Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Software Linux

Intel Cutting Linux Out of Content Market 444

Posted by Zonk from the mind-the-scissors dept.
An Anonymous Reader wrote in to mention an Inquirer story suggesting that Intel is planning on cutting Linux out of the content market. From the article: "The vehicle to do this is called East Fork, the upcoming and regrettable Intel digital media 'platform'. The funny part is that the scheme is already a failure, but it will hurt you as it thrashes before it dies. Be afraid, be very afraid."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Cutting Linux Out of Content Market More

Intel Cutting Linux Out of Content Market

Comments Filter:

  • So how is this going to kill fair use? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by maxdamage ( 615250 ) * on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:22PM (#13087518) Journal
    Yes DRM is evil. I choose not to buy this machine. I am saved. End of story... This guy sounds like a doomsday fanatic to me.

    • I choose not to buy this machine. I am saved.

      <sarcasm>Be my guest. Live without TV. Live without movies. Live without music.</sarcasm>

      In fact, once this catches on, and more PCs start to come with "media center" features, start living without home-priced general-purpose PCs.

      • As long as DRM-enabled hardware runs non-DRM-enabled software, implementing DRM features in hardware makes no difference for people who do not want to use these capabilities - other than the extra manufacturing, licensing, certification, administration, etc. costs.

        My guess is that software emulators for hardware DRM facilities will come up sooner or later and defeat most hardware schemes as well.

      • Re:So how is this going to kill fair use? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Koatdus ( 8206 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:49PM (#13087965)
        (sarcasm)Be my guest. Live without TV. Live without movies. Live without music.(/sarcasm)


        Is there really anything worth watching on TV anymore? I probably watch one or two hours a month tops. They put out boring crap that doesn't even interest me in the slightest.

        Go rent the movie you want to see and watch it on your DVD player. Or, for that matter, a few minutes spent looking for torrents will find you almost any movie or TV show worth watching, if you don't mind waiting for the download and taking the chance that you will get caught.

        Music? Well if you want the latest top 20 you will have to either pay for the cd's, listen to the radio or try to find a download and take your chances.

        I think that all the interesting new stuff is being put out by small independent bands. if I like the music I try to buy directly from the band if I can. I don't plan on buying anything at all from the big studios if I can help it. Hopefully my refusal to buy from them is part of the reason the greedy bastards are complaining so much.

        There are a few people putting out "open" content now. Some of it can be found on http://www.legaltorrents.com/ [legaltorrents.com]

        Talk up "open content" to all of the non-tech's you know. How many slashdotters are there? If a hundred thousand techs started mentioning it to the sheep tomorrow it would create some buzz.

      • Be my guest. Live without TV. Live without movies. Live without music.

        For the most part, I already do. The only music I listen to is generally indie folk. I don't watch TV, and I very rarely go to the movies.
      • Then I will resort to reading, painting and creating my own music. I'm not going to let greedy big business control my life.
    • How about actually reading the article instead of trying to get frist post?

      I think the issue here is that a platform like this is the content providers wet dream come true.

      So if this catches on you can of course still boycott it, however you than will be cut off from much of the cultural production of your day.

      • Re:So how is this going to kill fair use? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Nogami_Saeko ( 466595 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:42PM (#13087625)
        Guess I'll have to go read the Harry Potter book then... :P

        N.

      • Re:So how is this going to kill fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:18PM (#13087805)
        True ... but you're assuming that much of the cultural production of our day has any value. Most of it does not, and can well be lived without. That, ultimately, is the crux of the matter. At what point does the impact of DRM and other anti-competitive, consumer-unfriendly technologies become so great that we will turn back to each other for entertainment and companionship?

        The media people will try to find that "sweet spot", the point where they remotely control all content distribution and use, but where we aren't quite irritated enough to keep our wallets firmly jammed in our pockets where they belong. Current experiments with copy-protection and DRM are proving that the threshold of pain is currently very low for consumers: if I can't watch what I want when I want then you can just stick this disc up your a** (and this is as it should be!) However, after some time and incrementalism, whereby we keep losing bits and pieces of what we've come to enjoy since the advent of the VCR, we will one day wake up in a world where there is an automatically-deducted charge for viewing each individual frame of a movie. If I am still able to buy books at that point, that's what I'll be entertaining myself with. The rest of the population probably won't have that option, since at the rate we're going, it is unlikely they'll even be able to read.

        We've been hypnotized into believing that we absolutely must have a television (the larger the better, and preferably HDTV-ready), a DVD player and disc collection (the larger the better) and that the movie theatre is so important that we will regularly part with nine or ten bucks to see the latest round of wooden acting and plotless filmmaking (can you say, "Episode III?" I knew you could.) To that I say ... so what? To me, cultural production should be a product of the culture itself, not a tiny, unenlightened, arrogant subset of it that claims to represent everyone else in it. There's a lot more to life, to culture, than the products of the RIAA and the MPAA, although they'd rather you didn't think too much about that.

        To all you people that spend your spare time in front of your computer or watching that 60" Hi-Def ... I say switch that little bastard off, go kiss your significant other right on the lips, and go out for a nice long walk. In the long run, you'll both be better off without Hollywood running the show.

    • Re:So how is this going to kill fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by miskatonic alumnus ( 668722 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:50PM (#13087672)
      No. It's more like

      If you don't like it, you can live without music, TV and movies, an increasingly appealing proposition to me.

      Sign me up.

    • Digital TV, et al (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:21PM (#13087816) Homepage Journal
      The FCC has ordered that all TVs have digital receivers and that analog TV will be switched off "sometime soon". At that point, if you want TV, you WILL use DRM-based technology, like it or not. There will be no alternative source within the United States.


      This is actually the very doomsday scenario that caused the British Government in the 1940s to ban the use of cable for broadcasting. Dissent will be impossible, you WILL see the content that is proscribed and no other, for no other content will exist.


      In the same way pirate radio simply doesn't exist in the US, pirate TV will not do so either. If more people had access to multicast streams, it would be very easy to set up dissenting sources of media, but that isn't going to happen.


      Sure, there are technologies like DeCSS around. They are banned in the US, under the DMCA, but they are around. Eventually, though, they are bound to fail. The penalties will become too severe, there won't be any safe havens left for developers to operate in. (DeCSS only exists because other countries haven't gone DRM-crazy yet.)


      There is also the fact that Intel is a near-monopoly. In the same way Microsoft killed off Netscape, Intel CAN kill off all non-DRMed media by simply refusing to play it - or, worse, creating a log of un-DRMed content and sending the list to "interested parties". The technology for this exists and would certainly be in the spirit of the DMCA.


      Does this mean Intel are evil? Not necessarily. "Can" is a long way from "will". There is no proof of intent to cause harm. Harm is inevitable, when you go down this kind of road, but there is no proof that that is why Intel is going there.


      Personally, I believe Intel see this as a way to make money off the RIAA and MPAA - sponge off of their paranoia - and therefore solidify control over their corner of the market. I don't see this as Intel trying to censor or trying to "cut Linux out".


      Nonetheless, once the technology is out and branded with the Intel logo, it will be used to censor (by the RIAA and MPAA) and will be used to cut Linux out (by Microsoft and possibly SCO). The long-term consequences are inevitable, even though I don't believe Intel are doing this for those reasons.


      Intel is out to make money, and the most money comes from having the most power. The same is true of all the other companies. Power is not an end in itself, it is a means of becoming filthy rich and staying that way. It is necessary in order to attain and maintain that state. Without power, alternatives can thrive and that will reduce profit.


      Intel are no more evil than Star Trek's Ferrengi and are driven by much the same belief system. Their "crime", if it can be called that, is to ignore the consequences of that belief system. It doesn't affect their profit margin, so is of no consequence to them, regardless of how it impacts others.

      • Re:Digital TV, et al (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kent Recal ( 714863 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:36PM (#13087897)
        In the same way pirate radio simply doesn't exist in the US, pirate TV will not do so either. If more people had access to multicast streams, it would be very easy to set up dissenting sources of media, but that isn't going to happen.

        Oh, I disagree. p2p radio of today (e.g. peercast) will be p2p video of tomorrow.

        'nuff said.
      • Dissent will be impossible, you WILL see the content that is proscribed and no other

        So we will only be able to watch proscribed [m-w.com] content eh? We will all be forced to watch kiddie porn and snuff films? I agree, that sounds pretty bad.

        Jedidiah.
      • In the same way pirate radio simply doesn't exist in the US, pirate TV will not do so either.

        Pirate FM radio does exist in the USA but only a few channels in hyper-dense markets like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Individual channels come and go depending upon how necessary that the FCC feels that the station needs to be shut down.

        I suspect that pirate TV will happen when NTSC broadcasting goes off the air, which is scheduled for Dec 31, 2006. Suddenly there will be millions of TVs tha

    • Re:So how is this going to kill fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eric Damron ( 553630 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:28PM (#13087847)
      "This guy sounds like a doomsday fanatic to me."

      Why? Because he paints an unpleasant picture?

      What part of the picture seems unreasonable? That Microsoft, Intel, RIAA and MPAA could be in bed together? That these corporations are run by greedy bastards that really don't have your best interests at heart? That these powerful corporations could buy congress? That people are fucking sheep too busy with their little lives to pay attention to important issue until it's too late?

      The man hit the nail on the head folks. The corporations have done that statistical math as it applies to a population of self centered, apathetic consumer drones. Their formula is based on the fact that although a small percentage of the population is unpredictable, the vast majority are predictable.

      John Lennon said it really well in "Working Class Hero"

      A working class hero is something to be.
      Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
      And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
      But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see,

      So go ahead and ignore all the warnings and mock them as doomsday predictions. After all, you must. The corporate consumer drone formula says so.

  • Not afraid (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yotto ( 590067 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:25PM (#13087535) Homepage
    Don't buy it. Don't very buy it.

    Or something. Look, if you want to use your media the way you want and not be locked into DRM, don't buy this. Also don't buy RIAA CDs or download from sources you think are too restrictive. If enough people do it, they'll have to change their DRM. If (as I suspect will happen) everybody else in the world is fine with the DRM, then they won't have to change and that will suck. But you don't have to use it, so it shouldn't matter to you.

    • If (as I suspect will happen) everybody else in the world is fine with the DRM, then they won't have to change and that will suck. But you don't have to use it, so it shouldn't matter to you.

      "Don't have to use it"? What happens once all cable/sat/OTA decoder boxes start to come with Windows Media Center features powered by the East Fork platform? Then how will you get your TV?

    • You don't have to communicate?
      • Who was talking about communicating? I was talking about willfully allowng DRM'd hardware in my office. I can communicate just fine without it. Hell, some people communicate without computers at all.

    • Re:Not afraid (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Decameron81 ( 628548 )

      "Don't buy it. Don't very buy it.

      Or something. Look, if you want to use your media the way you want and not be locked into DRM, don't buy this. Also don't buy RIAA CDs or download from sources you think are too restrictive. If enough people do it, they'll have to change their DRM. If (as I suspect will happen) everybody else in the world is fine with the DRM, then they won't have to change and that will suck. But you don't have to use it, so it shouldn't matter to you."

      The problem is that DRM is not

  • uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FuBaR Technician ( 84829 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:27PM (#13087539)
    Time to buy stock in AMD. I imagine they'll be happy to support the market share that Intel doesn't want to.

    -TLAY
    • Unfortunately it's not that simple. First, typically nobody cares what we think as we who know are a minority of computer users. Second, Intel is a brand that is already well established which includes established marketing, established vendor channels and established long term relationships with other companies. Third, stocks don't go up just because the company has a good future.

    • Re:uhhh (Score:3, Informative)

      by downbad ( 793562 )
      AMD is a member of the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance [wikipedia.org].

    • Re:uhhh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 )
      You realize that once Treacherous Computing is common, it'll be all-too-easy for the RIAA's politicians to mandate it by law, right? Saying "there'll always be AMD" just doesn't work.

  • Biased (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:28PM (#13087546) Homepage
    Wow, I haven't seen an article this biased in a long time. This is not journalism, this is flaming.

    • Re:Biased (Score:3, Informative)

      by MankyD ( 567984 )
      It's called an "editorial". Notice the sub title in read the reads "Comment"? Editorials have been since the beginnings of journalism. Sheesh.

    • Re:Biased (Score:2, Insightful)

      by northcat ( 827059 )
      Yeah, the Inquirer should've spouted marketspeak like pussies instead. We all know that spouting marketspeak like pussies is true journalism.

  • Now Remember Kids (Score:5, Funny)

    by realcoolguy425 ( 587426 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:30PM (#13087552)
    People are inherently averse to getting screwed, in the way that Intel is doing mind you, and if you try to screw people, they will avoid you.
    I thought people on slashdot were inherently incapable of being screwed... Please see previous articles on roleplaying.
  • the server domain, i find it very hard to ever imagine Intel doing anything with purpose to hurt linux. Intel makes hardware, I doubt they really care what OS the hardware runs, as long as they sell chips. Intel may hate AMD and program there compilers to hate AMD, but I seriously doubt they would maim there own hardware to knock down a OS that doesnt support DRM. Besides, who's to say they cant code linux to adapt to it?

  • Tinfoil hat? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:31PM (#13087562)
    Sunday is a slow news day, but geez. This is news? So Intel (or Microsoft/Toshiba/Sony/Phillips/Haliburton) is making a media PC? Um, who cares?
    My CDs play well on my $29 stereo, and in my car. FM radio, where it isn't ClearChannel, sounds just fine. Perhaps the drones who are EMPOWERING Intel to make this move are going to suffer. Why must your PC converge with your TV?

    Why must you have 55" plasma, Dolby 11.1 surround, with Foomatic DSP and Orgasmatron effects? Christ, step outside and go for a walk, see a local band, read a book, play with your dog, have sex with your wife. This is your life, man, and its ending 1 minute at a time.

    • Re:Tinfoil hat? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dr.matrix ( 36588 )
      Right you are. I can definitely imagine living without listening to the next Britney clone yapping, or seeing the next Spielberg "blockbuster" with Tom Cruise alternating between his two facial expressions.

      (If I seem to be a bit scathing, that was intentional.)

      In any case, I have a feeling that this is going to end much the same way as it did with DVDs: in theory, it is illegal to crack CSS, but nobody gives a damn as long as you don't make a torrent out of it afterwards (which is something entirely diffe

    • Re:Tinfoil hat? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      Christ, step outside and go for a walk, see a local band, read a book, play with your dog, have sex with your wife.

      This is Slashdot. Even if by some stroke of luck (or unluck, depending who you ask) that a slashdotter is married, the sex probably isn't happening.

  • The ironic thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Randseed ( 132501 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:32PM (#13087569)
    The ironic thing about all the various forms of DRM, copy protection, etc., is that the more intrusive it gets, the more it is going to actually encourage piracy.

    I'd love to use something like iTunes. Unfortunately, because of the DRM, the fact that the files aren't compatible with Linux, my Palm, and whatever else I want it to be with, I'd rather just pirate the damned thing. Then I get it in a format I know works.

    Computer software. If the first damned thing that I'm going to do is scour the net for a "nocd" patch to get rid of the ridiculous SecureROM crap, then I'm more likely to grab the entire package. Add to that a point-of-sale variation on DRM, the no-return policies, and the fact that so much of the software out there sucks, doesn't perform as advertised, crashes, or is incompatible with hardware it should work with, and people are more likely to pirate the software.

    The content companies can keep shooting themselves in the foot. Hopefully, the U.S. government will eventually come in and slap all these companies down with anti-trust violations and the like, but I'm not holding my breath. Microsoft, the RIAA, et al. donate a lot of money, you know.

    • The thing about iTunes that I like is that if I choose to rip a CD that I already own so I can use it in an iPod, then those files are free and clear to be copied as I see fit...or played on any other player. The encryption only follows the stuff I've purchased on the site (which have been sourced from codes from pepsi and stuff).

      I spend most of my iTunes time previewing tracks to see if the actual CD is worth buying. No sense in paying actual money for compressed content.

    • Have a google for Pymusique. I'm using it successfully on my Linux box to purchase music from iTunes. I can play the files easily on my system too.

      I'm not going to let a company refuse to sell me something because they don't like my choice of computer.

    • Re:The ironic thing... (Score:5, Informative)

      by argent ( 18001 ) <peter@slashdot . ... t a r o nga.com> on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:23PM (#13087824) Homepage Journal
      The ironic thing about all the various forms of DRM, copy protection, etc., is that the more intrusive it gets, the more it is going to actually encourage piracy.

      That's one reason iTunes has worked so well. The DRM is so weak that Apple actually tells you an easy way to get rid of it, Mix up new tracks with your existing MP3 collection to make killer compilations. You can burn songs from the iTunes Music Store an unlimited number of times. [apple.com]

      Oh, they make a token effort to discourage blatant fair use, enough to convince the labels that they're in charge, but it's really run on the honor system.

  • will not hurt me at all for I am a criminal. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:39PM (#13087607) Homepage
    I have been forced to circumvent content "protection" for years now as a linux user. I have to commit the Heinous crime of using decss to watch DVD's on my linux laptop as well as the frighteningly horribly act of circumventing the DRM on some CD's in order to perform the equally horrible crim of listening to the CD's that I own on my music gear.

    Yes, I am worse than all the serial killers on death row, I am a linux user.

    and to top it off, I am evil enough to share with friends and relatives on how to do the same thing. I distribute the weapons of mass destruction such as DVDDecryptor, DVDShrink, and yes, even a CD ripping tool that uses Lame and cdparanoia for windows (Oh why doesn't someone stop me!) sothey too can commit the terrorist acts of ripping CD's, DVD's and other horrible crimes that threaten freedom and our way of life.

    Yes, I am a linux user, and no one can stop me.
    • Seriously, this sort of thing does encourage a counter culture and an escalation in the evolution of measure/counter measure. Mod Lumpy 'insightful' ('funny' doesn't net any karma, unless they've fixed that).

  • Intel hurting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mfloy ( 899187 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:42PM (#13087627) Homepage
    Intel has beginning making a number of bad choices like this lately. They need to focus what got them where they are - providing quality processors. Too much attention is being put into small niche additions like this.

    • Re:Intel hurting (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jbolden ( 176878 )
      What got Intel where they are is making custom chips for large company's niches. Pretty much there have been 4 main surges

      1) Being a cheap memory supplier for IBM mainframes
      2) Designing a CPU with a 20 bit and not a 16 bit address scheme
      3) Integrating Risc technology into CISC and thus killing the advantage of RISC
      4) Winning a speed war

      _____

      I can see from there perspective why:

      5) Moving computer technology into the mainstream of all media

      might seem like an option for a major surge. An expensive
  • I've often said that you can always tell where the most objectionable regimes are, their names start off with "The Democratic Republic of .....". We now hear "Freedom" and "Democracy" dripping from the lips of politicians like the sweetest sauce. May be no one owns these politicians, but like whores, they are paid. Freedom is a straight-jacket and Democracy is more of a Shamocracry. Perhaps we are moving into a world where the unauthorised writing of software will be a criminal offence.

  • Has the Supreme Court reversed itself... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suitepotato ( 863945 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:45PM (#13087644)
    ...or does fair use still exist? If they haven't, then ANY CD or DVD I buy I reserve the right to rip to another format for more easy use, keeping the original copy safe and secure. That simple. If they don't like it, petition the SCotUS to reverse itself. Otherwise, they can fark off.

    No way, no how, will I use WMV or any other format w/DRM. Not now, not ever.

    Am I surprised by any of this? Nope. They fought the VCR, the cassette tape, the eight-track, private ownership of film cameras, etc. Even after repeated court rulings setting down that the people had the right to make archival back-ups of media such as floppies, the software companies still tried to use copy protection that made it impossible to make such an archival or fair-use copy.

    Here's fair-use compatible DRM: I get a file of information as usual such as name, address, phone, e-mail, secret questions I know the answer to, etc. I also pay them X$ for whatever. Public key encryption is used to ensure only the key holder can access it. I can copy the encrypted file to whatever device I like that can read and act on my key. Without my key, it won't work.

    Want more security? A simple USB device with a unique hardware key adds an extra layer insuring that only the person with that dongle and password for both hardware and stored software keys can play it. If I lose it for good, I revoke my software key on the server and inform them and prove who I am and get a new copy issued when I get a new USB key. They don't give a new copy until I permanently revoke my software key and prove my identity and that I bought a copy previously attached to that key.

    If I gave my USB dongle away with the previous copy, then when the system connects in and asks the server about my software key it finds it revoked, it won't play the file and suspends the old key on the USB fob.

    An open community such as that operating the various PGP/GPG key servers would handle the software key side, the hardware keys would be made to adhere to an open standard using well documented public key encryption standards and algorithms, and the IP owners handing out encrypted copies would have no control over either. They'd not be able to unilaterally revoke your right to usage of the copy you paid for and you'd not get that encrypted copy until you paid.

    Go ahead and P2P the encrypted files all you want. Unless you can break PGP encrypted files trivially, it won't help. They'd be useless without both the hardware and software keys that matched the file.

    If they used this, and the content was what I wanted, I'd pay and get my personal copy.

    Yeah, I know. I can dream though...
    • Am I surprised by any of this? Nope. They fought the VCR, the cassette tape, the eight-track, private ownership of film cameras, etc. Even after repeated court rulings setting down that the people had the right to make archival back-ups of media such as floppies, the software companies still tried to use copy protection that made it impossible to make such an archival or fair-use copy.

      You know why they do that, don't you?

      It's because for every 1 person who wants to make a backup, there are at least 10 if

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • An open community such as that operating the various PGP/GPG key servers would handle the software key side, the hardware keys would be made to adhere to an open standard using well documented public key encryption standards and algorithms, and the IP owners handing out encrypted copies would have no control over either. They'd not be able to unilaterally revoke your right to usage of the copy you paid for and you'd not get that encrypted copy until you paid.

      A open DRM standard can never work, because any

    • Public key encryption is used to ensure only the key holder can access it. I can copy the encrypted file to whatever device I like that can read and act on my key. Without my key, it won't work.

      You don't seem to understand how public key encryption works. In your scheme, devices can only decrypt the files if they have YOUR private key. But if you hold and control the private key, it's no longer DRM because that private key gives you access to the non-encrypted data and you can do whatever you want with
  • This sounds a lot like the DRM built into the XBox/PS2, which both have copy control protection built into the hardware. What will end up happening is that the hardware will have the DRM built in and people will make mod chips to bypass it. Software DRM doesn't work because cracking software is a simple thing to do. Hardware DRM will stop more people from copying and using the content in manners which the provider doesn't want but the more technically proficient people will buy and install modchips and do a
    • Some guy in the UK has just got into an awful lot of trouble for selling modded X-Boxes. Mind you he was selling them with a bigger hard drive full of pirated software. However modding in the UK is illegal, so a few techies may be able to work out how to do it but they won't be able to do it for anyone else or even tell them how to do it.

  • My solution to DRM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 0BoDy ( 739304 ) <mrgenixus AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:49PM (#13087667)
    I've solved the drm problem for myself. When in less than a year, the denve stations all swtich to hdtv streams, I suspect that will be the last of broadcast TV in my house. My family doesn't pay for cable or satelite, we just get what we get. I don't even watch tv anymore, except in hotel rooms, So I don't care. I read papre newpapers and online journals, TV has eliminated my need for it. THere's never anything on, and I can do more interesting things without it. I congratulate the folks at RIAA who have removed my need to purchase anything at all, really. I can listen to broadcast radio if I'm REALLY bored, or I can continue to break the law by putting copies of the few remaning copyable cds on my music server. I hope they DRM even more, so I have even less motivation to pick up their crap. I go to theaters to watch movies and friends to watch DVD's but I won't be a consumer for much longer, there's just no point. If I break it it's gone. I'd still buy ut2k4, a great game becuase 6-months or so after release, I don't need a no-cd crack, it just doesn't require one, it runs on linux, and is just great. I say DRM it up make me buy it 3 or 4 times, You can keep it. I don't need it that bad.

  • At some point... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by elgee ( 308600 )
    You may not be able to buy a "general purpose computer" anymore. They will all have this specialized DRM crap and who knows what else. All built into the chips, so it will be difficult if not impossible to avoid it.

  • From another viewpoint (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LilGuy ( 150110 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:51PM (#13087676)
    It's not as evil as it may seem. Surely the intent can be viewed as outrageous to those of us who know and love linux and all the free stuff that comes with it. But this will be good for linux and open source in the end.

    There will spring all sorts of new inventions from this. Who knows, maybe we'll see a whole new industry spring up to fill the void that was once completely covered by the current industry giants.

    I can imagine though this is going to create many problems. Major ISPs may not allow you on their networks if you're not "secure". You will undoubtedly have to use MicroTel hardware at work, therefore if you try to work at home, you'll have to have at least one "secure" computer just to be able to edit your Word document.

    I can see Apple gaining a wider audience on the other hand. They're moving TOWARDS open source, not away from it. They seems to have their finger on the pulse of the people.

    I'm a bit nervous.. change is always tough.. especially when you've grown up with this industry. But in the end the great spirit of the geeks will emerge. It's too strong.
    • It's not as evil as it may seem.

      No, it is as evil as it seems. It will hopefully fail as a result and leave a void to be filled by DRM-free open source software. But it's still evil in and of itself and there will likely be many casualties in the ensuing battle against freedom and innovation.

      "..But this will be good for linux and open source in the end."

      The only way that Open Source is ever going to take over the media content scene is if artists and movie producers start going independent en masse.

  • AMD and trusted computing (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:51PM (#13087677)
    For all of you thinking AMD may play the good guy in this DRM nightmare, let me remind you that they, along with Intel, are a promoter of the Trusted Computing Group - link [windowsfordevices.com] [windowsfordevices.com]
  • As if we needed another reason. Intel would be shooting themselves in the foot but it's their foot. All you can do is encourage them to point their weapon down range.

    Apple has been doing something similar with their QuickTime codecs. If you've tried to play one recently and gotten the error that it can't play the file or find an update. Drag feet supporting other platforms and subtly encourage people to switch. At least that's the way market droids think.

  • Is it just me, or is this written very very strangely? Instead of explaining anything, the article sounds like the inane ramblings of a crazed lunatic. That said, it is difficult to take its contents at face value. Could we get a somewhat more reasonable explaination of this technology, and what it really means for Linux?
  • does it run Linux? ;-) Linux is the veritable Rosetta Stone of computer systems. Someone is bound to port it.
  • So wtf is the article talking about?

  • I don't speak for Intel (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DanielCarden ( 737826 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:18PM (#13087804)
    I work at Intel in an unrelated group as a Validation Engineer although I have knowledge of this project. There is a plan for Linux support of this content distribution service, although the team responsible has found it much harder to develop for Linux than Microsoft. They have good relationship with Microsoft and Microsoft may make enhancements requested by the team. For Linux there are tons of different options out there which makes their job much more time consuming. Linux support will follow windows support by ruffly 6 months.

    • Re:I don't speak for Intel (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Groo Wanderer ( 180806 ) <{charlie} {at} {semiaccurate.com}> on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:43PM (#13087932) Homepage
      There are several problems with that, and it is being slightly disingenuous to say what you did. Intel's official position is that they are putting out roughly a framework, and you can do with it what you want. www.dlna.org is the vehicle for this, as I am sure you know.

      The thing that you don't address is, is Intel going to put out a free (beer) or free (speech) version of the DRM'd WMV codecs? Not on your life. Since they are only officially blessing the MS DRM scheme, that is a heavy bias as to what people should encode in, and if history is any guide, they will. MS will quickly become the defacto standard.

      Now, Intel very well may release the framework for Linux, and if you can comment, will they spend the time and effort to port the proprietary codecs? If not, you can be pretty sure that MS will not. So, you end up with something about as usefull as an uncustomised CRM package, IE pointless.

      Also, can you care to explain to me how the MS and Intel co-marketing scheme will not lead to a pro-MS bias?

      It is a really subtle sort of alienation the kind that MS is _SO_ good at, and I mean this in the most respectful way, they are good. Intel could have fixed this problem, a $300 mil campaign for a media PC without DRM would have been just as effective. I have debated this with several Intel people in positions of power to do things about this, and they repeatedly show an unwillingness to display any sort of backbone here.

      There are two companies that are in a position of stop this DRM evil, Intel and MS. We can pretty safely assume MS will not go there, but I was honestly hoping Intel would. My bad.

      If they had stood up and planted a stake in the sand, used their massive (really) software engineering team to build a better mousetrap without DRM, they would have won the day. They are cowards and money grubbers, and they sold us all out.

      -Charlie

  • I wrote that piece (Score:3, Informative)

    by Groo Wanderer ( 180806 ) <{charlie} {at} {semiaccurate.com}> on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:20PM (#13087812) Homepage
    If you have any questions, mail me, or post em here and I will try to get them all.

    -Charlie
  • Is there something left that we should not be afraid about?
    All this fear mongering is getting tiresome, annoying and starting to lose it effect.
    Yes, the world is a scary and deadly place. You will most certainly not survive it. Although it might take a 120 or even 150 orbits around that big yellow thing in the sky, you still end up dead.
    However if you jump in the deep end at every occasion, you won't last that many orbits.
  • The argument 'don't buy it if you don't like it' won't stand up.

    There will always be enough consumers out there who don't understand enough about the issues and will still buy PC's using this technology.

    That group is always much larger than the 'informed' (e.g /.) group who won't go near it on principle, therefore 'Totally locked-down PC' will inevitably become the norm unless we can educate the masses somehow before its too late.

  • Old news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WhiteWolf666 ( 145211 ) <{sherwin} {at} {amiran.us}> on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:31PM (#13087864) Homepage Journal
    Same article was posted last week, was it not?

    And anyways; big whooping deal!

    1. It will *fail*. The cable companies, and alternate provides (like TiVO) will crush Intel, Microsoft, and anyone elses who attempts to develop a media pc. Why? Because the average consumer is much more willing to have an instant-on appliance managed by an outside operator which looks to cost very little (only $5 more on your monthly bill!) than an expensive looking ($500-$1000 at your local electronics store) box with a moderately arcane setup (all you have to do is use this IR transceiver to transmit codes to your cable box, and then program it for the right codes!, or something to do with this new 'cablecard' deal, which few people (especially the cable companies) seem to know much about)).

    Also, I suspect the Windows-based media boxen will be notoriously unreliable and buggy. Also late. Look at Microsoft's IPTV initiative. It's running *way* late. Even for the providers that are already signed up! SBC's techs are sweating bullets right now:
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-06-07-sbc -usat_x.htm [usatoday.com]
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/ms_iptv_st rategy_in_tatters/ [theregister.co.uk]

    While it *looks* like Microsoft is on-track with Comcast, Comcast excutives have repeatedly said they are evalutating both iGuide (their current supplier) as well as Microsoft for their boxes. And historically, Microsoft has a terrible record when dealing with cable companies:
    http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/Articl eID/15996/15996.html [windowsitpro.com]

    Do you *really* expect to have any of these companies roll out a full MS solution on-time without siginificant bugs? I don't, and as soon as one supplies switches, or has a miserable failure (ready Comcast's Oregon MS set-top system freezes for a week) the whole market will break loose.

    Which, incidentially, is how Microsoft lost the *rest* of the world regarding IPTV and set-top boxes, which is especially ironic given their size (4737489372 pound gorrilla), and that most content providers started out by saying that the MS solution was their future.

    2. Intel's DRM will be cracked. Anyone play a DVD on linux? Did you do it using your licensed player, or your technically illegal libdvdcss? (Except, of course, in a few countries in the world. U.S. is *not* including). This is the primary way that people play DVDs on linux; this is not a niche solution.

    3. Most likely, Intel will provide a closed-source kernel module that will provide an API to interact with a closed-source graphics driver. Nvidia and ATI will do the same thing, as well. So you'll be able to get gimped, DRM TV on your linux box, as well.

    People have been crying that the sky has been falling for a long time. The problem is, Intel/Micosoft have never been able to deliever the 'killer' solution that ends all competition. They are always a day late and a dollar short. I really just don't consider them a serious threat.

    A *far* more serious threat to home linux theatre PCs is the arcane setup required for most linux DVR projects. Fix that mess, and you'll see cheap linux home theatre pc's avaliable at walmart.

    Not that I'm blaming the MythTV developers, or the Freevo developers. But it is hard to get those projects up and running correctly at home, and I imagine that from a developer perspective it looks easier to build an MS solution than a Linux solution, which is why the big media distribution companies are looking at MS first.

    Once they get their hands wet (as the European firms did), they give up on the MS bugs. I expect an annoucement from Bellsouth to that effect shortly.
  • There's some uber-paranoia going on in that article, but it was an interesting read.

    Fortunately, due to human nature being so wonderfully inept at controlling anything successfully for lengthy periods of time, I don't think we need worry about "Intel Cutting Linux Out of Content Market" or your more wild theories about lack of choice in terms of your media.

    Other markets always open up which counter DRM.

    Case in point is DVD-R, worth billions for the companies that sell the units and the media.

    Before that CD-R, before that VHS, Betamax, Cassette tape.

    These companies can afford to own Congressmen and can also afford to make DRM meaningless.

    If DRM means that people won't be able to copy their media, or record TV, then a MASSIVE segment of the entire home entertainment industry will go bust.

    Obviously that isn't going to happen.

  • Linux only? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:40PM (#13087918)
    Why did the author make a big deal about it cutting Linux out of the content market? What about, say, Apple Computer, which has it's own eye on that market? What this is really all about is Microsoft trying to sew up the home desktop market as completely as has already done with the corporate world. Want to watch a movie? You'll have to boot up Windows, and don't even think about using one of those "alternative OSes" because it is effectively illegal under U.S. Federal law to play any commercial content on those platforms. Geez, how do convicted monopolists keep getting away with this stuff?

    I know, I know ... Congress. It was a rhetorical question anyways.

  • Down the hall from Hitler... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hobbes897 ( 782722 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @03:50PM (#13087969)
    Netscape, Real and others have all fallen victim to the Microsoft bundling machine Netscape I can sympathize with, but Real was going to hell long before MS got involved.

  • DRM will eventually die... eventually... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Snook ( 872473 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @04:16PM (#13088103)
    DRM is only a problem if the content is being distributed with it attached. When the artists are in charge of their own distribution, they are free to not do this. As technology drives the cost of distribution towards zero, distribution will become commoditized. Artistic effort, by its very nature, can't be commoditized. The end result will be that the artists will be in control, as customers and clients. Some will choose to use DRM, some will not. The market will take this into account when deciding who is most convenient to pay attention to, and any DRM that inconveniences consumers substantially will not be economically viable.

    The only problem is that this will take a while.
    • You have not been paying attention to (American) music or movies for the last four decades. While in theory artistic effort cannot be commoditized, in practice, formulaic works sell very, very well.

      There is a very well-defined production path for 'pop' music, as well as a few other mature genres. Specifically, check out the 'boy-band' scene.

      Many movies released are 'safe', i.e. derivatives with a guaranteed low payoff rather than a potential high payoff. This is how it has to be if movie studios are to

  • What about Xbox? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alucinor ( 849600 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @04:36PM (#13088228) Journal
    Isn't the new Xbox coming from Microsoft going to be PowerPC-based? I had always thought the Xbox was an important factor in the "invade-your-living-room" strategy of Microsoft. So is IBM putting similar technology in these custom PowerPC chips, too?

    But ultimately, I think the PC will never topple the TV. While technically they could be blended into a single machine, people have been enculturated deeply to keep them separate entities.

    Seriously, what value does a Media Center PC have over a convential media center? If anything, "convential" media centers are going to increasingly get PC-like functionality and displace the computer in people's homes, not visa-versa; they're the ones coming from a point of strength.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close