<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Well its kinda true in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r13617466</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:47:09 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:47:09 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Well its kinda true</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13617466</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/585075"><b>Samwoo</b></A> : If vendors are going to enforce processor drm the only way the processor is going to be able to use the product if it has drm.<br>So that is your "compatibility"<br>but then again how does this guy say they are making the chip drm compatible and not?<br>Well i guess you need more than a processor for the drm tech to work. it seems that this system requires a drm media drm processor and a device that can receive dtcp broadcasts, without the three this drm isn't used.<br>So there is not embedded drm tech... only the part of a drm tech that is needed to be in the processor. (i mean its not a fully working drm implementation)<br><br>shurgs... everything is just to vague today]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13617466</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:16:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
