Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM

Info on Intel's Viiv DRM 125

Posted by Zonk
from the viiv-is-the-oddest-word dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Info on Intel's Viiv DRM

Comments Filter:
  • yet... (Score:4, Funny)

    by sedyn (880034) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @07:42PM (#14937813)
    I lost count of how many times I said "yet" while reading this...

    Maybe I should take my cynical hat off and read it again.
    • How many times did you say it while reading this [slashdot.org]? Just replace yet with for now.
    • I don't know. From what I read, it looks like it's Intel keeping their nose out of IP management all together; he's right, or moreover, he alludes to the fact that Intel is not exactly in a position to deal with 'rights management' (ie: theft of services), as that would be difficult to do without false positives at the circuit level.

      Far as I can tell, this article deals less with DRM, and more with what appears to be an arbitrary standard of what is Media Capable - something that I'm sure Intel's marketing
    • by UseFree.org (950344) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @08:24PM (#14938058) Homepage
      Intel is pushing a technology called Treacherous Computing, which will prevent unsigned code from running on their hardware. So even if you have the source code, if you try to remove the DRM restrictions, the hardware will refuse to run the modified binary.

      The Free Software Foundation admits [fsf.org] that the anti-DRM provisions in the GPLv3 [fsf.org] will not be enough on their own to prevent the nightmare scenario where users can't trust their own computers [gnu.org].

      People who understand the dangers of Digital Restrictions Management [eff.org] at a technical level (ie.Free and Open Source software developers) should warn the general public to avoid buying DRM-crippled hardware. Consumers should know about the great variety of DRM-free computers and accessories [usefree.org] built specifically to work with Linux, the KDE desktop [kde.org], and other Free and Open Source applications.

      On the music side, there are plenty of websites [usefree.org] that legally sell DRM-free, RIAA-free [downhillbattle.org] music by independent artists. Consumers can use a cross-platform, iTunes-like application called Songbird [slashdot.org] to easily download songs from these sites.

      As for movies, building a Linux media center works just as well as the DRM-crippled offering from M$FT. Just download MythTV [mythtv.org] and run it on a computer equipped with the pcHDTV HD-3000 [pchdtv.com] card and the PVR-350 [hauppauge.com] card -- these will capture both standard definition (NTSC) and Digital/Hi-Definition (ATSC/HDTV) signals.
      • by dr.badass (25287) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @09:55PM (#14938554) Homepage
        Consumers can use a cross-platform, iTunes-like application called Songbird to easily download songs from these sites.

        Songbird is not cross-platform. It is currently Windows-only. It also sucks really hard.
      • As for movies, building a Linux media center works just as well as the DRM-crippled offering from M$FT.

        Well, for certain values of almost as well... like if you aren't extremely technical, you may actually get MythTV running. Possibly.

        And of course, it gives you exactly one additional capability over the Windows Media Center - the ability to freely 'share' the content over the internet. Quite a freedom, that. I don't know how consumers get away without it.
      • by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Thursday March 16, 2006 @10:43PM (#14938836) Homepage
        Intel is pushing a technology called Treacherous Computing, which will prevent unsigned code from running on their hardware. So even if you have the source code, if you try to remove the DRM restrictions, the hardware will refuse to run the modified binary.

        This actually isn't correct. You'll be able to run whatever you want, but if you run unapproved binaries you won't be able to download certain stuff (e.g. legal music/movie downloads) and may not be able to play certain online games. This is trickier than just banning unsigned code, because such a computer running free software will appear to work fine, but over time it may be gradually locked out of more and more Web sites/services. (How do you boil a user?)

        Trusted computing is bad, but you should attack it based on what it is.
        • Not to mention a few other details, such as you won't be able to audit what it does. If the auto-update calls home with all your information, you won't know. If it embeds collected data in your documents, you won't know. It's all "trusted" and encrypted. It can not be virtualized or sandboxed. Yes, it's a machine that could be used as a general purpose computer. But if you base it on Vista, it will be an appliance where you can't change one bit, both when it comes to OS and applications.
      • People who understand the dangers of Digital Restrictions Management at a technical level (ie.Free and Open Source software developers) should warn the general public to avoid buying DRM-crippled hardware.

        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):

        • Don't upgrade anymore. Even assuming you don't care about games on your PC (or settle for a console for games), s
        • Today, AMD (but they are/will follow suit)

          I know that Slashdot coolaid prohibits me from talking bad about AMD, but if you insist to indict Intel for folding to the RI/MPAA, I've got to do my job and inform you that AMD has done the same. Their technology is called "Live!" (oddly enough, named exactly the same way Microsoft is naming their new services, just like the Athlon XP was named just like Windows XP. Hmmm.)

          Trusted computing is bad, but running from companies who are shipping Trusted components
      • Why this isn't modded Flamebait, I don't know. C'mon "Trecherous Computing", are we all in pre-school now? If you honestly believe that intel will not allow developers to release free products for their platform, you're certifiably insane. Which is unfortunate, since I think it would be GREAT. As much as I love free software (I'm typeing this on Slackware 10.1), I'm also a professional software developer. I would LOVE to prevent people from stealing my software. If you refuse to use my software under my te
        • Why this isn't modded Funny, I don't know....maybe cause +1 Sad doesn't exist?

          I would LOVE to prevent people from stealing my software.

          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)

          I'm also a professional software developer.

          welcome to /.

          I would LOVE to prevent people from stealing my software. If you refuse to use my software under

          • well, I see someone has mod points to burn and doesn't agree with my opinion.
            • (potentially offtopic - just don't read it if annoyed with this - youv'e been warned.)

              ...Doesn't matter, common sense + mod p's will help you in the end (here , have a serving of mod p's).

              Ok, and for the people who dissagree I have the following advice: there are other values out there than you, personally in your grubby little closet, trying to get your hands on as much cash as possible through your über-elite coding skills. Actually, current situation today is you + your sweatshop coders, where yo

          • I realize this is old, didn't notice you're reply until just now. I'll respond anyway, why not?

            wow. that's some fine entitlement you have going on there. It's funny that you think your thoughts trump my property rights. I wonder how acceptable you would find it if Starbucks told you how to drink your coffee, or that you couldn't give your coffee to someone else, or that because Starbucks sells coffee, no one else is allowed...

            Ummm, yes, I'd find that acceptable. Starbucks makes the coffee, they can sti

        • A harder to crack software will be replicated down to assembly level.
          Your "Trusted computing" or other DRM software
          will be cracked,modded and reverse engineered and i will laugh at you.
          All information is capable of being shared,will be shared.
      • In the U.S., the PC has became a plug and play office machine or home appliance. The Geek's overheated rhetoric isn't going to change that much.

        Freedom to the user can mean the freedom to access protected content. iTunes. Netflix. Subscription services like Rhapsody. The latest massively multiplayer on-line game.

        Apple understands this. Microsoft understands this. Walmart understands this.

        Which is why the chain flirts with the HTPC at $2000 and its commitment to OEM Linux shrnks towards a single mediocre

  • by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Thursday March 16, 2006 @07:44PM (#14937824) Journal
    Easy to use is even nicer.
  • I'm very surprised to hear this, but not releieved. This is a big turning point. DRM-on-chip is about to be mass introduced (not like smaller releases that IBM or HP did on only certain models of computer) and we should make it clear that DRM should be optional for systems. If people don't pay attention, the features of these chips will be slowly activated in future revisions.
    • If the DRM could be bios or jumper-disabled, even better.
      • Dunno about BIOS-disabled myself... if I'm going to be able to turn off DRM on any machine that I end up with, it's got to be in the hardware itself - a jumper or something; if it's software disabled, it's possible for software to re-enable it at a later point, and if I'm turning it off, it's because I specifically want it off. Same thing as a physical power switch - when the switch is in the "off" position, there's not a damned thing that can be done by software to turn on whatever devices are connected to

        • nowadays, a lot, and I'd wager to say MOST pcs are controlled by what are softswitches, not hard physical contact switches like on IBM xt's had///

          as to "can't turn it on by software" then what are WOL magic packets for?

          • WoL packets are useless if you've flipped the switch on the powersupply from 1 to 0.
          • Every PC that I own has a hardware power switch on them, except for this laptop. Of course, it's got no main battery and no PRAM battery, so when I want it physically off, I pull the power cord, which I have to do more often than not anyway. Everything else certainly has a softswitch on it, but they do have the physical switch on the back of the power supply as well.

            As to WOL, that also means that the NIC is active regardless of whether the power is "on" or "off" as far as the sofware-controlled power is c

  • by Saven Marek (739395) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @07:45PM (#14937830)
    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.'"

    Translation: "If we say we're against DRM right from the start, we'll sow seeds in people's minds that we're the good guys, so that when we start implementing really restrictive DRM schemes, it'll be really difficult to turn people against us. Hey it worked for Apple"
  • 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.

    What if the copyright owner doesn't even offer the song/movie/whatever I'd be happy to pay them for?

    • Re:Forced to pirate? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Then that's unfortunate, but doesn't give you the right to do anything dodgy to obtain it.
      • by Isotopian (942850)
        Maybe not the right, but it sure gives him a helluva good reason. So long as it's easier to buy then pay for something, people will generally pay for it. But if you want something, and nobody will sell it to you, and someone else says, "here, have it for free..." well, then thats where cause and effect come into play.
      • Then that's unfortunate, but doesn't give you the right to do anything dodgy to obtain it.

        Maybe the term "right" isn't appropriate, but the author's refusal to provide access may well give me immunity from infringement liability. Fair use specifically applies when permission is NOT granted, after all. It would all depend on the facts of the situation, which is precisely what the grandparent was getting at.

        Of course, DMCA is "fair-use"-free, so there you're in strange waters indeed.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      What if I wanted to screw your girlfriend, I'd be willing to pay you, but if you won't sell her to me then does that give me the right to just take what I want?
  • Careless (Score:4, Funny)

    by Spad (470073) <slashdot@s[ ].co.uk ['pad' in gap]> on Thursday March 16, 2006 @07:47PM (#14937838) Homepage
    Somebody at the RI/MPAA forgot to mail their "donations" to Intel. Expect Intel to see the error of their ways before long (3 business days for a cheque to clear these days isn't it?).

    What? Me, cynical?
    • It was all just marketing speak to get them 'in the door'.

      You can bet the *AA's know what is going on, and support intel laying low as they slowly invade daily life with more DRM technology that can be activated later, long after its too late for the average joe to turn back.
  • VIIV is just a sticker, so of course it doesn't prevent anything. But it doesn't really enable anything, either. A "regular" Windows Media Center Edition PC can do anything a VIIV PC can do. Also remember that just because VIIV doesn't add its own DRM, it also doesn't take away the DRM that is already present in Windows.
    • Read this:
      http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638 [theinquirer.net]
      East Fork == VIIV, and some details have changed, but it is a lot more than that. Transcoding, transrating, a store, and a connection framework. It is also a MASSIVE DRM infection, but they try and pretend otherwise.

                      -Charlie
      • Maybe I should have been more specific. I maintain my claim that VIIV 1.0 is just a sticker. Those East Fork features may be coming in future versions of VIIV, but I don't want to spend time analyzing vaporware.

        BTW, have you seen my analysis of LaGrande [editthispage.com]? Most of the IDF press coverage seems to have ignored LaGrande.
  • What they could do is couch the DRM detection as a "feature" to help user's identify potentially harmful or infringing content. Maybe this could be pointed out to the user in the media player delivering the content, or in the file system where an icon could identify the content that wasn't authorized.
    • Nobody is going to care even if they are aware unless that 'feature' phones home and will send for a knock on the door by the copyright police.

      Your average person doesn't care if the content they are watching is a legitimate copyright holder version or an 'illegal' copy.

      The SNL short 'Lazy Sunday' comes to mind. I can't seem to get it to play from NBC's site since they yanked it from the high traffic sites but I still can see it from other sites that host it and I'm sure that NBC hasn't given them a releas
  • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @07:50PM (#14937857)
    The original:
    Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're *lying*. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

    - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid =14107454 [slashdot.org]

    I propose the following DRM and media corollary:

    Whenever a DRM scheme is proposed, and a hardware manufacturer, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, uses a phrase along the lines of "make content easier to buy than it is to pirate" -- the manufacturer is *lying*. It intends to abuse the DRM scheme as early and as often as the content industry asks it to.

    • I'm as much asgainst DRM as much as anybody, but I'm going to have to say that historically, this doesn't seem to be the case. Hardware manufacturers tend to be the opposite -- they tend to roll out a DRM scheme and get less and less restrictive as time goes on, because, ultimately, they are not in the business of facilitating software restrictions -- they want to sell hardware.

      My recollection is that when SanDisk's SD cards first came out, they were intended to prevent you from reuploading "protected" fi
  • He's telling the masses what they want to hear. The Furher means you no harm. You will all be protected. These rumors you have heard are too fantastic to be sure. We are civilised, like you, yes?
  • I really can't imagine how anyone plans to make content easier to buy than to pirate, when any kind of DRM is involved. Oh, unless you forget to add the part where you view the content... which it seems they did.

    ... which it seems like they may have done.

    • iTunes has already done this you know.
      Finding music on it is a lot easier than on gnutella or any of the other warez networks, but even more importantly when you buy the song you instantly get a fast download of a high quality song instead of waiting in queue for way too long for a file you have now idea of the quality

      oh.. and stop being so cynical. I know you guys hate drm. So do I but the posts "translating" the positive statements to
      something else entirely are just IDIOTIC ...stop it, they deserve the be
  • From TFA (emphasis mine):

    Intel's stance surrounding Digital Rights Management (DRM) is that consumers should be able to do whatever they like with legally purchased content
    (...)
    Intel is encouraging Viiv content providers to allow users to pass their media to other devices

    So whatever they say about their intentions it will be up to the content providers to decide what you can or cannot do with legally purchased content.. Guess how nice they're going to be about this. and this is from version 1, not

    • Intel thinks that consumers should be able to do what they want.....

      Unfortunately, their software is a DRM framework and infection that screws the consumers. If I had to go with which side to believe, I would take the functionality over the rhetoric. How about you?

                    -Charlie
  • by Y-Crate (540566) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @08:01PM (#14937923)
    "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."
    I think it is safe to say that the iTunes Store halo effect has a lot to do with this assumption. While the iTunes Store hasn't squashed piracy altogether, it has sold over a billion songs and tens of millions of videos that it is safe to say would not have necessarily been purchased if they had not been made available for sale so readily and easily through one mouse click.

    People are willing to pay to be honest, they just don't like to feel ripped-off by the transaction - something the record labels have yet to learn with their demands that Apple raise prices across the board and closer to the MSRP of physical CDs. One can claim that the labels can demand whatever the market will bear, but I think the whole point of the matter is that we've seen what the market will bear and the creation of the iTunes Store is partially a response to that. No one wants to pay what the labels have been charging for physical media, and that has been reflected in the sales figures. Their stubbornness when it comes to accepting this fact has a good deal to do with their grim prospects.

    DRM on these files is rather pointless as anything Apple sells is already widely available elsewhere, and few who chose to buy something from the iTunes Store do so because they cannot obtain the content for free. Their very choice to purchase the content negates the need for DRM. The very presence of it is - surprise - due to contract stipulations made by the record labels. Steve Jobs has gone on the record that he does not believe it is necessary, but he has no choice.
  • From the article:
    Intel's stance surrounding Digital Rights Management (DRM) is that consumers should be able to do whatever they like with legally purchased content. That means backing it up to external drives and streaming it to other devices such as handhelds and networked machines.

    This is news to me (and good news!). I kind of had the idea that Intel supported DRM. Most likely Intel caters to whoever brings them money, and since this is being marketed towards users, they take a stance against DRM.
    • "This is news to me (and good news!). I kind of had the idea that Intel supported DRM. Most likely Intel caters to whoever brings them money, and since this is being marketed towards users, they take a stance against DRM. Notice they don't prohibit DRM to be used in any VIIV products, just discourage it. Still, any position against DRM is a good position."

      Sadly though, their rhetoric is not matched by their code. They do implement a crushing and overwhelming DRM infection. If you ask them about it, and I ha
  • by babbling (952366) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @08:11PM (#14937986)
    It's funny that he thinks it's wrong to treat consumers as criminals, yet endorses DRM.

    The entire idea of DRM seems to be that you prevent people from passing the file to someone else. This idea is flawed, because the "someone else" will always be able to get the file from elsewhere, illegitimately, and the "original customer" will probably end up doing the same because DRM is an inferior product when compared with illegitimate versions of the same thing.

    This idea assumes that the original customer is a criminal. All DRM treats the customer (the person who has decided to pay for the file) as a criminal.
    • The entire idea of DRM seems to be that you prevent people from passing the file to someone else.

      I disagree. The idea is that you do not use the file in ways other than those explicitly allowed by the copyright holder. Distributing it to someone else would be illegal anyway.

      This idea assumes that the original customer is a criminal. All DRM treats the customer (the person who has decided to pay for the file) as a criminal.

      Disagree again. DRM only prevents me from doing things that are explicitly allow
  • This just sounds like Centrio however for media center computers not laptops. I sounds like it is just a certification that the parts in the computer meet a specification.
  • Funny guy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordSnooty (853791) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @08:15PM (#14938017)
    "Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate"

    This is funny. Going to the shop, picking up the title and handing over money is still easier than downloading p2p programs, setting up firewalls, understanding how it works, finding where to grab stuff from, waiting around for it to complete, sorting out the fakes or the subtitled German-dubbed clips from the real thing... yet many people do the latter rather than the former. And in many cases, the reason is the M-word...
  • "Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate."

    hahaha

    GL HF TTYL ^_^
  • Ultimately, though, 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".

    Well, he lost me with that. Unless they can surpass the ease-of-use of:
    1) Visit Pirate Bay.
    2) Select torrent.
    3) Wait until it's downloaded.
    4) Watch (or listen to) downloaded media.
    Well, let's just say I doubt they'll come close anytime soon.
    • um 1. Open iTunes 2. Select Media 3. Wait until's downloaded 4. Watch (or listen to downloaded media) Well, let's just say then, they already have ... Music and video piracy aren't driven by people wanting to rip off "Big Media", it's being driven by people who want easier access to the media.
      • Speaking as someone who doesn't have access to iTunes, due to it not being available in my country, I believe my original statement still stands. (And I don't have a credit card, so that reduces my legal options anyway)
  • What about AMD? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stretch0611 (603238) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @08:27PM (#14938079) Journal
    Can intel be that smart promoting VIIV's DRM capabilities at a time when they are losing market share to AMD?

    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...

    • Re:What about AMD? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Gogo0 (877020)
      Who is your favorite bigtime AMD system builder? Imagine them moving to Intel because MS, the MPAA, RIAA, and whoever else wants features that AMD doesnt offer. That is a lot more lost money than a marginal number of DIYers looking at Intel vs AMD benchmarks.

      AMD will follow suit as soon as they start losing big money by not offering the same "protection" as Intel and everyone else.
    • Re:What about AMD? (Score:4, Informative)

      by dr.badass (25287) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @09:49PM (#14938521) Homepage
      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?

      If you're looking for "DRM-free" you're not going to find it from AMD. AMD is a founding member of the Trusted Computing Group, along with Intel, and is building the exact same functionality into their processors.

  • Can of worms (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Groo Wanderer (180806)
    OK, I know Don MacDonald personally, and I was the first one to sound the alarm bells about ViiV, then called East Fork. See:
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638 [theinquirer.net]
    http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/17/ 170256 [slashdot.org]

    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
    • Intel said something to your face?

      No, of course it didn't. Intel never says anything. It can't - it's got no mouth.

      A person employed by Intel said something to you.

      That distinction can be followed by considering that the management changed company direction.

      You disagree with the change. Fair enough. I suspect the person who made the statement about Linux didn't want to be made to look foolish when the company changed direction under them, but that's the way it goes.

      Intel cannot lie. It doesn't exist in that
    • 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.

      If this is the case then why is Intel putting up with it? Go to any stock board, take a look at Intel's market cap, then take a look at the m

      • "If this is the case then why is Intel putting up with it?"

        One phrase, Mandatory Remote Key Revocation. When Intel agreed to this, game over. It is the ultimate power, undefendable, given to MS and the content mafia. Intel is bent over an playing bitch.

                    -Charlie
  • While I'm glad that they're taking this approach...so far its all talk. I'll believe it when I see it. But I really wish more companies would realize that in order to get rid of piracy, they need to make it easier to get/use their content legally than it is to pirate it.

  • I always see this kneejerk reaction to DRM on the net...it must be evil, bad, etc.

    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 P
    • Yes, I'm sure that everyone would welcome DRM that isn't used as a means to screw consumers.

      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 th
      • Yes, I'm sure that everyone would welcome DRM that isn't used as a means to screw consumers.

        One question: What possible use could DRM have besides screwing consumers?

        Seriously! As far as I can tell, screwing consumers is the only thing DRM is good for. It prevents you from doing what you want to do with the data on your computer. That doesn't help you, it only hurts you.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      And yet without DRM, itunes would not be possible.

      Yes it would. And this is the fundamental failed assumption of your entire post. The only difference DRM makes with respect to iTunes is that it appeases the record industry enough that they are willing to sell online. All of the songs sold through iTunes are already available on p2p networks. The content industry had nothing to lose by selling non-DRM music. People would have purchased it just as (if not more) often. The reason being, most people ar

  • I read the article, the DRM is really not a very big piece when you read the whole thing.

    This viiv seems to be just something invented by Intel to boost sales and detract sales from competing brands.

    They just slap a viiv sticker on something and then they can say "Well, this PC is VIIV certified which means that it will offer you the best in [whatever subject]!
    and of course, that other (cheaper, better) PC is not VIIV certified and therefore does not work"

    The piece on DRM sounded more like "There is no DRM"
  • Hmm... It looks like somebody has come up with a better name for DRM than "Digital Restrictions Management":
    handcuffware
    Spread the word!
  • watermarks are good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by penguin-collective (932038) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @09:12PM (#14938297)
    Watermarks are probably one of the less offensive DRM methods--they allow copying and playing, but make it possible to trace content back to you. And they don't have to be perfect to do that--it's sufficient that they are reasonably hard to remove, which they are.
    • it's sufficient that they are reasonably hard to remove, which they are.

      There are watermarking techniques that are quite good if you are seeking to embed something like author information. Mostly noone has bothered to break them because they don't hassle anyone. But there's absolutely no watermark where you have millions of unique ids that isn't trivially removed or distorted. Simple diffs kills 99% of them.
      • First of all, it's irrelevant how many bad watermarking techniques there are since you only need one good one, and there are many good ones that are not "killed by simple diffs" and require much more effort to remove.

        Second, even if you pick a bad watermarking technique, it doesn't matter: most people simply won't have multiple copies of a media file around to remove the watermark.
  • Joe Shmoe: "I saw an ad for this on TV. It's supposed to be really good, like that Dolby Digital stuff. I gotta make sure to get VIIV"
  • by sharkey (16670) on Thursday March 16, 2006 @10:21PM (#14938706)
    Is Viiv like the next generation of f00f?
  • Quote TFA: Intel promises to make content easier to buy than it is to pirate

    I certainly hope that this is correct. As it stands, piracy is a mixed bag. I'm at college, so I can get a wide assortment of movies literally within a couple minutes for free, no hassle. I don't see how they expect to beat that, but there are a few areas where they could do well.

    1. Older works. Make old movies and TV shows, especially unpopular ones, available. Piracy sorta sucks in that regard

    2. Guaranteed very high quality. I'm s
  • by lwells-au (548448) <lwells&bigpond,net,au> on Thursday March 16, 2006 @11:46PM (#14939193)
    I was at the Intel Viiv launch yesterday. It was a reasonably interesting launch although I will forever have the jargon "the new normal" burned in to me brain.

    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.
  • Let the brainwashing begin. We're on the edge of the slippery slope.

      If you click on Intel's Viiv it's like trying to find out what product an MLM distributor is supposedly selling. Everyone dances around the issue (controlling what you can view on *your* computer) and tries to convince you how good it is without telling you what "it" is or does. Pretty soon we'll pass the point of no return and have Big Brother built into everything we own.
  • http://www.tonymcfadden.net/tpmvendors.html [tonymcfadden.net]
    You can see that a lot of intel chipsets do have tcpa/tcg.

    And yes tcg is used for drm (and remote identification of your hardware aka "remote attestation"):
    http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/ 2006/02/yes_trusted_com.html [informationweek.com]
  • by jimicus (737525) on Friday March 17, 2006 @06:30AM (#14940527)
    .. thee can make things "easier to buy than they are to pirate".

    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.
  • Don't install software that uses it. Until Intel requires a DRM-only OS for their chips this is a non-issue for the savvy.

    Same with Vista really. Vista will only force DRM on software that has the hooks for it. Use DRM-free content and players.

    The bottom line is that there's a difference between DRM-aware and DRM-mandated. The one is fine (if a little disconcerting) and the other is dispicable. At this point customers won't stand for players that only play DRM content. Let's hope it stays that way.
  • Viiv isn't an actual product or technology, it's just a marketing scheme. It's a new brand name for things that already exist, a la "Centrino".

Support Mental Health. Or I'll kill you.

Working...