Is Intel Building Copy Protected Proprietary File Sharing System Into Chips?
from the but...-um...-why? dept
This Reuters story is quite confusing, so hopefully more details are forthcoming that will explain what's really happening. The story claims that Intel has teamed up with media giant Bertelsmann to build chips that are "compatible with" Bertelsmann's new file sharing app. Bertelsmann announced that application last week, and it sounds basically like any other entertainment industry-approved file sharing app. It's not really about file sharing, but creating a broadcast distribution mechanism with a tollbooth. So why is Intel getting involved? That's not clear at all. Does this mean the file sharing system, as currently developed, doesn't work on Intel chips? That seems highly unlikely. What would it be working on? Does it mean that Intel is re-architecting its chips to include this proprietary copy-protected file sharing system at the chip level? That also seems highly unlikely (or, if true, highly disturbing). Intel (and others) make the chips on which all different kinds of applications can run. They shouldn't be favoring one type of application or building it in at the chip level. If anything, this is probably just a marketing relationship, where Intel may be tossing in a bit of help with designing the software. However, it still seems like a strange announcement.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
DRM
- user, via Bertlesman app requests a tune using HTTP+SSL (secure channel)
- server asks for the hardware ID (actually probably a hash of it)
- app, via OS, retrieves hash of hardware ID, then transmits to server
- server sends streamed audio encrypted with user's hardware ID
- as chunks of music arrive, app (via OS) asks chip to decrypt chunk, then plays it over local speakers
An attacker could hack the app and collect the unencrypted music stream from RAM, but then he might as well just buy the audio CD instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
My take is - if Grokster can be sued for the software, we can be used for the hardware that people use for . Intel clearly have a much larger exposure there than grokster, although there are more legitimate uses for a PC than say grokster (don't bother, I know YOU just download linux from p2p, so does *EVERYONE*).
As Mike always mentions, its about halting innovation. Maybe they should sue the executors of Tomas Edison's estate.
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/intel.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hardware based copyright protection
Thanks,
Dudu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]