Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| So what's the issue?
Just out of curiousity I am wondering what the implications are if Intel embeds DRM?
Product makers have every right to insert DRM into their products to restrict it's 'use' if they choose. Obviously software based is not very good as it is easily broken and "patches" are easily distributed. So what is wrong with Intel making this a hardware based solution which will be much harder to crack and certainly harder to distribute?
I guess what I am missing is how this will actually effect a normal user in a bad way. |
|
MrWiseGuy
@dsl-w.verizon | And we have our first troll folks. No not me. The guy supporting DRM. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
 ·epix
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25  :Just out of curiousity I am wondering what the implications are if Intel embeds DRM? Product makers have every right to insert DRM into their products to restrict it's 'use' if they choose. Obviously software based is not very good as it is easily broken and "patches" are easily distributed. So what is wrong with Intel making this a hardware based solution which will be much harder to crack and certainly harder to distribute? I guess what I am missing is how this will actually effect a normal user in a bad way. Well then Skippy boy. Read this .
»www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Then you will understand how this will actually effect a normal user in a bad way.
Sort of like if I surrender all my rights.How will that affect a normal citizen in a bad way.Perhaps this will be easier to understand.Ask your self. How will a trojan actually affect a normal user in a bad way.? Think man think. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to Skippy25
Skippy has a point. Intel does have a right to distribute said chip. Hmm.. well, maybe not..
This is no different than selling a car that was unable to go faster than the speed limit, ever. Think about it. They embed RFID chips in the road, then they require all cars to have RFID readers, and those cars will obey the embedded speed limits. So noone can break the law. That would stop all speeding, so we wouldn't need speed traps. Of course, the police would still need to have cars that could go faster than the speed limit. Cause the only ones who would have cars that could go faster than the speed limit would be criminals who hacked their RFID readers in their cars. They'll need to pass new laws to spy on people who speak about bypassing the RFID, cause that would be illegal. Hmm, oh, wait, they already DID pass a law that supresses free speech (DCMA). Well, then they'll just need to require everyone to register with a DNA databank, so when you get in your car, you need to pee in a cup, and it can compare you with a list of know dissidents, oops, I mean, hackers, who 'could' hack RFID's, and the governement could follow those unpatriotic people. The Peoples Republic of these United States knows whats best for us all, and the Patriot Act II will ensure that we remain safe. The fact that the **AA's are buying congress, and trying to force their view of what a computer can legally do is just the natural evolution of a democracy, really. And if you disagree, well, you must be a terrorist, cause only terrorist want to use their computers in a manner that's unfriendly to the **AA's.
Bottom line is that DRM = Digital RESTRICTIONS, Not RIGHTS. The concept of adding DRM to the hardware adds ZERO VALUE to the computer. ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. Everyone knows it except the public. But as you can see from the desperate spin control intel is putting out, having the public know is the last thing they want.
--
Grand Poobah |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | reply to Skippy25
hey all we got to do is buy an older computer  |
|
OneHeart
join:2002-02-20
1 edit | said by Anonymous_ :hey all we got to do is buy an older computer All we have to do is buy a computer that does not use the newer chip in question.
--
OneHeart
|
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs: | I have 2 Intel chips and 1 AMD chip that don't happen to have this "feature".
AMD Athlon XP, Intel P2 266MHz and the 733MHz Xbox Coppermine.
--
Posting .sig |
|
live free
@verizon.net
| reply to G_Poobah
said by "G_Poobah":
This is no different than selling a car that was unable to go faster than the speed limit, ever.
You are aware, that most cars sold today, have not only built-in "speed limiters" in their computer (meaning, won't go above 'X' speed - not without "chipping" the computer), but also, they include "black box" functionality, in order to log your driving habits. No doubt, that when you go in for your yearly "safety" inspection, they will download your entire driving history for that year into their computer. If that information includes physical location information, that could be superimposed on a map - well, better hope that your travels don't look "suspicious" to anyone. Oh yeah, some states ARE now proposing or implementing RFID transponders into inspection stickers as well. I also know that at least CA is doing likewise with a "remote kill switch" for cars - the cops would just have to point a device at your car, hit a button, and your car drifts to a halt, right then and there. So much for a Constitutionally-affirmed "right to travel".
That all being said - I don't think that *all* "DRM" is bad - DRM enables control. The question is, WHO is given that control. If the user is given complete control over their own machines, and allowed to control their own media works, then I don't have a huge problem with that - it could actually spur the development of a reliable micro-payment scheme for smaller content distributers. (Meaning you and me - imagine getting paid a cent every time someone read one of your posts!)
But if only the bigger corporations / gov't agencies, are given "control" over a user's machine, what it creates, what it is allowed to view - then that is essentially technological *slavery*, and also a widespread platform for post-facto censorship efforts.
In short - it seems directly analogous to the concept of the ownership and control over private property - if the "end-user" is allowed to own and control, then no problem. But if only the "plantation owner" is allowed to control it, then that is a real problem. And that seems to be where things are headed, unfortunately. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to MrWiseGuy
So you come here anonymous and call me a troll and state I support DRM because I question the usefulness of this? You may want to examine who is the troll here my little panzy friend.
Regardless of anything you will always have your people that think everything is free for the taking regardless of who "suffers".
Content providers, regardless of what they provide (movies, music, software, video) have every right to set limitations on the use of THEIR content. If Intel and most likely eventually AMD want to help make things more secure with hardware based protection, that is their choice. You and I may not like it and we can decide with our checkbooks, but still it is their choice as it is THEIR material.
Do I support DRM? I truely dont know enough about it to say yes or no and probably wont take the time to learn it. However, what I do fully support is my right to fully restrict the distribution of something that I create. If DRM provides me that right in a better way then before then great, I welcome the improvement. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to guitarzan
Good or bad, that was an aweful lot like reading the pre Y2k articles -Lots of "theories and opinions" as to what could happen.
Only time will tell and I am going to venture a guess that, just like the Y2k paranoia, most of this is nothing more then conspiracy theory that was written in, what 2003? |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by Skippy25 :Good or bad, that was an aweful lot like reading the pre Y2k articles -Lots of "theories and opinions" as to what could happen. Yunno what they say about opinions, dontcha skippy boy. 
--
»www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm |
|
zeveck
@rsasecurity.com
| reply to Skippy25
To be fair, Y2K was a not a hoax by any stretch of the imagination. Companies poured BILLIONS of dollars into it such that in every industry where it was going to be a major problem (such as air traffic control, central banking, government weapons control) had the problem mostly fixed well in advance. The media got carried away with stories about it exending to everyday computer usage, but...
If DRM provides me that right in a better way then before then great, I welcome the improvement.
You do not have that right. If you make something and sell it you do not have the right to tell the person what they can do with it after the buy it aside from their ability to redistribute it and so forth. DRM is INCREDIBLY overrestrictive because it is too complicated to make technologies that can make judgement calls, so it always rounds your rights down to the nearest easily programable denominator.
This is not something that it is okay to "wait and see on"...because by the time people realize it's a problem it will be YEARS too late to do anything about it. If Intel does this and OSes are made to require and AMD is forced into it and so forth it isn't like they're going to go back and pull it...despite the protest...because you'd be talking countless billions in losses. |
|
