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

[mosox]

Wow, people defending the DRM. The loooove for Intel goes this far.

Anything that's restricting the use of your hardware according to the software used is bad. Pretty soon ALL the digital content might be required to use some the DRM in order to be legal, even you home videos. Submit those to the Big Brother state in order to get the digital stamp of approval.

What's next: "I don't criticize the Big Govt so I'm not affected by this"? "Windows cannot save this document on the hard disk, it's not approved". "You have 4 illegal files in your computer, please delete them within 24 hours". "You have been added to our watch list for following Wikileaks on Twitter" (that one is happening right now). "Citizen, this is your last warning, contact the nearest police station".

 

[Lonbjerg]

Wow, people defending the DRM. The loooove for Intel goes this far.

Anything that's restricting the use of your hardware according to the software used is bad. Pretty soon ALL the digital content might be required to use some the DRM in order to be legal, even you home videos. Submit those to the Big Brother state in order to get the digital stamp of approval.

What's next: "I don't criticize the Big Govt so I'm not affected by this"? "Windows cannot save this document on the hard disk, it's not approved". "You have 4 illegal files in your computer, please delete them within 24 hours". "You have been added to our watch list for following Wikileaks on Twitter" (that one is happening right now). "Citizen, this is your last warning, contact the nearest police station".

I said nothing about Intel.
I just don't have a problem with any form of DRM.

You get what you pay for is a fair principle IMHO.

Pirates disagree of course.

 

[mosox]

http://www.bspcn.com/2010/02/18/pirated-dvd-vs-legal-dvd/

 

[Voo]

You must mistake me for someone that care about linux.
Pick the right tool...again not my problem.

No i mistook you for someone who has a basic level of reading comprehension, sorry won't happen again. The problem isn't just linux, but also older windows OSes, older hardware and just about every not standard use case.
But I see you've got no problem to get the newest hardware (and software) every few years, when someones decides the DRM is just too broken and they need a new one, which obviously won't work with all the existing hardware or older software.
And if you need four different devices to play everything you own, that's just a fair price to pay, who'd have a problem with that?

You have a problem with paying for a comodity?
If not you does you post read like a hidden defence for pirates?

Ah, ad hominem attacks the bread and butter of arguments. It's just a fact that the only people affected by DRM are those who legally buy it and not pirates. Or can you name one major movie that wasn't available on torrents?
Interesting how the movie industry is making the same mistakes like the music industry.. just years later

 

[Cogman]

Ah, ad hominem attacks the bread and butter of arguments....

That was NOT an ad hominem attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

But it was a personal attack and tasteless. However, he wasn't using it to discredit your position. Rather, he would have to say something like "Well, you would say something like that, you're a pirate!". Or "I really don't care about the opinion of a pirate."

Just sayin'....

BTW, I agree with your stance. DRM can never be effective because hollywood would have had to get it right the first time. Since they did it, legacy will always be there with exposed holes in their security.

Their other problem is, how do they entice people to get a new tech? People have a difficult enough time telling the difference between BR and DVDs, What feature could they include that would make people actually want to upgrade to tech X?

Their problem is that not everyone wants to have an internet connection to watch a movie. I don't think that will ever change. They've basically walled themselves in with faulty encryption schemes.

I don't even think it is totally possible to have an encryption scheme that would be flawless for disk media. The problem is that the user HAS to decrypt that thing at some point. In a dvd player, this isn't a problem, but in a PC it is a nightmare. They HAVE to give the keys to some software company, and with the keys stored in software, it is only a matter of time before someone finds them.

And even if someone never finds it, nothing prevents them from taking a high quality cam corder, and have it record what is on their display device. No matter how you slice it, the user still HAS to see the content, and if they can see the content, so can a camcorder.

 

[Cogman]

I said nothing about Intel.
I just don't have a problem with any form of DRM.

You get what you pay for is a fair principle IMHO.

Pirates disagree of course.

That isn't the principle pirates or legitimate users are disagreeing with. I like to rip media and store it on my computer for later watching, media I own legally. Hollywood says "You can't do that, that is steal." A point they have been smacked down time and time again over in courts. Yet they STILL try to enforce restrictions on when and where you can play media that you legally own.

Could you imagine buying a painting and then being told "You can't hang that painting anywhere else in your house, and when you move, you aren't allowed to bring it with you!" Of course you would protest. Yet, DRM does exactly that with digital media. It puts a big restriction on when and where you are allowed to use media that you own.

 

[Phynaz]

The article I linked is from a credible source, and is actually being referenced from other news sites in regards to the issue.

Wait, you are saying the Inq is a credible source?

 

[Aristotelian]

I said nothing about Intel.
I just don't have a problem with any form of DRM.

You get what you pay for is a fair principle IMHO.

Pirates disagree of course.

Of course pirates disagree with the principle: "You get what you pay for". In virtue of their being pirates they always get more than they pay for. Seems to me that you're the one doing the complaining that pirates get more than what they pay for.

 

[wanderer27]

That isn't the principle pirates or legitimate users are disagreeing with. I like to rip media and store it on my computer for later watching, media I own legally. Hollywood says "You can't do that, that is steal." A point they have been smacked down time and time again over in courts. Yet they STILL try to enforce restrictions on when and where you can play media that you legally own.

Could you imagine buying a painting and then being told "You can hang that painting anywhere else in your house, and when you move, you aren't allowed to bring it with you!" Of course you would protest. Yet, DRM does exactly that with digital media. It puts a big restriction on when and where you are allowed to use media that you own.

This is a point that's difficult to get some people to understand.

You're allowed to make backups of media you own (fair use), but now you're having to circumvent DRM to do it, which according to the DMCA is illegal.

So basically you have a Right that there's now no way to ever exercise/use - and people are okay with that

 

[wanderer27]

Wait, you are saying the Inq is a credible source?

No, the Inq was in the original batch of links - however they were referencing a Reuters (also linked) article.


This point you are referring to was the later link to an article on THINKQ.co.uk, which is a Techie type news/articles/magazine site.

 

[Voo]

That was NOT an ad hominem attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

But it was a personal attack and tasteless. However, he wasn't using it to discredit your position. Rather, he would have to say something like "Well, you would say something like that, you're a pirate!". Or "I really don't care about the opinion of a pirate."

First sentence wiki: "An ad hominem is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise"
He implying that the only reason I disagree with him about DRM is that I don't want to pay for movies (i.e. a pirate them), isn't ad hominem? Maybe you interpret that sentence differently, but if you look at other statements from him in that direction, it's imho pretty clear that that's what he's implying.

But other than that small, unimportant disagreement, we agree on the important matter at hand here, so that's fine with me

Their problem is that not everyone wants to have an internet connection to watch a movie.

Yeah, for example one of the few times I want to watch movies, is when I'm travelling and can't get a stable internet connection. If their DRM can't allow some kind of offline mode (like steam - that's a DRM scheme I can agree with.. it doesn't constrain me, is much more comfortable than any other solution and has some nice extra features) and doesn't work under the platform of MY chosing, I don't need it.

 

[Markfw]

<snip>Yeah, for example one of the few times I want to watch movies, is when I'm travelling and can't get a stable internet connection. If their DRM can't allow some kind of offline mode (like steam - that's a DRM scheme I can agree with.. it doesn't constrain me, is much more comfortable than any other solution and has some nice extra features) and doesn't work under the platform of MY chosing, I don't need it.

Exactly. I take my netbook along with me (light) and the only way to watch movies is an ISO copied over the network, and I have some software that mounts it as a DVD. So I have to rip my own movies (legal purchased discs) to do that.

 

[trasixes]

Pirates are scared that all material will be DRM in such a manner it can't be broken.

And I couldn't care less about Linux.

As an avid pirate, I am offended by your remarks.

Most films are pirated long before DRM is added - take a look at "X-men Origins: Wolverine" for example - it was leaked before the movie could be finished, there certainly wasn't time to think about DRM lol.

Seriously though, as it's been said - DRM keeps the honest man honest, pirates will not be deterred in their endeavors.

 

[Cogman]

First sentence wiki: "An ad hominem is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise"
He implying that the only reason I disagree with him about DRM is that I don't want to pay for movies (i.e. a pirate them), isn't ad hominem? Maybe you interpret that sentence differently, but if you look at other statements from him in that direction, it's imho pretty clear that that's what he's implying.

Well, For an ad hominem attack to work, you have to say something like "Your opinion is invalid because you are a pirate" but he is saying "Your opinion means that your are a pirate."

He isn't basing the truthfulness of your opinion on some action that you have claimed to do (After all, you have never said that you are a pirate). Rather, he is saying because you hold this opinion, you must be a pirate. More of a failure in logic than a logical fallacy. (The failure being that he says "If you don't like DRM, then you must be a pirate").

Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy

He is just name calling. He hasn't really attacked the truthfulness of your argument.

 

[Voo]

Well, For an ad hominem attack to work, you have to say something like "Your opinion is invalid because you are a pirate" but he is saying "Your opinion means that your are a pirate."

He isn't basing the truthfulness of your opinion on some action that you have claimed to do (After all, you have never said that you are a pirate). Rather, he is saying because you hold this opinion, you must be a pirate. More of a failure in logic than a logical fallacy. (The failure being that he says "If you don't like DRM, then you must be a pirate")

Okay, good point, you're right. I agree

 

[Nemesis 1]

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 ?


.

So your saying you want to be free to steal property thats not yours . This is A great piece of DRM . It allows movies to played on PC as there released love this kind of DRM.

 

[cmdrdredd]

LOL! It always gets cracked.

The people who don't like it are those worried about consumer rights. They don't want to have to download a pirated copy to make use of something they bought. This was exacerbated by the DMCA which made it illegal break copy protection even for personnel use.

Well, there's the new Cinavia protection that is embedded in the audio stream and even recording the audio with an analog microphone and dubbing it into the video causes the cinavia protection to kick in after about 20minutes and mute the audio. A couple of new Blu-Rays have this and there is no work around. You can demux the audio, rip out the TrueHD/DTS-HD and remix it to LPCM and all that. It still kicks in. It's because Cinavia protection is built into the player and it reads a hidden watermark in the audio. Before you say it, it even has this protection at the theater level so sitting there with a video camera or digital device intercepting the projector doesn't work. You will still get muted sound.

When someone can actually get around that without knowing every single cinavia enabled device's unique keys and whatnot...yeah. Just buy the damn movie.

 

[IntelUser2000]

e.g. netflix(.ca): Streams work from my PS3 and every computer I have. Sure I can't save any file but that would be like renting a VHS tape from blockbuster and copying it before I return it. Just not something you should be doing. Again, analog recording is still an option.

One of the companies for Intel Insider:
http://www.wbshop.com/Intel-Insider-HD-Downloads/IntelInsideHDDownloads,default,pg.html

Well, for those that are worried that you'll be forced to pay every time you watch it, there's a "buy" option.

Sandy Bridge is the first of the mainstream graphics integrating chips, so when Fusion comes out, I would expect AMD to offer similar service.

You can't totally prevent piracy, but I bet lot of people aren't hell-bent on copying content. I support paying for movies/shows I like, and I'm pretty sure there are similar minded people too. But when they make their products way too hard to obtain or expensive unfortunately I'm split between going legitimate or going to p2p/free sites(despite the hazards that come with it like viruses).

I have no problem with this as long as:
-They keep it the way it is, do it for premium content for more choice
-No control over media that I already own, whatever the methods I used to acquire them
-Sort of repeating the first point, make it affordable and easy to use. Those that go to p2p sites or free ones have already enough of a deterrance in the form of lower quality/hassle in getting it to work/getting viruses

 

[Golgatha]

Nobody is looking into anti-trust violations.

Of course they're not. Most voters don't know or don't care about the issue, and you don't bite the hand that feeds you (a.k.a. campaign contributions from the MAFIAA lobbyists).

 

[Lonbjerg]

Of course they're not. Most voters don't know or don't care about the issue, and you don't bite the hand that feeds you (a.k.a. campaign contributions from the MAFIAA lobbyists).

Your funny...cart before horse...calling the owners of the IP for criminals...hwne infact it's the pirates that are criminals :thumbsdown:

More fallacies to offer?

 

[Golgatha]

Exactly. I take my netbook along with me (light) and the only way to watch movies is an ISO copied over the network, and I have some software that mounts it as a DVD. So I have to rip my own movies (legal purchased discs) to do that.

Among other things, I recently ripped a movie, transcoded it to work with a PSP I'm borrowing, and played it using a memory stick. That isn't stealing, it's fair use, yet it's illegal to do because of the DMCA since I had to break the CSS encryption on the DVD. My HTPC also functions as a jukebox for uncompressed Bluray discs I legally own (used in much the same way as your netbook + DVD ISO files). Again the DMCA makes this type of fair use illegal.

Currently I can get around the limitations of DRM using software, but if this type of encryption is coded into the hardware it will pose lots of problems for me and I will most likely refuse to buy it. The problem here is there are only two vendors of CPUs out there for desktops, and both are all too willing to bend over for big content.

 

[Golgatha]

Your funny...cart before horse...calling the owners of the IP for criminals...hwne infact it's the pirates that are criminals :thumbsdown:

More fallacies to offer?

I've said nothing in this thread to contradict your statement that pirates are criminals. I agree with you on this point actually.

However, IP owners do pay lobbyists to get laws like the DMCA passed. This is a provable fact. Although lobbying for such laws is not illegal, I feel it is highly immoral, as it indirectly infringes upon the fair use rights citizens expect to have if they obey the social contract that is copyright. I choose to be a moral criminal rather than a sheep herded around by immoral IP holders (not all IP holders are immoral either). If this makes me a bad person in your eyes, so be it, you're entitled to your opinion. In my opinion you're wrong.

 

[BladeVenom]

Your funny...cart before horse...calling the owners of the IP for criminals...hwne infact it's the pirates that are criminals :thumbsdown:

Read Anandtech's front page Dailytech story. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20632 The RIAA cartel members and thier accomplices have stolen 300,000 songs. They are the worst music thieves around.

So they steal from artists who haven't signed with them. They also steal from their own artists by not always paying royalties. They have stolen from their customers by engaging in collusion and price fixing. They steal from the public airwaves by engaging in payola.

The RIAA cartel members and accomplices are about the worst group of thieves and crooks in this country.

Guys, this is the CPU forum. If you don't get back on track, I will lock this thread.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator

 

[Kamisama]

NB: I am speaking of so-called INTRUSIVE DRM, not just old school stuff.

Enough of the who is a thief and their Mom dresses them funny, OK?

Now, the issue...

Does DRM/Intel Insider restrict any CURRENT media? Also, will it restrict people who CHOOSE to use P2P sources for music and video.

I am not an attorney, RIAA/MPAA board member, philosopher, theologian, or police officer...I simply would like an honest, straight-forward, non-obsfuscated answer to a simple question.

Look, we all know that there will be work-arounds for this later, probably created by the people that did the protection stuff in the first place, after moving to Antigua. LOL

So, forget who is a thief or who is beneath or above you...and do try to come up with a better retort than, "Your Mother!" Most of us stopped using that sort of argumentation style in middle school.

Does it or doesn't it? Straight up!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Your funny...cart before horse...calling the owners of the IP for criminals...hwne infact it's the pirates that are criminals :thumbsdown:

More fallacies to offer?

Considering the way that the RIAA and MPAA behave... yes, I would consider them "criminals".

Edit: Sorry Mark, I posted this before I saw your warning.

I'm no fan of DRM in general, and think it should be boycotted. I haven't purchased any major PC games, since I bought bioshock when it came out, and then found out I could only install it 'X' number of times. So I never installed it, since I'm always changing my rigs around.

Just be glad that current PC OSes and software are as "open" as they are. There's a lot of really nefarious shit just around the corner. Politicians wanting to regulate the internet, companies (mostly media-producing companies), wanting to "fully lock-down" the PC experience, consolize it, so that no-one is capable of piracy on their systems. Witness the rise of this "Cloud computing" crap, which is really just client-server computing warmed over with a new name, in which you no longer own any of "your" data or programs, you just pay for access to them, and when those mega-conglomerates want, they will shut you out, or raise your rates, and you will have no choice but to comply, for they will own your computing experience - the end-user will be stripped of ownership rights completely.

I call it techno-feudalism, the concept that we are returning to the dark days of feudalism, in which there are a few powerful lords, that actually own everything, and then there will be the masses as serfs, that are only allowed to use, and not own, anything, and they work for the lords, because they have no choice.