The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Intel explains how DRM on new chip is not DRM https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5174 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:16 am ] |
Post subject: | Intel explains how DRM on new chip is not DRM |
http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2011/ ... _it_no.php Quote: There has been some confusion online about Intel Insider. So here are the facts: What it isn’t: There have been stories describing Intel Insider as a ‘DRM’ technology. DRM means ‘Digital Rights Management’ and is used to control the use of digital media by controlling access, and preventing the ability to copy media such as movies. This means that if you pay only a rental fee, your service provider decides when and for how long you will be able to view your movie. Or if you buy a film it will let you keep and view it forever, but not copy it and share it with your friends, or burn it onto a DVD, mass produce it and sell it on the streets. DRM is a piece of software, not hardware. Now there are opponents and proponents of DRM, and I am not going to get into a discussion about the pros and cons of DRM in this blog; but I will say that Intel Insider is NOT a DRM technology. What it is: Intel Insider is a service that enables consumers to enjoy premium Hollywood feature films streamed to their PC in high quality 1080P high definition. Currently this service does not exist because the movie studios are concerned about protecting their content, and making sure that it cannot be stolen or used illegally. So Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection. Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates, but still lets you enjoy your legally acquired movie in the best possible quality. This technology is built into the new Intel chips and will become even more important once wireless display technology like Intel’s WiDi become more popular, as it would prevent pirates from stealing movies remotely just by snooping the airwaves. WiDi enables you to wirelessly beam video to your big screen TV easily and in HD. Intel has a lot of these kinds of technologies that keep data safe. For example our chips include AES-NI, a technology that speeds up encryption and decryption of data and improves performance when you access secure websites like your online banking system. This keeps your credit card numbers safe. Modern PC’s with components from chip makers such as Intel, AMD and Nvidia already support another feature called ‘HDCP’ or High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection - a system that keeps the contents of media such as Blu-Ray movies secure between the Blu-Ray player or PC and your big screen TV. "Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates, but still lets you enjoy your legally acquired movie in the best possible quality." This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:29 am ] |
Post subject: | |
"Rebranding" Last bastion of those who are too proud/stupid to realize their products are unwanted. |
Author: | Stathol [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:54 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Oh! It's not "DRM", it's "content protection". I'm glad we cleared that up. I'm relieved. |
Author: | Talya [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:55 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Assholes. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Wait, what? They're assholes for devising a product that will make movie studios more amenable to developing high quality streaming offerings? |
Author: | Midgen [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
They are assholes for depriving her of her |
Author: | Stathol [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I can't speak for Taly, but I think they're assholes for pretending that their product isn't what it is. Also, for trying to convince people that it somehow protects the consumer. |
Author: | Talya [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Stathol wrote: I can't speak for Taly, but I think they're washouts for pretending that their product isn't what it is. Also, for trying to convince people that it somehow protects the consumer. But...but...you are speaking for me. Just replace "washouts" with "assholes." |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Midgen wrote: They are assholes for depriving her of her Most people who use pirated material wouldn't buy it regardless. |
Author: | Talya [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Lex Luthor wrote: Midgen wrote: They are assholes for depriving her of her Most people who use pirated material wouldn't buy it regardless. Yeah, it's the wonderful irony of so many things designed to discourage piracy - they don't affect people who engage in piracy. Even the simple FBI warnings you have to sit through on physical media are ripped out before they ever post them online. |
Author: | Stathol [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: But...but...you are speaking for me. Just replace "washouts" with "assholes." Damn you, autocorrect! |
Author: | Corolinth [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Intel explains how DRM on new chip is not DRM |
If I believed for a moment that this was actually about protecting intellectual property, I might be inclined to agree with some of you guys. However, "content providers" have very much the same mentality and attitude that they had twenty-five years ago. I would like to quote Frank Zappa. The full text may be found here. Frank Zappa wrote: The ladies” shame must be shared by the bosses at the major labels who, through the RIAA, chose to bargain away the rights of composers, performers, and retailers in order to pass H.R. 2911, The Blank Tape Tax: A private tax levied by an industry on consumers for the benefit of a select group within that industry. Is this a consumer issue? You bet it is. PMRC spokesperson, Kandy Stroud, announced to millions of fascinated viewers on last Friday’s ABC Nightline debate that Senator Gore, a man she described as “A friend of the music industry,” is co-sponsor of something she referred to as “anti-piracy legislation”. Is this the same tax bill with a nicer name? The major record labels need to have H.R. 2911 whiz through a few committees before anybody smells a rat. One of them is chaired by Senator Thurmond. Is it a coincidence that Mrs. Thurmond is affiliated with the PMRC? I cannot say she’s a member, because the PMRC has no members. Their secretary told me on the phone last Friday that the PMRC has no members, only founders. I asked how many other District of Columbia wives are nonmembers of an organization that raises money by mail, has a tax-exempt status, and seems intent on running the Constitution of the United States through the family paper-shredder. I asked her if it was a cult. Finally, she said she couldn’t give me an answer and that she had to call their lawyer. While the wife of the Secretary of the Treasury recites “Gonna drive my love inside you” and Senator Gore’s wife talks about “Bondage!” and “oral sex at gunpoint” on the CBS Evening News, people in high places work on a tax bill that is so ridiculous, the only way to sneak it through is to keep the public’s mind on something else: “Porn rock”. Frank Zappa wrote: lt is unfortunate that the PMRC would rather dispense governmentally sanitized heavy metal music than something more uplifting. Is this an indication of PMRC’s personal taste, or just another manifestation of the low priority this administration has placed on education for the arts in America? The answer, of course, is neither. You cannot distract people from thinking about an unfair tax by talking about Music Appreciation. For that you need sex, and lots of it. The Parental Advisory sticker that we all know and love was supported by the RIAA in order to distract the general public from a tax on blank tapes. The money collected by the tax would then be given directly to the RIAA, under the notion that any blank tape sales were depriving them of record sales. Taken in today's terms, this would be like suggesting that blank CD and DVD sales were depriving the RIAA and MPAA of album and movie sales, which is patently untrue. If we wish to vilify Taly for feeling entitled to the fruits of an artist's labor, than we must vilify the "content providers" for feeling entitled to Taly's money. Indeed, they have already lobbied to have data storage mediums taxed, and the money funneled to them, on those very grounds. Now, as Taly is Canadian, they would not have gotten her money, but they still feel entitled to it. |
Author: | Talya [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
They do get my money. Canada taxes digital storage media and the proceeds go to the canadian arms of the same companies in the RIAA/MPAA. The only upside is that the Canadian courts have so far agreed with the ISPs that that tax is basically a piracy license. (So we're privateers?) As long as it is in place, we're already paying the labels for their content, and they have no business attempting to go after us for copyright infringement. |
Author: | SuiNeko [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Stathol wrote: I can't speak for Taly, but I think they're washouts for pretending that their product isn't what it is. Also, for trying to convince people that it somehow protects the consumer. But...but...you are speaking for me. Just replace "washouts" with "assholes." I find it increasingly hard to read your posts as carrying their usual levels of acerbity with willow peering at me with a cute little smile and... sorry. in my bunk. |
Author: | Corolinth [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Talya wrote: They do get my money. Canada taxes digital storage media and the proceeds go to the canadian arms of the same companies in the RIAA. The law in question was an American law, and as such, would not have been applicable to you.
|
Author: | SuiNeko [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Also, damn them for raising the cost of useful general purpose computing chips, to restrict what I can do with my computer, at no benefit to me, while not infringing the availability of pirated content one iota. **** genius. |
Author: | Midgen [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Just to be clear, I wasn't attempting to state my position on this subject with my earlier post. It was a (poor) attempt at sarcastically assigning context to Taly's post. I'm torn on the subject to be honest. I absolutely abhor DRM (the general umbrella) and all of the nasty things I have to deal with because of it (Cable TV/CableCard industries is the primary target of my rage, but there are plenty of other examples). That said, I understand the need to protect the rights of the property owners to prevent thieves from stealing it. I just wish they weren't so retarded in choosing the methods that they use to enforce them. It's unfortunate that DRM is necessary at all, but as long as people feel entitled to things they aren't paying for, it's always going to be a part of the landscape. |
Author: | Talya [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Midgen wrote: It's unfortunate that DRM is necessary at all, but as long as people feel entitled to things they aren't paying for, it's always going to be a part of the landscape. See, this makes no sense. "Because some people make copies of things they haven't paid for, we're going to penalize everyone who doesn't, despite knowing it won't affect those that do at all." DRM barely even inconveniences pirates. It only affects legitimate customers. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I'm having a hard time seeing how this DRM is inconveniencing anybody, though. So, I need to buy certain, soon to be commonly available hardware to consume a service that wouldn't be offered without it? Darn? If I don't want to buy the hardware, I don't have any less available to me than I do now. If I do, there's no inconvenience at all, it just works. It's not like I'm dragging out my wheel key or looking up page 5, paragraph 2, word 13 in my manual anymore. If they didn't make this chip, then the media owners wouldn't offer stuff anyways, so there's no loss to me. Isn't that essentially the argument pirates always use, anyways "Oh, it's not stealing 'cause I wouldn't have bought it anyways, otherwise." "Oh, it's not inconvenient, 'cause we wouldn't have created streaming **** otherwise anyways." |
Author: | SuiNeko [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Kaffis - its adding to the complexity, cost and presumably power draw of the chip, for something of no value to me as a consumer, and that has to date proven ineffective in preventing piracy. (DERAIL INC) Also, intellectual property is an interesting proposition - I think the idea that it equates to actual property (permanent and absolute ownership / control) is a debatable one [*]. For me, the question is a pragmatic one, about incentivising and rewarding those who produce cultural content or expand the bounds of our knowledge - to promote a common good, and is not one of an obvious defacto ownership. Cultural products almost universally build on others prior work. Developments in research expose and utilise core facts about the world. Neither of those, to me, equate to an obvious positive benefit from, or right to, perpetual ownership. [*] I know copyright and patent terms are limited, but they are both repeatedly being extended, and rendered irrelevant by DRM and things like the DCMA supporting a post-copyright lock in mechanism. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
If Netflix had every single movie online, then I probably would stop pirating movies. I can easily afford paying for them. But I don't want to be burdened with checking which ones they have or don't have. Also I don't like navigating their website, when I can quickly Google something and get download links. Basically, why would I pay for a service that is worse than what I can get for free? |
Author: | Xequecal [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
It's been repeatedly proven that DRM has little to no effect on actual piracy. Therefore, the fact that all the media companies keep pushing for more and more of it suggests that they have other, non-piracy-related reasons for favoring it. |
Author: | SuiNeko [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Like reselling you the same content seventy bajillion times in different containers? ;-p |
Author: | Corolinth [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Intel explains how DRM on new chip is not DRM |
The media companies are offended by Fair Use, and want you to pay a dollar every time you push Play on your DVD player. This is fairly clear based on their behavior. Midgen wrote: I absolutely abhor DRM (the general umbrella) and all of the nasty things I have to deal with because of it (Cable TV/CableCard industries is the primary target of my rage, but there are plenty of other examples). I would embrace the latter statement, except for one key point. "Property owners" are not willing to play ball with the rest of society. First off, the "property owners" are overwhelmingly not the progenitors of said intellectual property. Secondly, intellectual property is being prevented from entering the public domain. Mickey Mouse should have done so decades ago, except that Disney lobbies to have copyright law changed and extended every time the copyright starts to run out. I will become more sympathetic to the plight of "property owners" when they begin to recognize the rights of idea creators. There is nothing new under the sun, and adapting an old story is just as much an expression of art as creating a new one - once again, see Disney. They have made a killing on stories that are now part of the public domain. That's part of the reason they don't want any of their original material entering the public domain. They want to make sure nobody uses Mickey Mouse to make a fortune without paying them. Meanwhile, they rake in millions of dollars every year by exploiting the ideas of others that are no longer being protected by copyright law.That said, I understand the need to protect the rights of the property owners to prevent thieves from stealing it. Disney is not the only "property owner" engaging in such blatant hypocrisy, just the most easily recognizable. The point is, the rights of "property owners" already receive more than adequate protection. If they were willing to make a show of good faith and lobby to reverse all of the extensions of copyright law that have been enacted over the last half of the twentieth century, allowing those trademark icons to cross over into the public domain like they were originally supposed to, I would have a different opinion of piracy. |
Author: | Midgen [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Midgen wrote: It's unfortunate that DRM is necessary at all, but as long as people feel entitled to things they aren't paying for, it's always going to be a part of the landscape. See, this makes no sense. You are trying too hard. I completely agree that "DRM" in almost every instance is ineffective and put unnecessary burden on the wrong people. I'm just saying that rights owners are never going to stop trying to enforce it (in whatever feeble way they can) as long as people keep helping themselves to their stuff for free just because they can. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |