Sandy Bridge - So why is chip DRM okay but Serial # wasn't?

[wanderer27]

I'm not seeing anything being mentioned about this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1934536/intels-sandy-bridge-sucks-hollywood-drm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7020FG20110103


This is not quite the same thing as the "Kill Switch" thread from a few days ago.


Now it looks like the performance on this new chip is pretty nice, but damn I'm getting tired of people telling me what I can/can't do with my own Hardware.

Why is it when Intel tried to implement the Electronic Serial Numbering scheme some years back that everyone was up in arms about it, but now this (essentially the same and much worse) just fine ?


.

 

[Castiel]

I don't download movies illegally so i'm really not all that concerned about it.

 

[smakme7757]

I don't like this eather, but money talks and BS walks. No doubt Intel is making some cash out of this move!

 

[stahlhart]

Time Warner et al can take their "content" and shove it. Not interested.

 

[OCGuy]

More faux outrage.....

 

[wanderer27]

Well, I really don't see myself downloading Movies either - it's really cheaper just to buy them.

That doesn't mean I want all this superfluous crap on my systems either though.


I'm just really surprised I'm not seeing much fuss about this really anywhere.
I remember the Serial Number event, and it turned out to be a pretty big issue.

Now here, we basically have collusion with the MPAA and everyone's just meh . . . ?


.

 

[Makaveli]

lol so wouldn't the fix for this be just download it to your non sb machine.

 

[shabby]

Content protection is disabled in p67, its only meant for the low end segment

 

[tcsenter]

Content protection is disabled in p67, its only meant for the low end segment

Its not disabled. P67 doesn't have integrated graphics.

This is nothing new. All Intel integrated graphics since 4 series have featured PAVP and HDCP:

http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-029871.htm

 

[combust3r]

You beat me to it Just found out that PAVP is old story, and that someone wants to bring a big hype about this

 

[chillycheese]

This doesn't prevent you from downloading movies. The CPU isn't going to somehow detect the video you're watching is copyrighted material; that would be impractical and easy to work around from a video encoding perspective.

Nothing in either article says Intel is limiting what you can or can't do with your CPU. All that's been done here is the addition of a decryption key on the hardware level which allows "Hollywood" to feel more secure about distributing HD content over the internet. This measure was most likely put into place because HDCP, CSS and AACS have all been defeated. This gives the studios a new unbroken encryption path.

To be clear (from what the articles state) you do not LOSE anything from having Sandy Bridge. You GAIN the ability to download a specific type of encrypted video and watch it, per the license you purchase with that file, i.e., whether it's a rental or a purchase.

This is, of course, completely retarded because as mentioned, AACS and HDCP being defeated means bit-perfect HD copies will exist anyway. Someone in Hollywood is just trying to keep their job by looking proactive.

 

[cmdrdredd]

This doesn't prevent you from downloading movies. The CPU isn't going to somehow detect the video you're watching is copyrighted material; that would be impractical and easy to work around from a video encoding perspective.

Nothing in either article says Intel is limiting what you can or can't do with your CPU. All that's been done here is the addition of a decryption key on the hardware level which allows "Hollywood" to feel more secure about distributing HD content over the internet. This measure was most likely put into place because HDCP, CSS and AACS have all been defeated. This gives the studios a new unbroken encryption path.

To be clear (from what the articles state) you do not LOSE anything from having Sandy Bridge. You GAIN the ability to download a specific type of encrypted video and watch it, per the license you purchase with that file, i.e., whether it's a rental or a purchase.

This is, of course, completely retarded because as mentioned, AACS and HDCP being defeated means bit-perfect HD copies will exist anyway. Someone in Hollywood is just trying to keep their job by looking proactive.

Plus they are alienating 99.99999999% of the rest of the world who would not have a Sandy Bridge CPU at all and thus not be able to decrypt the video and play it. Making them do all this for nothing.

 

[HeXen]

This doesn't prevent you from downloading movies. The CPU isn't going to somehow detect the video you're watching is copyrighted material; that would be impractical and easy to work around from a video encoding perspective.

Nothing in either article says Intel is limiting what you can or can't do with your CPU. All that's been done here is the addition of a decryption key on the hardware level which allows "Hollywood" to feel more secure about distributing HD content over the internet. This measure was most likely put into place because HDCP, CSS and AACS have all been defeated. This gives the studios a new unbroken encryption path.

To be clear (from what the articles state) you do not LOSE anything from having Sandy Bridge. You GAIN the ability to download a specific type of encrypted video and watch it, per the license you purchase with that file, i.e., whether it's a rental or a purchase.

This is, of course, completely retarded because as mentioned, AACS and HDCP being defeated means bit-perfect HD copies will exist anyway. Someone in Hollywood is just trying to keep their job by looking proactive.

and hacked the same as any other drm be it hardware or software. and were back to where we were before. if its that big a deal to hollywood, they can just stop making movies, do something else and stop all the piracy crybaby crap. which would make consumers cry cause no movies to watch, which i would find rewarding anyway

 

[Rifter]

old news, obvious troll thread.

 

[Zap]

Content protection is disabled in p67, its only meant for the low end segment

I'm wondering if their "content protection" is really HDCP? The P67 wouldn't have it because it doesn't support the IGP.

EDIT: DOH!

 

[JimmiG]

I guess people have just kind of given up and decided to live with all this crap. Soon, our PCs will be just as locked down as our phones, and even harder to "jailbreak".

 

[Modelworks]

A lot of worry over nothing. PAVP is not about serial numbers or stopping people from even downloading movies if they want to . It actually helps solve a problem people have had for a long time with content. It provides the protected content path in hardware in the cpu. People that like to make a HTPC should be thanking intel for putting it in the hardware.

Linux cannot use netflix currently. Bluray requires hacks using windows software. The reason for this is because it has no protected content path. MS added the protection with vista . Basically all it does is ensure that when drm flagged content is played back it it cannot be intercepted between the cpu and the video card output. Currently the method used in vista/7 uses heavy encryption and does use quite a few cpu cycles that wouldn't have to be used if the cpu did it in hardware. PAVP does not determine if the content can be played , it just protects the path of the content while it is playing. It keeps people from starting to play back a bluray disc and saving the movie out to a file by tapping into memory or attaching devices to the bus or video card.

 

[Modelworks]

I'm wondering if their "content protection" is really HDCP? The P67 wouldn't have it because it doesn't support the IGP.

EDIT: DOH!

It is very closely related to HDCP. it is the vista/7 PvP in hardware form to insure nobody grabs content once it is decoded.

 

[Ben90]

I guess people have just kind of given up and decided to live with all this crap. Soon, our PCs will be just as locked down as our phones, and even harder to "jailbreak".

Yah fo realz dawg da DRM B takin' ovah R lives!! itsa consipiricy maan

On a serious note DRM isn't inherently bad. There are a lot of kinks still being worked out right now with this blueray-type-encryption-stuff such as having difficulties playing your legal content on your computer. This is a step to eliminate that. Once every hardware company gets on the bandwagon this content protection stuff will be completely invisible to the end user.

I don't support intrusive DRM. Any part of the system visible regarding movies and music I consider intrusive. Computer applications can get away with a one time online CDkey/account activation type thing in my book. Popping in your Blueray into any player and it playing with a protected path is fine in my book. Ubisoft's controversial implementation is not to me.

No form of DRM is perfect. That includes not having any at all. You need to have at least a little thorn in the side of the distributing piraters' to keep the novices out. The ones that crack things for fun and money will always find a way however and there is no reason to create abnormally harsh protections that will annoy legit buyers.

 

[wanderer27]

old news, obvious troll thread.

Ummm, it may be old news to you, but I don't recall seeing a thread on here about this.

Also if you'll notice, Rueters just posted this yesterday (the day I posted it) . . . .



Modelworks,

Thanks, I think you really explained what's going on here, I'm not too up to date on all the formats/protocols being developed these days.
So this is more or less an aspect of encryption and not necessarily a unique identifier based arrangement.


I still say this is all a bunch of crap.
You shouldn't have to go through such gyrations to use something you paid for.
It shouldn't matter if it's Win x, Linux, Unix, Apple OS, or whatever - it should just damn work.

Yeah, it may be the Law/Legal, but that doesn't mean it's right :thumbsdown:

 

[BladeVenom]

I don't download movies illegally so i'm really not all that concerned about it.

You have it backwards. Pirated media has the DRM removed. The only people that are affected by DRM are those who pay for content.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

I'm not seeing anything being mentioned about this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1934536/intels-sandy-bridge-sucks-hollywood-drm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7020FG20110103


This is not quite the same thing as the "Kill Switch" thread from a few days ago.


Now it looks like the performance on this new chip is pretty nice, but damn I'm getting tired of people telling me what I can/can't do with my own Hardware.

Why is it when Intel tried to implement the Electronic Serial Numbering scheme some years back that everyone was up in arms about it, but now this (essentially the same and much worse) just fine ?


.

because of 9/11 and terrorism of course. we need to give the government total control of our lives so they can protect us from alqueda

 

[Golgatha]

I'm not seeing anything being mentioned about this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1934536/intels-sandy-bridge-sucks-hollywood-drm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7020FG20110103


This is not quite the same thing as the "Kill Switch" thread from a few days ago.


Now it looks like the performance on this new chip is pretty nice, but damn I'm getting tired of people telling me what I can/can't do with my own Hardware.

Why is it when Intel tried to implement the Electronic Serial Numbering scheme some years back that everyone was up in arms about it, but now this (essentially the same and much worse) just fine ?


.

Maybe because they'll use it on optical media someday to ensure I can't rip my legally acquired purchases into the format of my choice. If there's an alternative to DRMed hardware, I'll be glad to buy that alternative.

 

[Golgatha]

You have it backwards. Pirated media has the DRM removed. The only people that are affected by DRM are those who pay for content.

Don't cloud the issue with facts!

 

[wanderer27]

Maybe because they'll use it on optical media someday to ensure I can't rip my legally acquired purchases into the format of my choice. If there's an alternative to DRMed hardware, I'll be glad to buy that alternative.

Actually this is one of the directions other than Streaming that I thought/expected this to go.

Still could for all I know.