined to cheat. The companies behind these products seem to be in good shape, if the fact that their web sites are still up is any indication.
You now have to put money in the box to get a newspaper, whereas before, you could just take one and then deposit your money. That additional machinery contributes to the extra cost of your newspaper.
And yet, these boxes still have a relatively lightweight door that could be forced open without too much trouble, and a design that permits a dishonest person to easily take more than one copy. If we were to "DRM-ize" these boxes, they would be more like a soda machine: you put in your credit card and one copy of a newspaper (printed on special fast-fading paper to ensure you don't share it with somebody else) rolls out.
I'm kind of getting of track, so I'm going to stop here, but I just wanted to point out that in each of these instances, putting further restrictions on the product doesn't translate into more revenues.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:Well by X0563511 (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:41PM
Re:Well by SacredNaCl (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @11:03PM
Re:Well by zotz (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:43PM
Re:Well by lordscotus (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @08:47PM
Re:Well by sedyn (Score:1) Monday June 06, @03:13AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Ah, the great question! by Dietco*ke (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @03:36PM
Re:Ah, the great question! (Score:4, Insightful)
by ZephyrXero (750822) <zephyrxero@NOSpaM.yahoo.com> on Sunday June 05, @03:43PM (#12730599)
(http://penguin.agrid.usm.edu/~deisenhardt / Last Journal: Monday April 25, @12:19AM)
"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.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:Ah, the great question! by dalleboy (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @05:20PM
Re:Ah, the great question! by HiThere (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:31PM
Re:Ah, the great question! by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:49PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by ZephyrXero (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @03:38PM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by mAineAc (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @03:44PM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by John Seminal (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @04:54PM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by LiquidCoooled (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @05:30PM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by TedCheshireAcad (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @05:35PM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by hesiod (Score:2) Monday June 06, @09:57AM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by kantai (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @05:46PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by SeventyBang (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @05:20PM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by X0563511 (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:49PM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by bhtooefr (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:45PM
Hopefully They're Not Lying... by Elranzer (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @09:04PM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by gaanagaa (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @11:02PM
Re:Of course they're going to deny it! by HiThere (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:39PM
3 replies beneath your current threshold.
Not unanounced... (Score:1)
by Danimoth (852665) on Sunday June 05, @03:35PM (#12730547)
They were jsut very quiet about it...
[ Reply to This ]
Liar Paradox (Score:3, Insightful)
by Keeper (56691) on Sunday June 05, @03:35PM (#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?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Liar Paradox by ZephyrXero (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @03:41PM
Re:Liar Paradox by tepples (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @03:42PM
Re:Liar Paradox by GISGEOLOGYGEEK (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @04:08PM
Re:Liar Paradox by Rakshasa Taisab (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @05:04PM
Re:Liar Paradox by MattWhitworth (Score:1) Tuesday June 07, @02:22PM
2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Obligatory Adm. Ackbar (Score:5, Funny)
by OmegaBlac (752432) on Sunday June 05, @03:36PM (#12730551)
(http://www.debian.org/)
"It's a trap!"
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Obligatory Adm. Ackbar by mankey wanker (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @03:58PM
Re:Obligatory Adm. Ackbar by ianguy (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @05:11PM
2 replies beneath your current threshold.
You missed a word. (Score:5, Insightful)
by eofpi (743493) on Sunday June 05, @03:36PM (#12730554)
(http://www.nerdparadise.com/)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:You missed a word. by Vlad_the_Inhaler (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @03:47PM
Re:You missed a word. by jimicus (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @03:55PM
Re:You missed a word. by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @04:16PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by codergeek42 (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @03:47PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by NutscrapeSucks (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @04:10PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by bit01 (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @06:16PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by HiThere (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:19PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by TiredGamer (Score:1) Monday June 06, @02:10AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:5, Informative)
by Alsee (515537) on Sunday June 05, @04:50PM (#12730858)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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 alrea
Read the rest of this comment...
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:4, Funny)
by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot.monkelectric@com> on Sunday June 05, @04:59PM (#12730881)
(http://www.monkelectric.com/)
Thats the scariest thing Ive ever heard. Lucikly nobody will stand for it :)
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:28PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Skjellifetti (Score:2) Monday June 06, @11:14AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by TheoMurpse (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @11:22PM
CPU ID chip was a huge success for them by Steeltoe (Score:2) Monday June 06, @02:58AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by pegasustonans (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:31PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by pentalive (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @06:45PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by pegasustonans (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:31PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by KillShill (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @07:42PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by pegasustonans (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:53PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by koko775 (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:00PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by pentalive (Score:2) Monday June 06, @07:43PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Dachannien (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:31PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:58PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by marcosdumay (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:37PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
by dustmite (667870) on Sunday June 05, @07:10PM (#12731559)
"Trusted computing" is not about "anti-piracy", it's not about "virus protection" and it's not about "protecting copyrighted materials". These are all being spun as excuses for implementing DRM. But the real reason for this is so for the industry giants to be able to create a powerful cartel that controls the platform, deciding who is or is not "trusted" to develop software --- in other words, they're trying to never have to worry about competition again.
This is not paranoia, it makes perfect sense for them to do what they're doing, and it is absolutely the most logical thing for them to do. They will definitely try to do this; whether or not they succeed is questionable, although they definitely have a decent chance at succeeding. But think about it - they have everything to win and nothing to lose by just trying this.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by dustmite (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:20PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by The_Wilschon (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @07:38PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by dustmite (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:48PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Rich0 (Score:2) Monday June 06, @08:58PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Wednesday June 08, @07:18AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Mattintosh (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:06PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by ColaMan (Score:2) Monday June 06, @01:51AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by dmaxwell (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @11:52PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Jay Carlson (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:26PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @09:30PM
I call bullsh*t. by PCM2 (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @06:51PM
Re:I call bullsh*t. by dustmite (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:17PM
Re:I call bullsh*t. (Score:4, Insightful)
by Alsee (515537) on Sunday June 05, @07:45PM (#12731762)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Care to cite a source for all this wisdom you're disseminating?
Sure, no problem! It's just that everything is scattered across the internet in bits and peices. Each point you want documented pretty much requires a different link.
I've heard nothing about special chips in any of the numerous Longhorn press releases
Microsoft Next-Generation Secure Computing Base - Technical FAQ: [microsoft.com]
Q: What is the "SSC" component of NGSCB?
A: "SSC" refers to the Security Support Component, a new PC hardware component that will be introduced as part of the NGSCB architecture. The SSC is a hardware module that can perform certain cryptographic operations and securely store cryptographic keys [...] The SSC also contains at least one RSA private key and an AES symmetric key, both of which are private to the SSC and are never exported from the chip. (The owner is forbidden to know his own keys, and the chip is required to self destruct if you try to read them out.)
Q: What is the "TPM"? Is that the same as the SSC?
A: The term "SSC" is generally interchangeable with "TPM" or trusted platform module. The TPM is a secure computing hardware module specified by the Trusted Computing Group
Methinks you've got the tinfoil wrapped a little too tightly around your head.
I admit it SOUNDS insane. However I just cited documentation from Microsoft themselves backing up the point you questioned. I can provide documentation on virtually every single point. If there is anything else you still do not believe, just be specific and ask.
-
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by NutscrapeSucks (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @06:52PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @08:47PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by NutscrapeSucks (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @10:01PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @10:54PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by sloose (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @06:57PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by KillShill (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @07:39PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @09:50PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by NutscrapeSucks (Score:2) Monday June 06, @12:46AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Wednesday June 08, @09:15AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by NutscrapeSucks (Score:2) Wednesday June 08, @10:20AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by KillShill (Score:1) Monday June 06, @12:04AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by The_Wilschon (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @07:43PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by ricotest (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:04PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by The_Wilschon (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @08:57PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @09:36PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by The_Wilschon (Score:1) Wednesday June 08, @01:23AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Wednesday June 08, @06:00AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by seguso (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @08:43PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @10:28PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by BlueHands (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @11:22PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Monday June 06, @05:08PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Reziac (Score:2) Monday June 06, @12:26PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM Summary by TheShadowHawk (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @10:47PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM Summary by Alsee (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @10:59PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM Summary by TheShadowHawk (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @11:16PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM Summary by Alsee (Score:1) Monday June 06, @05:11PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by DigitalOSH (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @11:34PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Monday June 06, @07:49PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by DigitalOSH (Score:1) Tuesday June 07, @05:32AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Wednesday June 08, @05:30AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by GamblerZG (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @11:51PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by SirPavlova (Score:1) Monday June 06, @07:15AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by hritcu (Score:1) Monday June 06, @12:56PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:1) Monday June 06, @07:59PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by chrisdaft (Score:1) Monday June 06, @01:08AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by ady1 (Score:1) Monday June 06, @03:11AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:2) Monday June 06, @08:41PM
P2P and trusted computing by CarpetShark (Score:2) Monday June 06, @04:36AM
Re:P2P and trusted computing by Alsee (Score:2) Monday June 06, @09:12PM
Re:P2P and trusted computing by CarpetShark (Score:2) Tuesday June 07, @04:55AM
Re:P2P and trusted computing by CarpetShark (Score:2) Tuesday June 07, @05:08AM
Re:P2P and trusted computing by Alsee (Score:2) Tuesday June 07, @07:07PM
What about routers? by Lonewolf666 (Score:2) Monday June 06, @05:09AM
Re:What about routers? by wingsofchai (Score:1) Monday June 06, @08:49AM
Re:What about routers? by Alsee (Score:2) Monday June 06, @08:56PM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by ricotest (Score:2) Monday June 06, @04:57AM
Re: AMD and TCPA/DRM by Alsee (Score:1) Monday June 06, @04:47PM
4 replies beneath your current threshold.
Re:You missed a word. by pallmall1 (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @08:28PM
2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05, @03:36PM (#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.
[ Reply to This ]
Cant buy intel gear anymore.. (Score:5, Insightful)
by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday June 05, @04:07PM (#12730703)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ / Last Journal: Friday August 27, @04:24PM)
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.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
OpenCores by CarpetShark (Score:2) Monday June 06, @04:45AM
Re:OpenCores and Fake DRM Hardware? by CarpetShark (Score:2) Monday June 06, @04:48AM
Fake DRM by nurb432 (Score:2) Monday June 06, @12:09PM
FPGA by nurb432 (Score:2) Monday June 06, @12:06PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by The Woodworker (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @04:11PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by tirefire (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @04:11PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
by badriram (699489) on Sunday June 05, @04:12PM (#12730730)
(http://www.badri.us/)
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.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by tepples (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @04:41PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by geoffspear (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @05:27PM
Treacherous computing (Score:5, Interesting)
by tepples (727027) <tepplesatslashdot@pineight.com> on Sunday June 05, @05:42PM (#12731103)
(http://www.pineight.com/gba/ / Last Journal: Sunday January 23, @12:49AM)
Mr. Stallman's science fiction short story isn't the only depiction of what could happen in a full "Trusted" Computing paradigm. I linked to it as an accessible description of the consequences of Treacherous Computing. Here are some more factual descriptions: #1 [againsttcpa.com] #2 [gnu.org] #3 [cam.ac.uk]. Please read them and compare TCG's platform as described to what could enable the situation depicted in the story.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Alsee (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @05:27PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @08:42PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by asdfghjklqwertyuiop (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @07:36PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by The_Wilschon (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @07:50PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:45PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by The_Wilschon (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @09:00PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:2) Monday June 06, @11:12AM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Luke-Jr (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @09:35PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:30PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Luke-Jr (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @09:31PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by labratuk (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @11:42PM
2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by l_bratch (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @04:21PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by tepples (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @05:22PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Alsee (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @05:37PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Mattintosh (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:12PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:37PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Luke-Jr (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @09:37PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:2) Monday June 06, @11:36AM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by Luke-Jr (Score:1) Monday June 06, @07:53PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by unitron (Score:2) Monday June 06, @04:20AM
No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever by John Seminal (Score:3) Sunday June 05, @04:57PM
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever by Nasarius (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @05:06PM
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever by linguae (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @05:22PM
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever by Nasarius (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @05:38PM
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever by Alsee (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @05:47PM
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever by Alsee (Score:1) Monday June 06, @04:55PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever by nagora (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @06:17PM
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever by nagora (Score:2) Monday June 06, @05:41PM
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever by Luthair (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @09:42PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by KillShill (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @07:45PM
Re:Intel, it doesn't matter. by pizpot (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @09:12PM
4 replies beneath your current threshold.
So it's all *Announced* DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
by billstewart (78916) on Sunday June 05, @03:38PM (#12730566)
(http://idiom.com/~wcs / Last Journal: Thursday March 03, @12:08AM)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
DRM-hell awaits (Score:1)
by Enoch Lockwood (889602) on Sunday June 05, @03:39PM (#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.
[ Reply to This ]
TERRIBLE Link (Score:5, Informative)
by mattdev121 (727783) on Sunday June 05, @03:42PM (#12730593)
(http://pw-gaming.servegame.com/)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:TERRIBLE Link by ImaLamer (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @04:07PM
Re:TERRIBLE Link by leathered (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @04:38PM
Re:TERRIBLE Link by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:48PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:TERRIBLE Link by denis-The-menace (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:11PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
But... (Score:3, Interesting)
by gregor-e (136142) on Sunday June 05, @03:43PM (#12730596)
(http://littlefugue.us/)
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?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:But... by SQLz (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @03:47PM
DRM locks out open source by Enoch Lockwood (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @03:54PM
Re:DRM locks out open source by tepples (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @05:07PM
Re:DRM locks out open source by cpghost (Score:2) Monday June 06, @12:24AM
Re:DRM locks out open source by dustmite (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:45PM
Re:DRM locks out open source by oddfox (Score:1) Monday June 06, @04:40AM
Re:DRM locks out open source by oddfox (Score:1) Monday June 06, @04:48AM
2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Re:But... by dismentor (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @04:27PM
Re:But... by dismentor (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @04:29PM
Re:But... by dismentor (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @05:13PM
2 replies beneath your current threshold.
they're playing games with semantics (Score:5, Interesting)
by bersl2 (689221) on Sunday June 05, @03:49PM (#12730621)
(Last Journal: Thursday May 26, @01:06PM)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:they're playing games with semantics by Alsee (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:11PM
Re:they're playing games with semantics by KillShill (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @07:50PM
Re:they're playing games with semantics by Alsee (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @10:06PM
Re:they're playing games with semantics by CastrTroy (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:26PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
True Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday June 05, @03:57PM (#12730653)
(http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal / Last Journal: Thursday March 31, @02:48PM)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:True Lies by Avionics Guy (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @04:25PM
Re:True Lies by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @05:33PM
Re:True Lies by PCM2 (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:55PM
Re:True Lies by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:29PM
Re:True Lies by KillShill (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @08:00PM
Re:True Lies by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:10PM
It's there (Score:2, Informative)
by northcat (827059) on Sunday June 05, @04:00PM (#12730670)
(Last Journal: Friday May 06, @08:02PM)
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".
[ Reply to This ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
So, they still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
by Darth Maul (19860) on Sunday June 05, @04:00PM (#12730672)
(http://www.stealthboy.com/)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:So, they still don't get it by bersl2 (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @04:04PM
Re:So, they still don't get it by dustmite (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @07:40PM
Re:So, they still don't get it by KillShill (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @08:03PM
Re:So, they still don't get it by RedWizzard (Score:2) Monday June 13, @11:54PM
3 replies beneath your current threshold.
Clarification On Intel's "Press Release" (Score:5, Interesting)
by Xoo (178947) on Sunday June 05, @04:04PM (#12730687)
(Last Journal: Wednesday May 04, @09:41AM)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Clarification On Intel's "Press Release" by symbolic (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @04:36PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Ok, but it is DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
by mysidia (191772) on Sunday June 05, @04:09PM (#12730713)
(http://mysidia.darkfire.net/)
'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.
[ Reply to This ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
the real press statement (Score:2, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05, @04:12PM (#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>
[ Reply to This ]
Serial # Fiasco (Score:5, Insightful)
by maelstrom (638) on Sunday June 05, @04:15PM (#12730745)
(http://daimyo.org/ / Last Journal: Thursday March 07, @11:39PM)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Serial # Fiasco by Jeff DeMaagd (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:17PM
Re:Serial # Fiasco by KillShill (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:06PM
Re:Serial # Fiasco by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:56PM
Re:Serial # Fiasco by Dachannien (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:34PM
Re:Serial # Fiasco by TheoMurpse (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @11:28PM
2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Need a new icon for these "big brother" stories. (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05, @04:37PM (#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.
[ Reply to This ]
Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value (Score:2, Interesting)
by DigiShaman (671371) on Sunday June 05, @05:02PM (#12730897)
(http://www.contoso.com/)
If hardware DRM implemntation is to be the defacto standard in future hardware, then f*ck 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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value by Kpt Kill (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @06:21PM
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value by bit01 (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:30PM
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value by DigiShaman (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @07:49PM
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value by masdog (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @08:23PM
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value by DigiShaman (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @08:42PM
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value by BlueStrat (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @09:52PM
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value by jonwil (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @10:09PM
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value by benjamindees (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @06:06PM
Re:Current CPUs to maintain or increase in value by rpozz (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @06:10PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Is it just me ... (Score:2)
by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot.monkelectric@com> on Sunday June 05, @05:16PM (#12730958)
(http://www.monkelectric.com/)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Well, there is OpenPower by sethstorm (Score:1) Monday June 06, @02:27AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
the real news (Score:1)
by tota (139982) on Sunday June 05, @05:19PM (#12730979)
(http://nagafix.co.uk/)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
yes, yes, yes - read again by tota (Score:1) Monday June 06, @05:38AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
There's no point in acting all surprised about it! (Score:2, Funny)
by Strolls (641018) on Sunday June 05, @05:48PM (#12731129)
All the planning charts and digital rights management orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centuri for 50 of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complains and it's far too late to making a fuss about it now!
[ Reply to This ]
Re:There's no point in acting all surprised about by Mechcozmo (Score:1) Sunday June 05, @06:41PM
well umm (Score:1)
by voudras (105736) <[gro.reyalstfiws] [ta] [sarduov]> on Sunday June 05, @06:41PM (#12731416)
which products *have* you put unannounced drm technology in?
[ Reply to This ]
With a heavy heart... (Score:2, Interesting)
by Biomechanical (829805) on Sunday June 05, @07:32PM (#12731667)
(http://zkvr.net/)
I say this. A calm rage fills me.
We need all this DRM stuff put in everything. We need the industries to stop listening to the consumers. We need the world to wake up one morning and suddenly ask,
"What's wrong with my computer?"
I got into this game when I was three years old - 29 as of April - and I've watched it and "played" in it with child-like wonderment up until 1992, then I was even more enthused when I saw my first TV-tuner card at the Brisbane RNA Computer Show.
Since then I haven't really seen any "new" tech, just maturing tech. DRM will be the new tech, and I'm hoping it pushes home computer use back to 1980 levels.
Why?
Because the only way that the industry is going to listen to us, the people buying their products, is when they suddenly find themselves without a revenue stream.
When Little Johnny and Sally Doe can't play their music on their computer... When Grandma Josephine can't watch movies sent to her by her grandchildren... When Joe Sixpack can't rip a music CD and play a copy elsewhere... When opening the Internet is suddenly nothing but Access Denied errors... When the average coder finds he has to pay to distribute his own software... When using a computer is as "arcane" and "difficult" to use as old PDP mainframes... When DRM kills anything on the computer that involves the greater sense of community that the Internet has helped foster... We will leave.
People will only use computers when they have to. The console industry will rise, and the Personal Computer will disappear, replaced by millions of gadgets that either do the job they're required to do, or be discarded by consumers who will perceive them as broken.
We need the DRM to be put into everything it can. We need it be as invasive and putrid as possible. We need hundreds of thousands of salesmen telling customers "No, it's not broken, you just can't do that any more because...". We need millions of personal computer users to get so frustrated that they junk their computers.
We need the IT industry to collapse and nearly disappear thanks to "protecting the consumer". It's the only way they'll wake up and smell what they're shovelling.
I don't want the industry to disappear, but we need it to happen. Those of us who can see what's going on are only a minority. We need the vast majority to once again ignore computers and treat them as a business only, difficult to use device.
There's no piracy excuse for when suddenly no-one is making money selling hardware.
So I say goodbye IT. It was fun while it lasted, starting with playing my first game on that funky little blue paddle box gadget that plugged in to my parents old black and white tv, and perhaps finishing on this Athlon XP with it's LCD display and surround sound...
Goodbye Commodore Vic 20 and 64 fun times, relived on MAME. Goodbye x86 and PowerPC, I never did get around to learning ASM for either of you. Goodbye ease-of-use, user-friendly, plug-and-pray, P2P, HTTP, FTP. Goodbye Mr Computer Salesman, with your mystical devices of sound and vision.
Goodbye.
[ Reply to This ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Does DRM Really Work? (Score:3, Interesting)
by KidSock (150684) on Sunday June 05, @07:39PM (#12731722)
I don't understand why someone cannot simply fool DRM-ized software into thinking it's running on a DRM platform through emulation. Meaning why can't someone just implement the Pentium D's DRM chips in software?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Does DRM Really Work? embedded private keys by free2 (Score:1) Monday June 06, @03:56AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
I'll take a latte, whip cream, hold the urine (Score:3, Insightful)
by The_Wilschon (782534) on Sunday June 05, @08:00PM (#12731854)
(http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/ / Last Journal: Monday April 11, @04:33AM)
I, for one, piss in our new overlords coffee.
[ Reply to This ]
Yeah... (Score:1)
by eno2001 (527078) on Sunday June 05, @08:15PM (#12731908)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 14, @08:34AM)
...and the martians in "Mars Attacks!" said they weren't going to invade Earth ad nauseum. Should we have believed them? Uhhhh... no. ;P
[ Reply to This ]
Guess we'll finally see linux on the desktop (Score:1)
by saleenS281 (859657) on Sunday June 05, @10:00PM (#12732436)
Am I the only one who thinks that this is the nail in their own coffin for MS and anyone else trying to shove this down us (the consumers) throat. To date I've refused to use linux just because well... it's EASIER to do what I want on windows. I'm willing to pay for ease of use when the price is money. I am NOT willing to pay it when it comes at the sacrifice of my own rights.
Basically what I'm saying is if this all goes through, and they start locking down our rights, I will be the first to jump ship to linux, and I promise you I will be forcing everyone I know to do the same. If it comes down to having a computer "for work" (programs that will only run under trusted computer) and a personal box so be it. I promise that that "for work" computer will be as barebones as possible and that the companies involved will get as little of my money as possible.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Guess we'll finally see linux on the desktop by mattite (Score:1) Monday June 06, @05:00AM
Re:Guess we'll finally see linux on the desktop by Lonewolf666 (Score:2) Monday June 06, @07:39AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Relax (Score:2, Insightful)
by Xerxes2695 (706503) on Sunday June 05, @10:23PM (#12732574)
Remember DVD Jon? As soon as someone tries to force DRM on us, it will be cracked/hacked/circumvented within a month. If not, screw it, I dont buy their crappy pop crap anyway. If DRM prevents us from accessing the internet, screw the internet. We will share data via lan parties, which will eventually become a constant global lan party.
[ Reply to This ]
UUCP over PPP by cpghost (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @11:32PM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
The 'New Internet' - My thoughts.... (Score:2, Insightful)
by iamcf13 (736250) <iamcf13@hotpop.com> on Monday June 06, @12:04AM (#12733031)
(http://www.cf13.com/...usly--interested.htm / Last Journal: Wednesday March 10, @12:15AM)
If (when?) DRM/Trusted Computing becomes the defacto standard and the current Internet shuts out/locks out DRMless hardware/software, it just means a return back to days of Bulletin Board Systems and FidoNet (BBS-based 'Internet') for people who truly care about their interet experience and don't want it tainted by DRM/Trusted Computing. Such an 'Internet' will benefit from the absence of the bandwith-sapping, 'unwashed masses' who only see today's Internet as little more than 'online televison' and/or a 'shopping mall'. Email spam should be non-existant on this 'new' internet as the people who use it would be savvy enough to block/delete spam on sight and blackhole the IPs that spew the stuff pronto.
For all Netizens who truly care about the free echange of ideas and resources, please archive all the legally shareable bits of the current Internet you can so you can share them on the 'new internet' when you have to and let the IP cartels have the current spammed-out Internet as their own 'private' content distribution medium.
[ Reply to This ]
Music and Movies (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06, @12:34AM (#12733155)
The only thing this changes is digital reproduction. People WILL hold a microphone up to the speakers and make an analog recording. Which they will turn right around and import into the computer. The computer will accept it, because people (physicians, lawyers, marketeers) need the ability to record voice messages, and sound discrimination functions take up a lot of processing power.
Same thing with video. It will get imported, unless the microphones and cameras are required to be Palladium compatible. If they are, then of course, people are sh*t out of luck. I suspect there will be backlash, because lots of people have bought $1200 digital camcorders and will be expecting them to continue to function normally until at least 2010.
Right now, with audio disks putting in all kinds of errors to fool the EFM on optical drives, there's not much difference between a digital "rip" and an analog recording. Hell is hell, whether it's painted pink or Olive green.
When the revolution hits, it's going to drop 10% off the stock market. Be ready. Get out now.
[ Reply to This ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
China? Taiwan? (Score:3, Insightful)
by cpghost (719344) on Monday June 06, @12:45AM (#12733202)
(http://www.cordula.ws/)
By reading the frantic comments here, it looks like we were on the verge of a split in the IT world: the DMCA-lobbied part consisting of the US, EU, Australia, etc..., and a DMCA-resistent part consisting of China, Russia and most of the remaining then-free world!
Now imagine a not so far future, where chinese/taiwanese chip manufacturers implemented two versions of their chips: one crippled with DRM for the DMCA-area, the another uncrippled one for the rest of the world and their domestic market. The uncrippled version would have a bit, where one can enable or disable that crap at will, (just like the region-less DVD players, remember that one?), while the DRM in the crippled version could not be turned off.
We'll get the crap, and the Chinese will still be free to get the best of both worlds. Wow! We're living in interesting times.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:China? Taiwan? by meringuoid (Score:2) Monday June 06, @05:33AM
Re:How about... (Score:2)
by m50d (797211) on Sunday June 05, @03:49PM (#12730622)
(http://www.sdonag.plus.com/ / Last Journal: Monday May 30, @10:26AM)
Apple doesn't license it to anyone
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:I blame it all on Apple (Score:2)
by toddestan (632714) on Sunday June 05, @06:28PM (#12731321)
You blame Apple for the dominance of Windows & Intel? To use a bad car analogy, that would be like blaming Chevy for the all the people killed in exploding Ford Crown Vics because Chevy discontinued the Caprice. While you're at it, why don't you blame the makers of BeOS, IBM (for OS/2), Cyrix, and AMD?
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:I blame it all on Apple (Score:1)
by dustmite (667870) on Sunday June 05, @07:53PM (#12731814)
Price is not the reason people stick to Wintel, especially not if the price difference you cite is so close to the price of the anti-virus software they'd need for their Windows PC anyway. The reason people stick with Wintel is because "everyone else uses it", and "all the software is available for it". It's called the network effect [wikipedia.org]. If Apple dropped the Mini's price by $100 it would barely make a tiny blip of difference.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:I blame it all on Apple by Esion Modnar (Score:2) Sunday June 05, @09:02PM
Deja vu all over again (Score:1)
by Ugly American (885937) on Monday June 06, @12:51AM (#12733231)
When I saw the line about "no unannounced DRM," the first thing I thought of was Kazaa saying "contains no spyware." This denial from Intel is about as believable.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
Re:I blame it all on Apple (Score:1)
by aliensporebomb (1433) on Monday June 06, @07:35AM (#12734381)
(http://pod.ath.cx/)
I saw this article and found it plausible however, film tends to be
an immersive experience. Who is seriously going to watch a big
name film on a tiny iPod-like screen? I don't watch movies on my
computer very often because I have a home entertainment system
in the living room purpose-built for that task - larger screen, a
surround sound set of speakers. A two inch LCD screen and a set
of headphones to watch on the bus on the way to work just won't
be as satisfying as watching a film in a real auditorium. The iPod
worked since it was the logical extension to the Sony Walkman
idea.
Horrible.
I suppose one should purchase non-DRM infected technology
while one can.
[ Reply to This / Parent ]
14 replies beneath your current threshold.
God helps them that themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin, "Poor Richard's Almanac"
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2005 OSTG.
[ home / awards / contribute story / older articles / OSTG / advertise / about / terms of service / privacy / faq / rss ]
