Intel's LaGrande and copyright protection

[baraka]

Publicly, Intel was taking some pains to paint LaGrande as a way to foil hackers. But it was also clear from conversations with others on the show floor, and in some of the sessions, that LaGrande will also be a key component in enabling content protection. After all, a security system that can foil external hackers can also assist in protecting content.

In a number of the sessions on the "digital home", we witnessed lots of discussion centered around content protection. Curiously, all of it focused on protecting the copyright holder, and there was little discussion about fair use. It seems that Intel ? and the PC industry as a whole ? are gradually migrating towards the consumer electronics vision of people as "consumers" of content, rather than "owners of information".

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1274533,00.asp

I don't like the sound of this one bit.

 

[Wingznut]

Before you buy into the paranoia, think of it this way...

Intel is a corporation, whose number one goal (obviously) is to make money. The best way to make money in the semiconductor industry is to have market share. To get market share, the end user must desire your product and have confidence in it.

Alienating end users is, in no way, in Intel's best interests.

 

[OddTSi]

Don't like it? Turn it off. Simple.

 

[agnitrate]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Alienating end users is, in no way, in Intel's best interests.

Exarctly.

It's not like Intel is working with the FBI to track everybody via their computers.

-silver

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: OddTSi
Don't like it? Turn it off. Simple.

Yep... If you don't want to use it, then you'll be able to just turn it off.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Before you buy into the paranoia, think of it this way...

Intel is a corporation, whose number one goal (obviously) is to make money. The best way to make money in the semiconductor industry is to have market share. To get market share, the end user must desire your product and have confidence in it.

Alienating end users is, in no way, in Intel's best interests.

because who are they going to turn to? oh, thats right, there is no effective competition. AMD can't possibly hope to produce in the volume that intel does without a huge capital investment, money it doesnt' have. sorry wingz, this largely monopolistic oligopoly isn't the sort of competitive market where what you describe would happen.

that also ignores that most of the buying public is moronic sheep and doesn't think about the potential implications of such a thing. they'll follow along with the gee whiz bully speech of "we're protecting you from hackers and spam!."

last time information was largely controlled was the dark ages. i'd rather not return.

lastly, very few people buy or do not buy something due to one specific feature (except in extremely competitive markets, of course, which isn't what we're dealing with). what we're dealing with is more along the lines of presidential candidates. you have to take the bad with the good.

 

[baraka]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Before you buy into the paranoia, think of it this way...

Intel is a corporation, whose number one goal (obviously) is to make money. The best way to make money in the semiconductor industry is to have market share. To get market share, the end user must desire your product and have confidence in it.

Alienating end users is, in no way, in Intel's best interests.

because who are they going to turn to? oh, thats right, there is no effective competition. AMD can't possibly hope to produce in the volume that intel does without a huge capital investment, money it doesnt' have. sorry wingz, this largely monopolistic oligopoly isn't the sort of competitive market where what you describe would happen.

that also ignores that most of the buying public is moronic sheep and doesn't think about the potential implications of such a thing. they'll follow along with the gee whiz bully speech of "we're protecting you from hackers and spam!."

last time information was largely controlled was the dark ages. i'd rather not return.

lastly, very few people buy or do not buy something due to one specific feature (except in extremely competitive markets, of course, which isn't what we're dealing with). what we're dealing with is more along the lines of presidential candidates. you have to take the bad with the good.

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid is going to happen. Most people won't even know it's there until they stick their favorite music cd into their computer and try to rip it and find out it they can't and then let out an exasperated "Hey, what gives?"

 

[pm]

I remember similar concerns over the unique CPUID. There was no doomsday with that.

It is a fact that if Windows starts to implement a form of DRM that interferes with my ability to do what I want with my content that I purchased, then I'd just remove one of the two entries in my GRUB (Linux startup) file.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: baraka

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Before you buy into the paranoia, think of it this way...

Intel is a corporation, whose number one goal (obviously) is to make money. The best way to make money in the semiconductor industry is to have market share. To get market share, the end user must desire your product and have confidence in it.

Alienating end users is, in no way, in Intel's best interests.

because who are they going to turn to? oh, thats right, there is no effective competition. AMD can't possibly hope to produce in the volume that intel does without a huge capital investment, money it doesnt' have. sorry wingz, this largely monopolistic oligopoly isn't the sort of competitive market where what you describe would happen.

that also ignores that most of the buying public is moronic sheep and doesn't think about the potential implications of such a thing. they'll follow along with the gee whiz bully speech of "we're protecting you from hackers and spam!."

last time information was largely controlled was the dark ages. i'd rather not return.

lastly, very few people buy or do not buy something due to one specific feature (except in extremely competitive markets, of course, which isn't what we're dealing with). what we're dealing with is more along the lines of presidential candidates. you have to take the bad with the good.

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid is going to happen. Most people won't even know it's there until they stick their favorite music cd into their computer and try to rip it and find out it they can't and then let out an exasperated "Hey, what gives?"

But how would it benefit Intel to invest in that?

And don't ignore the fact that the user will be able to turn on or off LaGrande Technology.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Before you buy into the paranoia, think of it this way...

Intel is a corporation, whose number one goal (obviously) is to make money. The best way to make money in the semiconductor industry is to have market share. To get market share, the end user must desire your product and have confidence in it.

Alienating end users is, in no way, in Intel's best interests.

Isn't that basically the description of every corporation? That certainly hasn't stopped many of them from choosing consumer unfriendly stances in the past. Logic never applies to these situations.

 

[JackHawksmoor]

Maybe it'll just go away, like the CPU serial number (that's been removed from Pentium 4 cores, right?).

I'm a little less nervious about it than I might be, just because the CPUID thing died quickly, and I never even saw a system with it turned on.

But yeah, we should watch it...

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Before you buy into the paranoia, think of it this way...

Intel is a corporation, whose number one goal (obviously) is to make money. The best way to make money in the semiconductor industry is to have market share. To get market share, the end user must desire your product and have confidence in it.

Alienating end users is, in no way, in Intel's best interests.

Isn't that basically the description of every corporation? That certainly hasn't stopped many of them from choosing consumer unfriendly stances in the past. Logic never applies to these situations.

Generally the best description of a corporation is that they have their own best interests in front of everything else. I just don't see how Intel could benefit by using such a technology as some sort of DRM tool. They have no vested interest in that side of media usage.

And the opposite could easily be argued. If LT were to foil people from media encoding, that would give people LESS of a reason to buy a new PC. Which is the exact opposite of what Intel (and AMD, etc.) want.

 

[beatle]

If you can turn it off, what's the big deal?

 

[Pariah]

I have no idea what Intel's goals or reasoning are behind this move. From the sounds of it, neither do you. Sure, we'd all like to think the company we work for is on the straight and narrow and does nothing but good things for everyone. Truth is, we know if those companies really exist, they are few and far between and simply using some cliche to try and dismiss any potential bad intentions is pretty meaningless unless someone here is actually on the board making these decisions.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Pariah
I have no idea what Intel's goals or reasoning are behind this move. From the sounds of it, neither do you. Sure, we'd all like to think the company we work for is on the straight and narrow and does nothing but good things for everyone. Truth is, we know if those companies really exist, they are few and far between and simply using some cliche to try and dismiss any potential bad intentions is pretty meaningless unless someone here is actually on the board making these decisions.

Actually, I do understand the concept behind LT. With hardware ID, the 'net will be infinitely more secure. Identity theft on the 'net is a HUGE problem that keeps getting bigger and bigger, costs us (consumer, banks, and retailers) a ton of money, and the #1 reason that many people simply won't do business on the internet.

 

[Falloutboy]

if this ever becomes a reality someone will crack it befor eit even gets out on the shelf so no worries ;P It will be just like WinXP activation you could get the final hacked version a week before retail hit the shelf.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: WingznutBut how would it benefit Intel to invest in that?

And don't ignore the fact that the user will be able to turn on or off LaGrande Technology.

well, lets see... more sales because people buy into the crap about "it protects you from spam!" meanwhile media companies and software companies use those same routines to make sure that the only way you can run software or music or movies is from an original press, and not your preferred backup method.

turn it off and then not be able to use any new software, what a great deal!

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: WingznutBut how would it benefit Intel to invest in that?

And don't ignore the fact that the user will be able to turn on or off LaGrande Technology.

well, lets see... more sales because people buy into the crap about "it protects you from spam!" meanwhile media companies and software companies use those same routines to make sure that the only way you can run software or music or movies is from an original press, and not your preferred backup method.

turn it off and then not be able to use any new software, what a great deal!

Spam? Can't use new software?

(THIS JUST IN: Contrary to previous reports, a molehill does not equal a mountain.)

I'm not even sure where somebody equated hardware ID with DRM.

 

[ProviaFan]

As long as I can use it to help me secure my own computer, without it sending reports on my activities to somebody else, and without it preventing me from running an OS that is not "certified," and without it taking Administrator privileges from me and giving them to the RIAA, Microsoft, or someone else, then I'm ok with it. From what I've read so far, it seems that this technology can be used for some very good purposes. In the wrong hands (Microsoft's NGSCB aka Palladium), I wouldn't trust it at all.

 

[baraka]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Before you buy into the paranoia, think of it this way...

Intel is a corporation, whose number one goal (obviously) is to make money. The best way to make money in the semiconductor industry is to have market share. To get market share, the end user must desire your product and have confidence in it.

Alienating end users is, in no way, in Intel's best interests.

Isn't that basically the description of every corporation? That certainly hasn't stopped many of them from choosing consumer unfriendly stances in the past. Logic never applies to these situations.

Generally the best description of a corporation is that they have their own best interests in front of everything else. I just don't see how Intel could benefit by using such a technology as some sort of DRM tool. They have no vested interest in that side of media usage.

And the opposite could easily be argued. If LT were to foil people from media encoding, that would give people LESS of a reason to buy a new PC. Which is the exact opposite of what Intel (and AMD, etc.) want.

Hey, if a lot of these IT and Entertainment executives get together and agree to push DRM down our throats there's little the American consumer can do about it. I certainly don't expect Congress to help out at all (just look at the RIAA's latest actions).

As far as turning LT off, I've heard Intel say it will be possible. But as ElFenix said, for all we know turning it off could cripple your system from a software application perspective. Also, it's possible some of the LT features like DRM might be hard-wired and impossible to turn off.

I certainly hope it won't come to this. My concern was that from the snippet of the ET article I posted, it didn't sound like consumer interests such as fair use were being considered very strongly.

 

[pm]

I certainly hope it won't come to this. My concern was that from the snippet of the ET article I posted, it didn't sound like consumer interests such as fair use were being considered very strongly.

If you don't like it, write to Intel. Better yet, donate a little to EFF (I have donated enough that I practically have an entire EFF wardrobe, and the outside of my cubical at work has several EFF bumper stickers attached to it). Better yet, write to your congressional representative. My two senators have heard from me so often on the subject of Fair Use and compulsory content licensing that their office can probably guess the content of my latest letter just by looking at who the letter is from. Email letters are ok, but a real letter seems to be worth more.

If you don't like what you think the future will be, it will help to write to the people who can do something to change it. One letter to a congressional represenative is worth a lot. Don't let the lobbyists determine your future, start acting to change things.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Wingznut]Spam? Can't use new software?

(THIS JUST IN: Contrary to previous reports, a molehill does not equal a mountain.)

I'm not even sure where somebody equated hardware ID with DRM.

by new i don't necessarily mean software immediately after this comes out. but 5 years down the road. you turn off the big and your software ceases to function. it will happen. mark my words.

and if they're not saying its going to protect you from spam or hackers or some other such marketing hoopla then what is the point behind bothering?