Info on Intel's Viiv DRM 125
An anonymous reader writes "CNET went to Intel's Viiv launch in Australia and scored some interesting info about Viiv's DRM scheme. From the article: '[Don] MacDonald also told CNET.com.au that Viiv won't be testing to see if the content being played is pirated from networks such as BitTorrent. He believes that it's not Intel's job to be policing downloads and that it's wrong to assume that all consumers are criminals. As such, Viiv won't test for watermarks or other red flags that reveal pirated content, allowing any type of media to be played.' Another choice quote from the article: 'MacDonald is confident that piracy won't be a significant issue for Viiv, as Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate.'"
Re:Forced to pirate? (Score:3, Interesting)
What about AMD? (Score:4, Interesting)
On Wall Street, AMD is currently gaining market share from Intel. (slowly, but surely)
As a consumer, I see AMD with a better price-to-performance ratio then Intel. Also AMD's chips require less electricity for that performance.
Now throw DRM into the mix and what am I going to buy? A DRM enabled chip that costs more, or a chip that is DRM-Free, costs less, and performs better?
It sounds like Intel is shooting themselves in the foot...
Can of worms (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638 [theinquirer.net]
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/17
Intel flat out lied about Linux, they said it could happen to my face, but all the docs said otherwise. They are handing the space to MS and the DRM infectors.
That said, Intel honestly does want to do the right thing here, but they are caught between a rock and a hard place. They have no leverage, and are being used until the content industry tires of batting them around like a cat with a half dead mouse in it's grasp.
The sad thing is, Intel can not do anything to prevent being bent over and screwed here. They have to smile and minimize the damage, but the whole process has been coopted. They were planning on making v1.5 and v2.0 a little better each release, but right now, they are in backpedal so hard it hurts mode, so the chance of them being able to do right is next to zero.
The first version will be mostly non-functional, it won't do most of what they hoped, and has more animosity among the vendors than any product that I have seen to date. Everyone I talked to at CeBit last week was something between annoyed and angry that it was being shoved down their throat.
But wait, it gets better. Notice he said that it would be easier, not cheaper. You get a file locked down hard, seriously DRM infected, and restricted. The PRV functionality is already shut down because they MUST support the broadcast flag (HD only though), so basically, they are screwed. If you like PVRing CSpan, VIIV is your toy, everything else, well, not so much.
So, you have the grand plan of selling an inferior, restricted, DRM infect product at a higher price than the competition. Add in that you are selling an expensive box that phones home way to often that says 'NO!' to it owner more often than most find palatable, and you have a recipe for disaster.
My prediction, abject failure. Why? The content industry does not want it to exist, and Intel is a fly under their steamroller. It is a pity, it could have not sucked.
-Charlie
Is DRM evil, or are media companies evil? (Score:2, Interesting)
And yet without DRM, itunes would not be possible. So is iTunes thereby evil? and is Apple evil also?
Or is maybe DRM just a technologicial tool, and the way its used determins if its 'evil' or not. If so, then better DRM technologies I welcome, as they may allow for more digital distribution of media. For example, right now I cant copy a DVD legally to my PC. My entire house is networked, and if I can get a video onto my PC, I can enable all sorts of video distribution scenarios in my house (watching tv downstairs, pause it, go to bedroom, lay down and finish the movie there). Perhaps DRM will allow this scenario, if we can get video content to be transferred as audio content is, and get the trust of the content providers that it's safe and legitimate.
I don't hate DRM any more than I hated looking up the 13th word on the 7th page to play "Legacy of the ancients" or any of the Gold Box DND games. "Content protection" has been around forever, and I respect the rights of content producers to protect thier wares.
I just want them to trust users a bit more so we can do more with it.
"..something that doesn't involve violence, or is this the wrong crowd for that" -Wash -Serenity
Re:What about AMD? (Score:3, Interesting)
AMD will follow suit as soon as they start losing big money by not offering the same "protection" as Intel and everyone else.
Re:Is DRM evil, or are media companies evil? (Score:2, Interesting)
But you've already admitted that the track record of DRM usage has so far sucked (Not being able to LEGALLY copy a DVD to your machine), there's nothing to suggest that this different DRM will be used any better.
I think everyone's opinion is based on how the companies use the DRM, but the makers are to blame as well. The people who made previous DRM knew full well how it will be used, likewise the people who made this new DRM know how it can and will be used.
watermarks are good (Score:3, Interesting)
Where are they gonna buy them? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I agree with all of your post, but who are people going to buy non-DRM hardware from??? Today, AMD (but they are/will follow suit). Alternatives I see (not for the mainstream):
The first two options don't go well if you need to replace broken/stolen equipment either.
As you point out, people won't be able to trust the new Trusted Computing PCs. In my mind, they aren't realy PCs anymore, just as Macintels aren't PCs either, even if they share a lot of the components.
So effectively we will see the end of open/trusted commodity computers. :-(
That's nice, but price and DRM remain issues. (Score:4, Interesting)
Whilst the talk of making "content easier to buy than it is to pirate" is nice, you have to remember that Intel is only providing the platform to access the content and not the content itself. This is clearly different from Apple's iTunes/iPod/Frontrow strategy of controlling the software and hardware platform(s) for viewing content *and* being the distributor/supplier of content. Hence Intel itself doesn't have much to say on the crucial issue of the cost of content (in fact, to the best of my knowledge, cost -- in comparison to existing distribution points/media types -- was not mentioned once during the presentation). Its all very well to make content easy to access, but it also has to be priced correctly. Intel is obviously hoping the market and competition (between content suppliers) will take care of pricing. I guess time will tell, but its a far cry from the simple easy-to-remember 99c-a-song (in the US, $1.29 here) model of the iTMS.
Whilst its nice that Viiv won't apply DRM restrictions to content that enters into the system without DRM, that doesn't mean that the content provided through the Viiv platform won't be ladden with DRM. Again, as Intel doesn't control the supply of content supply the best they can 'promise'(as per the Cnet article) is to "[encourage] Viiv content providers to allow users to pass their media to other devices". Personally I would prefer a stated policy rather than some airy-fairy promise about encouraging fair(er) use for consumers.
On a related issue, Dan Warne of APC raised an interesting point during the panel discussion regarding billing. Unlike Apple's system (where, obviously, they are the only supply point through iTunes), because there will be multiple content providers and there is no centralised billing system its likely you will have to provide your credit card details to each content provider seperately (at least for the time being, although MacDonald made some soothing noises about investigating a more centralised model... grain of salt, etc). Ironically, despite making much of the fact that you won't need a keyboard with Viiv for complex tasks (such as networking, etc), some on the panel noted it would be cumbersome to have to enter your credit card details through the Viiv interface with the remote and suggest hooking up a keyboard or visiting the content providers website on another computer.
In case you hadn't guessed, whilst I think Viiv has some interesting uses, I remain very sceptical that this is anything more than a flash in the pan despite Intel's claims of this being the (wait for it) "new normal" and hoping in 50 years time it will be remembered like the introduction of television. It may have more impact in other markets, but given the lack of interest [theage.com.au] in such basic technologies as Standard Definition Digital TV, trying to get consumers to spend thousands on a PC for the living room (without the buzz of the iPod/iTunes duo) seems like a hard sell to me.
Arrr, there be two ways.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Way the First: You make sure that everyone can buy whatever they please in a manner that is convenient to them, at a price they consider fair, and you basically treat them like a valued customer. This has been the business model of countless organisations for many years, I tell thee.
Way the Second: You make it harder to pirate material. You concentrate your efforts on this, rather than making your products easier to buy or use. You appear on television sounding like something out of a 1950's movie about the American fear of Communism, except you use the word "Pirate". This be a difficult model to sustain, as thee are in a constant arms race with people the world over.
Re:Consumers should buy DRM-free hardware (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a simple solution that keeps anyone from ever 'stealing' your code: Don't release it. (and b.t.w: they can't "steal" your software, at most they could steal the media on which you have stored your software) welcome to
The so-called "intellectual property" is not a right. And don't confuse "making a billionare" with rarely [making] any money. Lots of people make a living writing software either on a one-off basis, a custom basis, or on a corporate basis, working on (essentially) an hourly wage. In fact, those that make the 'billions' are not only not the norm, they're generally not the programmers: it's the marketers.
Again with the sense of entitlement. Like somehow you are entitled to work for an hour, but get paid forever. I'm not making light of the hours you (might) put into software development - I'm just pointing out the current model makes no relation between total sales and hours worked. What it does do is reward even if you stop producing. In a competitive environment producers need to keep producing... worker bees get paid by the hour - why should you be different?The people selling this pipe dream are the current monopoly, making monpoly profits that they want to protect. They push for legislation that helps themselves ... they don't give a sh*t about what's best for the little guy, regardless of how well they are able to spin it.