Intel Insider – What Is It? (IS it DRM? And yes it delivers top quality movies to your PC)

There has been some confusion online about Intel Insider. So here are the facts:

Is it DRM?

There have been stories describing Intel Insider as a ‘DRM’ technology. DRM means ‘Digital Rights Management’ and is used to control the use of digital media by controlling access, and preventing the ability to copy media such as movies. This means that if you pay only a rental fee, your service provider decides when and for how long you will be able to view your movie. Or if you buy a film it will let you keep and view it forever, but not copy it and share it with your friends, or burn it onto a DVD, mass produce it and sell it on the streets.

Now there are opponents and proponents of DRM, and I am not going to get into a discussion about the pros and cons of DRM in this blog. Also, DRM means a lot of different things to different people. So what is Intel Insider?

What it is:

Intel Insider is a feature that enables consumers to enjoy premium Hollywood feature films streamed to their PC in high quality 1080P high definition. Currently this service does not exist because the movie studios are concerned about protecting their content, and making sure that it cannot be stolen or used illegally. So Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection. Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates, but still lets you enjoy your legally acquired movie in the best possible quality. This technology is built into the new Intel chips and will become even more important once wireless display technology like Intel’s WiDi become more popular, as it would prevent pirates from stealing movies remotely just by snooping the airwaves. WiDi enables you to wirelessly beam video to your big screen TV easily and in HD.

Intel has a lot of these kinds of technologies that keep data safe. For example our chips include AES-NI, a technology that speeds up encryption and decryption of data and improves performance when you access secure websites like your online banking system. This keeps your credit card numbers safe.

Modern PC’s with components from chip makers such as Intel, AMD and Nvidia already support another feature called ‘HDCP’ or High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection – a system that keeps the contents of media such as Blu-Ray movies secure between the Blu-Ray player or PC and your big screen TV.

Intel Insider does not restrict anything you do today (or will do tomorrow) on your PC, it doesn’t touch your content, it doesn’t interfere with playback, no matter what the source, with the single exception of Intel Insider supported services. All it does it add access to these new services.

This New York Times story discusses what Intel Insider and similar technologies can bring to the sofa dweller.

But why stop at just movies, could this technology bring a myriad of services to the PC?

UPDATE

Wow, strong feelings in the comments. I made some edits to the blog to help steer comments – looking forward to the opinions – and I wanted to add a couple of points to clear up some confusion:

There seem to be a some people commenting who disagree with the very premise of DRM and content protection on a philosophical level. Those those people I say that there is no way this technology is being forced upon you – if you don’t want to use the Insider feature, there is no need to, just avoid the services that use it. It does not affect your own personal content in any way.

There are however consumer who will appreciate the ability to stream HD premium movies earlier than they would otherwise be able to, and at a better quality level. Those people have the choice to use Insider compatible services.

I would also remind you that all the current chipmakers support HDCP, which is a content protection protocol used by Blu-Ray and is supported by Blu-Ray players, Intel, nVidia, AMD, and even the PS3.

UPDATE 2 (so set some facts straight)

The technology known as Intel Insider does one thing and one thing only. It protects movies delivered from service providers that are specifically using Intel Insider to protect their content. It has to be enabled on the service provider side. Consumers with Intel Insider enabled PCs will have access to content in higher resolution (1080P) and potentially earlier release.

Intel Insider in no way affects any other new or existing media. It does not matter if you buy from iTunes, use home movies, or buy from a CD store, rip from vinyl, or from an 8-track, or bit-torrent. Intel Insider will not touch it.

Intel Insider does not require any additional hardware such as dongles, cables, TV’s or receiver boxes.

The only people that will be negatively affected are those who wish to pirate content from services that support Intel Insider.

Intel Insider will not stop you from playing, manipulating or ripping optical media such as a DVD or Blu-ray disk (but those technologies have separate existing safeguards). Intel Insider does not affect P2P services.

145 Responses to Intel Insider – What Is It? (IS it DRM? And yes it delivers top quality movies to your PC)

  1. luket says:

    As long as the move is coming to the PC in an encrypted form and the keys to unlock that movie are either baked into the hardware or the key generation is based upon identity information baked into the hardware, then the movie is tethered to that PC or user and therefore DRM protected.
    You actually say that: “DRM means ‘Digital Rights Management’ and is used to control the use of digital media by controlling access, and preventing the ability to copy media such as movies.” This is exactly what Intel Insider does!
    I can guarantee you that if I receive a HD movie that requires Intel Insider to decode, I most certainly cannot burn it to a DVD and hand it to all my friends for unfettered playback. That’s DRM my friend.

  2. Shankar says:

    Is Intel Insider technology available only on the new Sandy Bridge processors or on CE4100-type of processors as well? Of course, the reason for this question is to understand the impact and potential user base of this impending technology.

  3. jjj says:

    Trying to redefine DRM is amusing,saying that “DRM is a piece of software, not hardware” is just hilarious.
    Defending your position Fox News style will only alienate consumers.You don’t need to label your CPUs with “DRM Inside!” but please don’t go licensing Apple’s reality distortion field.
    PS: guess this one gets censored

  4. digitalfreak says:

    DRM by any other name…. is still DRM. All the spin in the world doesn’t change that.

  5. frag.machine says:

    It’s really irrelevant if Intel Insider is or isn’t DRM. It’s there only to attend movie studios interests, not mine. I want TOTAL control over data flowing inside my computer, and Intel Insider is exactly the opposite.

  6. Morgan says:

    “Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection”
    So a layer that MANAGES what actions you are allowed to take with DIGITAL media, according to the viewing RIGHTS that have been licensed to you?
    This is definitely DRM

  7. The Mighty Buzzard says:

    Look, I appreciate that since consumers Hate DRM you don’t want to be associated with it but let’s face facts. If it restricts what the consumer can do with digital media, it’s DRM.
    If you’re going to put it in there to make the media companies happy, fine. I have no doubt Intel received something to make them happy in return, so it may be a smart business decision. Just don’t tell us it’s not what it is and don’t tell us it’s for our own good.

  8. Rob says:

    So Intel gets to define DRM as software?
    The EFF defines DRM as:
    Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies
    attempt to control what you can and can’t do
    with the media and hardware you’ve purchased.
    By the EFF’s definition Intel Insider is DRM.
    Nice bit of propaganda but FAIL.

  9. Brian Kemp says:

    This is still DRM–you said “content protection” and that’s DRM – the user does not get the encryption key, only the user’s devices. The first time someone tries to use 2 TVs they legally own when the movie producers say a user can use one display at a time…they’ll run face-first into this DRM.

  10. S. Colcord says:

    “DRM is a piece of software, not hardware.”
    You’re trying to redefine DRM to fit your argument. DRM is a functional description, and applies equally to both software and hardware.
    “Intel Insider is a service that enables consumers to enjoy premium Hollywood feature films streamed to their PC in high quality 1080P high definition.”
    It could do this without adding DRM.
    “Currently this service does not exist because the movie studios are concerned about protecting their content, and making sure that it cannot be stolen or used illegally. So Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection.”
    While I’m sure the movie studios are overjoyed, did Intel’s customers really ask for an extra layer of content protection? I’m skeptical. I’m also very curious what kind of inducements the movie studios offered Intel to get DRM built into PCs’ core chipset.

  11. Kenny Boy says:

    Well, this certainly makes me consider buying an AMD chip for my next computer. I don’t watch many movies on my computer or do much P2P downloading, but I don’t trust these sorts of technologies. They routinely backfire, malfunction, or are unreasonably exploited down the road. The MPAA and RIAA are not at all concerned with whether my computer functions correctly, and I’d venture to guess that their prints are all over this. I’d rather not stick my head in a noose — not even a very loose one.

  12. Matt says:

    uh, content protection and taking away value from consumers go hand in hand.
    Just because the studios do it doesn’t mean there’s a benefit to us to have a hardware layer of DRM.
    don’t try to play the piracy and protectionist card and tell us at the same time it’s not DRM. People can read the tea leaves.

  13. Anonymous says:

    No difference from DRM, same intent but a different technique in achieving the same result. Will not be purchasing any Intel device with this in it. I highly suggest others to avoid Intel in the future because of this. ARM and Hardware DRM is the impending fall of Intel.

  14. Jeff says:

    Software is logic… processors handle logic. The extra layer of protection is logic. So, how is this not DRM?

  15. Yawn says:

    “Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display (controls the use of digital media by controlling access), it keeps the data safe from pirates (prevents the ability to copy media)”
    No sir, not DRM at all. Sigh. Back to AMD again, I guess.

  16. Golden Denis says:

    So you say it isn’t DRM, then you go on to explain something which sounds pretty much like DRM.

  17. The Wanderer says:

    I’m sorry, but as described here, that still sounds like a form of DRM.
    One of the defining characteristics of DRM, from my perspective, is that rather than simply forbidding some activity, it attempts to actively prevent it. The former can be ignored or overridden in cases where it potentially should not apply (e.g. for the “backup copy” and “timeshifting” arguments which have been accepted for video-delivery formats in the past); the latter, if successful in its attempt, cannot.
    In addition, it is disingenuous to speak of “keeping data safe” both in a context where you mean “protecting data from the user” (which is what DRM tries to do, and what you seem to describe Intel Insider as doing) and in a context where you mean “protecting the user’s data from people other than the user”. These are very different things, and it is misleading to speak of them as if they were directly comparable.
    And yes, I do strongly object to HDCP as well, to the point where I refused for a long time to buy anything which included support for it – simply in order to “vote with my wallet”, and avoid supporting the effort which invests money into such a thing.

  18. Loginer says:

    Intel Insider may not be a DRM technology, but it certainly sounds like it uses some heavy form of it. Hollywood’s content wouldn’t be very secure if it didn’t.
    Anyway, while I’m no supporter of DRM in general, in the case of streaming movies soon after the theatric release, I see it as a necessity. The stubborn movie studios won’t let people stream their content without effective DRM solutions, and we’d simply be stuck waiting several months for DVD/Blu-Ray releases.
    However, as far as permanent (or not-so-permanent) copies go, I really don’t see the point of having any DRM at all. Scene groups upload high quality, DRM-free rips mere hours after the movies hit the home video market; why should paying customers receive an inferior product in the name of protecting something that’s already been exploited?

  19. Frank says:

    Most people dislike HDCP and most people will also dislike Intel ‘Insider’. You probably should have just called it ‘CIA Inside’, thanks but no thanks, I’ll move to AMD.

  20. luket says:

    Please publish my previous post. I read your “Comment Policy” and did not break it.
    I do not agree with you, but that’s legal here, right? ;-)
    Be a sport and post my comment.
    Best Regards,
    Luke

  21. Ian Bradley says:

    DRM is not limited to software. What you are doing IS DRM and there’s no denying it. It may not be intrusive or limiting for the end user, but in the end, it is still DRM.

  22. Nice Try says:

    Good luck trying to convince anyone that your DRM isn’t DRM. In the meantime, goodbye Intel, hello AMD.
    Hope the cash you’re getting from the studios was worth it.

  23. Unimpressed says:

    It’s not DRM, just an extra layer of protection that protects a dying business model in a distribution system that doesn’t even exist. And customers get to pay for it.

  24. Bob says:

    Thanks for the 2nd reason why I wont be buying intel.
    The 1st, was your factory in Israel, the 2nd Intel Insider.

  25. Sam Horn says:

    “pirates stealing movies remotely by snooping the airwaves” is a non-concern, since the only way that could happen is if the network was unencrypted, in which case the user has much bigger problems. “keeping the data safe from pirates” can just as easily be accomplished with SSL encryption over the internet. I would have to question the motives of Intel Insider considering there are tried and tested alternatives that already work perfectly.

  26. Antonio Eduardo Brivio says:

    I believe that a computer should be a flexible device and adapted to user needs. When I am buying a computer, this is for my use. Intel is transforming the PC into a terminal for companies without the user knowing how it’s done. So companies must give the equipment as cable television.

  27. David Sancho says:

    So Intel Insider is not DRM (which “controls movie access and prevents copying”) but instead it “protects movie content and makes sure it cannot be stolen”. They sound very very similar. Would you care to elaborate?

  28. assemblerex says:

    You guys just lost a 16 year customer over this nonsense. A processor should not be subject to the demands of a mafia like consortium.

  29. Mickey says:

    “Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates”
    I get that it’s not DRM software per se – but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it might just be a duck.

  30. Fred Sanford says:

    “DRM is a piece of software, not hardware. ”
    Actually, its both. Please don’t insult our intelligence. This is DRM enabling technology, built into the CPU at the behest of the entertainment industry. Call it what is, if you want any sort of respect.

  31. Imric says:

    You deny it’s DRM, when it works like DRM and serves the same function as DRM? The people you are trying to deceive are those most likely to mock this lame attempt at deception.
    And yes, I am aware that this comment will be ‘moderated’ to oblivion. Censorship doesn’t work either.

  32. Idontwanttortfm says:

    I’m afraid the author is splitting hairs here. DRM is software which restricts a user’s ability to use or copy digital media. Insider is hardware which restricts a user’s ability to use or copy digital media. The end goal, in both cases, is to enforce artificial scarcity on an infinitely reproducible commodity. Though you attempt to spin this as a good thing for consumers, the best thing consumers can do is to take their business elsewhere.

  33. Ben says:

    So speaking of doublethink…it is not DRM, but it prevents people from copying movies? Nice try, but we are smarter than you think. You can at least be honest and admit that this is, in fact, DRM, regardless of what your personal views on DRM might be.

  34. John Smith says:

    “So Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection. Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates, but still lets you enjoy your legally acquired movie in the best possible quality. ”
    Sounds a lot like DRM to me.

  35. Frank says:

    I disagree with your assertion that DRM is software only, or that your explanation clears up any misunderstanding about the form and function of the technology being discussed. All that is presented is a semantic argument (eg: its different because we call it something else).
    DRM is a term that can be used to describe ANY kind of content protection scheme, regardless of whether it manifests as software or hardware. your references to HDCP ( a DRM scheme based on hardware and software) demonstrates this clearly.
    if it quacks like a duck…

  36. anon says:

    This isn’t DRM? DRM is used to prevent copying of protected works by removing the right to copy something, exactly what this is designed to do. I may be wrong as to my interpretation of what DRM is and if so I would be interested to see what the difference is.

  37. JB says:

    AES-NI is, as I’m sure you know, an instruction set. It can, as i understand it, be used “freely”.
    The only way you can protect movies and such from “pirates”, is to deny legitimate users full control over their hardware.
    You claim that Intel insider is a service, but then you mention that it is a technology built into your latest chip. Thus, this is a hardware restriction that the user cannot control, unlike AES-NI.
    I don’t know how Insider works, but if you say it’s not a DRM, please provide the user with the necessary encryption keys (if any) to control this “technology”.

  38. Dan says:

    “Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates, but still lets you enjoy your legally acquired movie in the best possible quality.” This describes DRM. Why are you trying to call it something else? It limits how the end user can use what they have purchased. It limits it you YOUR hardware, which can raise very serious anti-trust concerns.
    I will agree, it is likely to ease concerns of content providers; this will allow for additional services available to consumers.

  39. Jim Lai says:

    How do you reconcile your claims with news coverage that claims, for example, that if a content provider implemented Intel Insider, then only people with Sandy Bridge computers could view their content? If Intel Insider restricts the way computer users can consume video by forcing them to use a specific CPU, that’s DRM.

  40. Curt says:

    This tech strips the choice and control from the purchaser of content and passes that control to the right holder.
    It’s DRM, I will not buy it until its reliably circumvented (Like HDCP)

  41. The Internet says:

    Dear Intel,
    What you are describing is *exactly* a DRM technology. Please correct your blog entry.

  42. Alex says:

    It would be helpful to understand the difference if there were any technical details available on Intel Insider. While there are promotion videos and lots of pretty pictures out the difference between “control the use of digital media” and “content protection” is completely unclear.
    Is it an encrypted path, a unique id, a watermark or something completely new? Can it be used with a PCIe graphics card or only with the onboard graphics?

  43. Justin D says:

    While I’ve got much, much respect for Intel, this is spin. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck…
    “DRM is a piece of software, not hardware.”
    No, DRM is a concept. It can be implemented in any manner of ways. Heck, if I engineer a plastic DVD case that only opens in response to being in close proximity to the same credit card RFID tag I used to buy the DVD, that’s a form of DRM implemented in hardware (at least to the end user).
    Your armored car analogy is slightly bogus – who would go through the trouble to capture an HD video stream via man-in-the-middle when it’d be infinitely easier to obtain it at the source or the destination?
    Not to mention that you’re describing the transport of the content, not what the end-user experience (positive or negative) would be with this technology enabled.
    Very disappointing coming from Intel – the explanations, not the actual technology. I understand its place, just wish that the spin wasn’t so strong. How about some transparency given that use of this tech might prevent folks using older CPUs from accessing Insider-enabled content?

  44. Arthur says:

    If this is not DRM I don’t think our definitions match.
    You need to explain this further. This post is not enough.

  45. Zeek says:

    “DRM means ‘Digital Rights Management’ and is used to control the use of digital media by controlling access, and preventing the ability to copy media such as movies.”
    “an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates, but still lets you enjoy your legally acquired movie in the best possible quality”
    So, in other words, exactly like the armored car you compare it to, Intel Insider is a tool to control access to the movie, and prevent theft of the movie. That is the exact definition that you provided for DRM in your “what it’s not” section. Just because it’s hardware DRM and not software DRM doesn’t mean it’s not DRM.

  46. Duck Test says:

    “When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” – James Whitcomb Riley

  47. PlayerHater says:

    So, you’re adding silicon to encrypt something (memory, bus traffic, whatever), and adding wattage / engineering time / cost to the die, and it’s a feature specifically aimed at someone other than the end-user. In fact, it’s a “feature” for someone I REALLY don’t like, specifically for reasons like this.
    HDCP is the reason why my computer occasionally loses sync with my TV in the middle of a movie, despite the fact that they’re both unmodified compliant devices, because Hollywood needed me to have that as a “feature”. Hopefully Sandy Bridge doesn’t occasionally bus fault in the real world because of this.
    Thanks, Intel. Good to know that you’re looking out for me.

  48. anrrbdsmyya says:

    Let’s see, it’s a hardware solution used to restrict how and what media I can use on my computer. In a way, you could say that it’s managing what rights I have with digital media.

  49. Dave says:

    Hi Nick,
    I’d like to clearly understand exactly what this ‘Intel Insider’ technology is capable of. Can you point me to documentation spelling out exactly what it is composed of?
    I’m guessing it’s a hardware ‘protected path’ to a vault of digital certificates, but just trusting Intel that there this does not open numerous back-doors in hardware is a serious cause for concern.
    I was looking forward to purchasing a new Sandy Bridge based system as soon as they came out. But now I think I will hold off until this matter has been clarified.
    I also sold my 100k shares of INTC on this news. Carefully planned surprises like this are not what I base my investments on.

  50. Francis Lalonde says:

    I love this kind of post. It starts by saying “Hey this isn’t what you’re thinking! No no no, this is different!” and then goes on to describe what it is, which is exactly what we were thinking it was in the first place.

  51. Paul Ramos says:

    Why not mention that Intel themselves confirmed HDCP having its master key released to the public? This blog post does not clarify what Intel Insider is to any degree of satisfaction. If it is a general purpose encryption platform, then you should call it that. If it is a chunk of silicon that a consumer pays for but only licensed Companies have access to, with all that that statement implies, then you should say so. Calling it a way for high quality entertainment to arrive at a consumer computer while in the same paragraph acknowledging that such a service “does not exist” seems to put this blog post firmly into press-release territory.

  52. Dylan Hoensk says:

    It’s not “DRM”, it’s “Content Protection”, which of course is entirely different. Uh huh

  53. PatHMV says:

    So it’s not DRM, it’s just an armored car that helps protect digital rights? Seriously? You think that argument makes any sense at all? Why don’t you tell us how it works and exactly why you don’t think it’s “DRM.”
    Remember the fiasco back when you tried to embed a unique identifier on all the Pentium chips? This is just as bad.

  54. Scot says:

    Ummm…. “an extra layer of content protection” == “DRM” to me. Anything that limits what I can do in favor of what anyone else wants to let me do is DRM. This blog post did nothing to change my idea of what Intel Insider is.

  55. Spoom says:

    It protects content from the end-user. By your own definition, it’s an onboard access control designed to limit what the user can do.
    It’s DRM.

  56. Bill says:

    So… This isn’t Digital Restrictions Management, it’s Restrictions to allow content owners to Manage their Digital content on one’s computer?
    Sorry, YES this IS still DRM. You can prevaricate all you want but the emperor has no clothes.

  57. everyman says:

    No, no, no folks! It’s not DRM! It just does the same thing as DRM and is totally comparable to other types of DRM, like HDCP!
    If it uses _Digital_ technology to _Restrict_ individual rights under the guise of benevolent _Management_, it’s DRM!

  58. wizzerking says:

    This is just another way for hollywood to tell us we can’t. Make no bones about it, as soon as this feature becomes standard in Windows it will be used. I have looked at the Tech spec for this abomination, and it will disable streaming in a heart beat, it will disable other features as well, which are to numerous to provide here. BE VERY AFRAID !!!!

  59. Renee Marie Jones says:

    If it is not DRM, then I will be able to write my own code to show movies on my Linux PC. Also, I will be able to make copies of content as allowed by fair use.
    Please explain how I do this.
    It is digital. It puts restrictions on the use of content. That makes it DRM.

  60. Rob says:

    The hardware that is facilitating encryption (AES-NI) is not a like-technology. AES-NI facilitates encryption indiscriminately. Intel Insider is facilitating the secure delivery of content. It takes control of and access to data away from the consumer. Why? In support of business models based on licensing/renting. This probably only makes sense in a future where content is hosted in a cloud and delivered on-demand per licenses which grant rights to digital content. In point of fact, that use model is precisely the example you used.
    But it’s not DRM.
    Are you still believing yourself?

  61. Jiri Lebl says:

    The sky is not blue. In fact it’s completely different color: one where in RGB, the red and green channels have low values compared to the blue one.
    Also does it start becoming DRM if you write a software emulator for Sandy Bridge thereby making the whole thing software?

  62. CHERRY pie says:

    So, if i put a hd camera , and place it in front of a hdtv that receives this protected content, and then i place the content on some bit torrent , is this ok with you ?

  63. Mikel Kirk says:

    “No, really. It’s different this time.” It’s DRM. Look, you guys have to stop doing the Lucy van Pelt football thing to the studios’ Charlie Brown. Their desire for control is a sickness they need to get over. It’s dysfunctional. If you keep enabling their fantasy they’ll never get better. Also, you guys are smart enough to know that what you’re promising them isn’t possible so the attempts don’t reflect well on you.

  64. ohio cyclist says:

    You may claim this is not DRM, but if it walks like a duck
    and quacks like a duck and leaves droppings like a duck,
    despite any of your claims to the contrary … I would say
    it is a duck. Play with names and words all you want.
    Some of us are not fooled.

  65. Roger says:

    So how much are these movie companies paying us to add their hardware to our computers? Wait, you say we have to pay you MORE for this? No thanks.

  66. PatHMV says:

    So it’s not DRM, it’s just an armored car that helps protect digital rights? Seriously? You think that argument makes any sense at all? Why don’t you tell us how it works and exactly why you don’t think it’s “DRM.”
    Remember the fiasco back when you tried to embed a unique identifier on all the Pentium chips? This is just as bad.

  67. Anonymous Poster says:

    I’m sorry, but your scheme is DRM, no doubt about it. You can whitewash it all you want and hide behind the MPAA, but when it comes down to it, your scheme is MPAA-approved DRM and it’s horrible. You’re going to get ripped apart in the tech press over this, and you damn well deserve it.

  68. Tommy Lawrence says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
    “Digital rights management (DRM) is a term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the usage of digital content and devices. The term is used to describe any technology that inhibits uses of digital content not desired or intended by the content provider.”
    So you say this isn’t DRM…then go on to describe a DRM solution built into your chip.
    That’s good money.

  69. tatanyave says:

    Trusting computing == treacherous computing
    “But why stop at just movies, could this technology bring a myriad of services to the PC?”
    Why stop at movies when it will potentially also be able to lock down docs,pdf,jpg,movs, avi.
    I hope that AMD don’t bring this to their chips. And let the market decide between the two.

  70. DJ says:

    Wow. This is spinning faster than the new dryer I just purchased.
    It is interesting to note that on the Intel site the video about IntelInsider talks about “the only PC processors that unlock a world of PREMIUM MOVIES in full HD”.
    Unlock = Digital Rights Management. I think you either need to get that video changed, Nick, or you need to understand that Intel is presenting two very different viewpoints on IntelInsider: one that you are proposing (content management vs rights management) and the one that the Intel website is proposing (access rights aka DRM).
    Good luck on you next spin attempt.

  71. John says:

    Wow. Really? This isn’t a Digital Rights Management solution? I guess you’re strictly correct in the sense that it is a Digital Rights Restriction, and less of a Management tool. Then again, movie studios use DRR tools like this, and HDCP, to MANAGE their digital rights. So, yes, it is a DRM tool. Seriously Intel, you’re better than this. Don’t lie about your new DRM tool, just tell us what it is.

  72. Paul says:

    Movie studios have the capability to provide premium Hollywood films to consumers already. They choose not to because of concerns about protecting their content, but from the article you link to it seems they might not have that option for much longer. So the only effect this technology will have is to provide the inevitable premium content in a format beneficial to studios instead of consumers. And since the tail always wags the dog in PR land, it is being sold as a technology that will let movie studios do us the favor of selling movies.

  73. Paul says:

    When I pay for content (e.g. DVD films) I have to endure trailers I can’t skip & condescending clips that tell me I wouldn’t steal a car etc etc. Irritating and inconvenient. And not what I pay for. We even get that in the cinema. Please DON’T INSULT YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS!!!!
    Content that is free on the other hand allows me to go directly to the content I want to view. Therefore I’d rather use that and send a cheque for a fair contribution for the content.
    Technology providers and content producers, please LISTEN to what your customers want. Otherwise we will go elsewhere.

  74. Anonymous Poster says:

    “There has been some confusion online about Intel Insider.” Sounds like there is definitely confusion at Intel. Intel Insider is a Digital Restrictions Management mechanism. It prevents fair use copying. It prevents the right of first sale. It restricts the ability of the owner of a computer to use that machine as a general purpose computer. It is DRM.

  75. S. Colcord says:

    “[To] those people I say that there is no way this technology is being forced upon you – if you don’t want to use the Insider feature, there is no need to, just avoid the services that use it.”
    You misunderstand. The objection isn’t just to the services that use Insider. It’s to the very idea that hardware that we’ve paid for could have the capability to refuse to do as we tell it to, if it thinks the movie industry would disapprove. So, the boycott you may see from this is not just against the Insider-enabled services, but against buying any hardware with this technology in it.
    “I would also remind you that all the current chipmakers support HDCP, which is a content protection protocol used by Blu-Ray and is supported by Blu-Ray players, Intel, nVidia, AMD, and even the PS3.”
    So? Just because there’s a past example of the industry cramming DRM down the public’s throat doesn’t mean we’re just going to roll over and let it happen again.

  76. iiiears says:

    C’mon guys why do we have to support the entertainment industry with higher prices for great hardware.

  77. David Schwartz says:

    DRM and “content protection” are synonyms. The whole point of DRM is to prevent people from doing particular things with content.
    The software/hardware distinction claimed in this article is 100% complete nonsense. Anything you can do in hardware can be done in software. And anything you can do in software can be done in hardware. (Assuming you have the minimum necessary hardware to do any computing at all.) DRM is a function, and it makes not one bit of difference whether it’s implemented in hardware or software.
    I presume that every aspect of this feature will be fully documented, as Intel has always done with their CPUs in the past. If not, I think Intel will find that the harm outweighs the benefit. Let’s not have PSN part 2.

  78. matt says:

    Time to skip this whole line of hardware and hopefully Intel doesn’t make the same mistake again. DRM fail.

  79. Lord Gee says:

    Why don’t you guys just admit that it is DRM? DRM is not some controlled term like UNIX, it is a category of technology within which Insider clearly sits. You say that HDCP is a similar technology, and I doubt many would claim that it is not DRM.

  80. Ken Connor says:

    So, in other words, you have sold out to RIAA/MPAA? Correct? Don’t varnish it or sugar coat it…are the Sandy Bridges DRM-enabled or not. Don’t dodge the issue. I am a life-long Intel user. Do you want my business or not? You will NOT tell me how to use my computer; not now, not ever…do I make myself perfectly clear? You want to sell out to MPAA/RIAA? Fine, just at least have the huevos to admit it. And, it is really bad form to get huffy in a blog. Remember Intel, you work for us, the consumer, not the other way around!

  81. iamdigital says:

    Wow, it’s only a matter of time before you see Intel demanding requirements and extra payment to OC your processor or use extra features that are built in. When will they start charging us for the amount of CPU cycles that are endured. I mean they do have a right. If they sell you a CPU and tell you they gave you this CPU for this price for the explicit use of sitting inside a computer and opening word documents well then it’s only fair that they charge more if you want to open powerpoint. And why stop there, if you want to upgrade to more memory, new OS, well pay a small licensing fee to Intel.
    I don’t pay to rent movies. I NEVER will. Condemn me of it, tell me my rant is simply because I can’t get my free movies anymore, whatever. I will always as you and everybody else find a way to get content for free. That’s not the point. The point is This is the first time a MFG is starting to makes claims about how you use a chip and it’s a slippery slope from there.
    Ohh, but guys you already have HDCP… That’s sounds like my kid telling me it’s okay to get a Prince Albert since he has ear-rings. Basically admittance that Intel knows it’s stepping on somebody’s toes. Best chip mfg in history finally went to the dark side. What a shame.

  82. Theodore Tso says:

    The real question is how much cost does TXT really add to the system. If the motherboard manufacturer has to maintain a public key infrastructure (PKI) or at the very least register a manufacturer-specific public key and the program in the private key (probably with some onerous security requirement such as making someone submit urine samples every few months and opening themselves to millions of dollars of indemnity if the private key ever leaks out), and if the video card manufacturer has to also add extra hardware, and perhaps go through similar onerous procedures to interact with somebody’s PKI, who pays for all of this extra cost? Ultimately, it gets passed on to the consumer. OK, but who benefits? At the end of the day, Hollywood does. No one else. DRM is an anti-feature; it doesn’t benefit the consumer.
    You can try to spin this by saying it enables 1080p streaming downloads, but how many people really care? Really? If DVD-quality video’s are good enough for 80% of the population, is levying a tax on 100% of the motherboard consumers really going to go over well? I don’t think so! And even for the people for which 1080p adds value, does it add enough value to be worth the extra download time, the risk that the cable company will complain that they’ve exceeded their bandwidth gap, and drop their service, the exorbitant amount of money that the greedy, rapacious Hollywood studios will no doubt try to charge for this feature, etc.? At the end of the day, that’s why TXT-enabled motherboards are very hard to find today, and I don’t see that changing in the future.
    Things like AES-NI instructures, sure they’ll be useful for other things besides DRM. And it’s a clever (although I believe ultimately doomed) marketing trick to try to bundle AES-NI into the same marketing bundle as technologies such as TXT that really have no other value other than enabling DRM. But even if there are consumers dumb enough to fall for the trick, the additional costs needed to provide the DRM antifeature inherent in TXT will ultimately doom it in the marketplace, in my not-so-humble opinion.

  83. Eric H says:

    Absolute rubbish. Of course its digital rights management technology, or “digital restrictions management” technology as the free software foundation would have the acronym interpreted.
    The matter of whether it is software or a hardware/firmware combination is irrelevant to the function it achieves. Firmware is just software that is closer than usual bound to some particular hardware.
    This article would seem to be an attempt to defuse bad PR and to further confuse the unknowledgeable.

  84. M says:

    I see the claim that Intel Insider is not DRM was removed from the blog text since it was first posted. Is Intel now admitting that this is DRM technology?

  85. Jason says:

    Here’s what I’ve “got straight.” You exchange large sums of money with the movie industry to provide a service that provides only the benefits to the consumer that said industry allows. Moreover, this prevents fair competition by restricting other players from entering the market without making the same deal with the industry. You are either actively conspiring against the consumer or have lost sight of what the consumer actually wants from a processor. What is the ratio of positive responses to negative responses to your post? Does that give you a clue?

  86. iKhan says:

    Intel read this:
    I was looking forward to building a new Sandy Bridge gaming computer. I have the money all saved up. I don’t know what Insider is, but to me it seems like DRM. I must say you have lost me as a customer. It may not seem like much to lose one customer, but trust me I’m not alone on this. I’m now looking at the Phenom X6 1090T. Expect a thank you letter from AMD.

  87. RE Update 2:
    You have not and can not tell us how “Intel Insider” works. To the general public it is an undocumented feature that can be used by any third-party with enough money and influence.
    Your statement that it will not affect existing content seems to imply that it won’t do watermark scanning and remote bricking. That you say it only works with movies implies that the video is completely decoded “Inside” the chipset, possibly re-encrypted for a HDCP or DTCP output. We have to trust that third parties are unable to inject untrusted code at the chipset level.
    There is no reason to believe “Intel Insider” will achieve its stated purpose for any length of time comparable with the current length of copyright terms. I suspect it will be broken before any patents run out within 20 years.

  88. Bradley North says:

    I see you didn’t post my first comment. I guess this blog was designed to make you look good. Okay, here’s my second attempt at being heard instead of silenced.
    Your not forcing Intel Insider on people who don’t want it, right? Then produce a new CPU sku “WITHOUT” the Intel Insider technology in it. And while your disabling the DRM technology that I could absolutely care less about using, please disable the Anti-Theft technology as well. As I said before, I would rather give up my laptop to a cunning thief in the darkest night than freely give up my freedoms to Intel to shut down my computer on a whim. Keep your Intel Insider and your Anti-Theft technology to yourself. I want neither. And if your not forcing anything on anyone as you claim, then sell a separate CPU without these technologies. I DONT WANT THEM.
    I would have bought a SandyBridge CPU on the day of release. Now, Im sitting around contemplating whether there is an alternative. I hope you don’t make the same stupid decisions the government continues to make by constantly ignoring the people and what your consumers want.

  89. luket says:

    So that the readers may understand why all the comments are arguing that Intel Insider is in fact DRM, let me restore the original title and first paragraph of this article from before it was changed:

    Intel Insider – What Is It? (No, It’s Not DRM, and yes it delivers top quality movies to your PC)
    posted by Nick Knupffer on January 04, 2011
    There has been some confusion online about Intel Insider. So here are the facts:
    What it isn

  90. Larry says:

    Paraphrasing Monty Python and the Holy Grail, “And what do we do to CPUs with DRM, We burn them!”
    I guess Ivy Bridge with also have DRM?? Who else make pc compatible CPUs?

  91. Security Dev says:

    Rather than arguing the semantics about whether it is (or isn’t) DRM, a more productive question is to discuss what the hardware actually does. On this point, Intel has been awfully evasive, which is why people here are assuming the worst. A few simple yes/no answers would clear this up — assuming that Intel wants to clear the air here.
    Here are six questions that Intel really needs to answer that will get to the heart of the matter. If Intel doesn’t answer these here, these would be fascinating questions for reporters to ask them about.
    1. Are video decryption and decoding done in hardware separated away from all software running on the main CPU (including ring 0 code) or is this a CPU extension? (The text above implies this is like AES-NI, which is under control of the user’s software, but I think this is very different.)
    2. Are there chip-specific keys? If so, does Intel generate them and control the root keys, or does someone else?
    3. Is watermarking or any other user-identifying capability supported?
    4. Is anyone free to develop applications that utilize Intel Insider, or are there costs or licensing obligations imposed? For example, can open source developers make full use of the feature?
    5. Does the hardware include security against glitch attacks, differential power analysis (DPA), and other attacks that tamper-resistant devices must resist? Presumably the answer is yes if it’s an “armoured truck”, though security-through-analogy isn’t good for anybody. If so, has the system been evaluated or certified by anybody, and are these evaluations available for inspection?
    6. When will Intel release the specifications to the public?

  92. Kevin Rhoads says:

    1) If it “protects” content, then it IS DRM.
    2) I say it’s copy-protection, and I say To Hell with it. I remember copy-protected disks. I remember that when it did work, it denied legitimate access.
    3) Hollywood and the Music Middlemen have been stuck in the mind-set of treating legitimate users as criminals for decades. This is a FAIL. That Intel should buy into this FAIL mindset even a little is highly disturbing.
    4) Every form of DRM I’ve experienced has denied rights available for centuries to owners of a copy of a copyrighted work to those who have bought content. It is NOT about stopping piracy, it is about making people PAY repeatedly for the same content.
    5) NO form of DRM has stopped or slowed piracy.
    6) It if feels like theft, acts like theft and costs the consumer like theft why is anyone calling it a goodness?

  93. Ken Connor says:

    OK, Intel…go ahead and spin and obfuscate the issues all you want. Simpel facr…we know what DRM is and you are not going to change that by calling it anything else, or by redefining it. Here it is, straight up marketing, so you will know what I mean. Who buts more Intel CPUs…SOMY EMI, Warner Brothers, Disney, or the consumers? Follow up question. Would you like to keep the support of the latter group? 2nd follow up question. Do you want to lose significant market share to AMD? Look, all of these posters, and thousands more, are neither noobs, idiots, or AMD shills. Wake up and remember who pays the bills at Intel. No more garbage, just pull ANY DRM capabilities. You work for us; we don’t work for you, RIAA, and MPAA!

  94. Bob Larson says:

    Wow, I was considering buying an Intel CPU for my new computer, but not now! What a stupid marketing decision of Intel; look at the overwhelming majority of people that are against this!

  95. Programmer says:

    The initial article and the two updates would be funny if they weren’t so offensive.
    If Intel wants to argue in support of DRM then at least be honest about it. I consider it a gross insult to my intelligence when you try to sell this public relations line that it’s not DRM.
    I carefully read down all of the replies here and as far as I can tell virtually every item in your “UPDATE 2 (so set some facts straight)” is a figment of YOUR imagination. It appears that the only confusion here is on your end, and that in your confusion you made up a fictional set of “confusions” that you imagine we have. You did not “set any facts strait” because, with one exception, no one here was getting any of those facts wrong. The single exception is one crucial point YOU got wrong:
    “The only people that will be negatively affected are those who wish to pirate content from services that support Intel Insider.”
    That falsehood perfectly illustrates just how badly you misunderstand the issue here. I am a programmer. I am immediately negatively affected in that Intel has deliberately designed this system to make it as difficult as possible for me to write general purpose software to play and process this video. I am EXTREMELY negatively impacted in that Intel will clearly expects litigate me into oblivion or have me imprisoned if I do write general purpose software that can play and process this video. Anyone with sufficient technical knowledge on the subject knows that the ability to write and run *general purpose* software implies the general ability to copy. A general purpose fork that can be used to eat breakfast can also be used to stab someone in the eye. I am negatively affected even if I do not pirate. I am negatively affected even if I have no desire to pirate. To the extent that Intel expects this idiotic system to *work*, Intel is posing a grave threat against me, against other programmers, and against all non-pirating computer owners who want to run general purpose software.
    Intel’s “armored car” is specifically designed to secure the computer against the owner. By conceptually placing the owner in the role of potential “attacker”, Intel is placing the computer owner in the role of the enemy.
    In Intel models their customers in the role of enemy, if Intel treats their customers as the enemy, Intel should hardly be surprised when customers consider Intel to be the enemy. There is no confusion in the replies here. The people posting here are insulted by Intel uttering the bald-faced lie that this is not DRM. The people here correctly understand that Intel is designing these chips to be secure against the owner, that Intel is treating owners as the enemy. They are not confused in their reaction to Intel as an enemy.
    I’m a programmer, I’ve owned close to two dozen computers over the years. They’ve all had Intel CPUs. As a helpful tech expert I’ve helped numerous friends and family buy computers, all with Intel CPUs. If Intel Insider is going to place me in the role of an enemy to be secured against, then I am going to be buying AMD processors. When I help friends as family buy computers, I’m certainly not going to steer them to a company that considers them the enemy.
    Again, if Intel wants to argue in support of DRM then at least be honest about it. Don’t add insult to injury by claiming this is not DRM. Insulting us only serves to inflame opposition.

  96. jim says:

    you all seem so opinionated, but in honesty how many of you are actually capable of manipulating(rewriting) your own bios, or writing your own drivers. I must also remind all of you that most pirates use a program to crack the dvd’s they burn, a program which they did not write and are only capable of using because of a well designed GUI this really seems like a moot issue because dvd’s are rentable, crackable, shareable and burnable and optical disks are not affected by this technology, nor is p2p, or anything else other than streamed information.

  97. eman says:

    Very very sad to see that movie studio interests convinced Intel to willingly insert DRM hardware into their processors.
    Whilst it is claimed that it won’t be forced upon us, if these CPUs become widespread (and the “feature” enabled by default), it WILL effectively force us to use it to view any video content.
    It is inevitable that it will get abused and
    destroy the ability for an end user to exercise their fair use rights.
    Sorry Intel, the Sandy bridge otherwise looked awesome and I was looking forward to upgrading. Buying an Intel Insider enabled CPU will make one complicit in forcing DRM on other people and subsidising movie studio interests. I cannot in good conscience ever buy any Intel Insider enabled products and so will instead purchase the products of your competitors.

  98. Jeff Shippen says:

    “Intel Insider in no way affects any other new or existing media. It does not matter if you buy from iTunes, use home movies, or buy from a CD store, rip from vinyl, or from an 8-track, or bit-torrent. Intel Insider will not touch it.”
    If I understand this correctly, it will not touch all those technologies UNLESS “content providers” such as iTunes, movies, cds, etc decide to use this in the future. So while that may currently correct, the future is likely to not be so bright.
    “The only people that will be negatively affected are those who wish to pirate content from services that support Intel Insider.”
    I’m afraid not. DRM Fails, and customers are not happy about that either:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=drm+fail

    Companies can abuse DRM and violate their consumers too
    (example, Amazon literally deleting books they sold from customer’s kindle)

    http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090721/what-book-will-amazon-delete-next
    Companies use DRM to monopolize and lock consumers into their products
    1) Intel: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/01/07/1553241/Intel-Insider-DRM-Risks-Monopoly-Investigations?from=rss
    2) Adobe: http://www.teleread.com/drm/adobe-confirms-apple-will-not-use-their-drm/
    “Intel Insider will not stop you…” (YET)…from playing, manipulating or ripping optical media such as a DVD or Blu-ray disk.”
    I generally avoid putting my cash towards something that was designed to prevent me from fair use, and would hate to see content providers switch to this restriction method and for that reason, I will not support this, so if they do use it, they will have one less customer.

  99. You say Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates. However, experts who deal with piracy report that several organisations, including the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), have previously expressed concerns over the use of armed security contractors.
    See news.bbc.co.uk article on piracy
    For exactly the same reasons, we don’t want private security contractors inside our CPUs. I think it’s a good reason to switch to AMD.

  100. tehownt says:

    Well thank you for transforming programmable personal computers into scripted electronic appliances.
    I nearly died laughing reading the sentence

  101. Dave says:

    It’s all very nice to talk about protection from “piracy” (an absurdly hyperbolic term that conflates petty larceny with kidnapping, slavery, torture and murder). But in the real world technology that enables DRM is inevitably used to deprive consumers of fair use.
    But this is worse, because it’s proprietary. It makes content available only to those who have one brand of hardware. It’s monopolistic and coercive, and I want no part of it.
    This is a “feature” that I don’t want and will not buy.

  102. NthDegree says:

    Everyone, please remember that these hardware features are controlled by software.
    GNU/Linux and other free OSes aren’t bound by the same rules that Windows and OS X are. This means I would buy a chip with this feature, as I could use the feature however I desire. It isn’t malicious/trecherous DRM if your operating system is one that you control.
    @ S. Colcord: You mean your hardware listen to Windows built-in DRM, just as it has been for years? If you want your hardware to lsiten to you, then you will have to avoid every Windows OS from Vista upwards. Your sound card, graphics card and CPU has been listening to hollywood since Vista if your PC is capable of playing BluRay “enhanced” content. To be honest, anything above 2000 is heinous.
    In short: Don’t want your freedoms destroyed, use Free Software where possible and resist Software DRM implementations using your CPU against you. Hardware features on their own are NOT DRM.

  103. Christian says:

    Is this a joke? Do you think that only idiots would read that blog post? This cannot seriously be your definition of “explaining what it is”…

  104. Former Intel Customer says:

    I have bought dozens of Intel processors over the past decades. Up until now, I have been an exclusive customer of Intel, not buying any other brand.
    I will never again buy another Intel processor until this technology is removed.
    My computer is my property. It should obey me and me alone. I choose to run Linux, a free and open source operating system, because I refuse to accept a software nanny created by others to enforce their will against my system.
    The idea of restricting freedom at the hardware level is even more noxious. Since I can’t eliminate this with software, I will no longer be buying Intel chips.
    For the record, I don’t even watch movies or digital content.
    This is a philosophical issue. My property should obey my wishes, not act to handcuff me in accordance with its external masters.
    Intel is making a huge mistake by mainlining this technology into all chips. If some customers are fine with this technology, and don’t mind being a handcuffed “consumer”, then that is certainly their choice, however computing enthusiasts who value openness and freedom are going to come to loathe any sort of lockdown in a hardware platform itself.

  105. Tonepoet says:

    If it were always illegal to copy once copyrighted content and if the only use in doing such was to rip people off, I wouldn’t mind this sort of content protection. However that’s not the case.
    Part of the great thing about the internet age is that it allows us to communicate in a whole new way. We could legally grab clips to make customer authored video reviews of a work, along with a whole slew of other uses as provided for in my provided URL, if it wasn’t for DRM and the DMCA (certain statute limited anticircumvention exemptions aside.)
    Part of the great thing about the internet era is that it allows us to communicate about things in ways that were never possible before. DRM or anything remotely like it prevents that. Also:
    “It prevents the right of first sale.”
    While I agree with your general sentiment, it really doesn’t, at least not practically. First Sale Doctrine only applies to the first pressing on physical media. It does prevent you from creating your one legally entitled software application/executable backup though.

  106. James Phillips says:

    According to the “Product and Performance data”, it makes use of HDCP for video-out.
    http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/technology/intelinsider.htm
    At the very least, lossy capture is possible since the HDCP master key is now public.
    If the technology makes use of DTCP, technically you are not allowed to make it work because all HDCP keys have been comprimised. The DTLA adopter agreement requires that the HDCP output be disabled.

  107. Cen-Sin says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m most certain this will take away precious die space. Intel Insider is a waste of transistors that could’ve otherwise been used for improvements for the processor.

  108. Cen-Sin says:

    The movie industry seems to never learn from the failure of CSS, HDCP, AACS, BD+, and many other DRM schemes; piracy is not going away. Intel Insider is targeting piracy in the wrong way. Casual pirates, as I know them, no longer attempt to steal content themselves. They get it from someone who already has the know-how to steal the content. All it takes is one person to do it, and everyone else gets a piece of the action, because like you said: Intel Insider doesn’t interfere with pirated content nor the means to obtain pirated content.
    Hardware manufacturers, ideally, should ignore the demands of the content industry; they cannot economically push DRM to DRM systems that have no market share while ignoring the systems that don’t have DRM support.

  109. ghost says:

    So this DRM is for movie streaming ? well a Blu ray movie at full stream is like 45-60gb , how many can you watch before your CAPPED or totally busted for using up your bandwitdth allowance ? be realisitc INTEL ..no one cares for movie streaming , its a excuse nothing more , your just bending over for hollywood , dont forget we made you rich, not them

  110. rajkumar says:

    Actually it is the forerunner for protected software deployment,also when you Intel protects some thing which resides in my system.what guarantee you will not steal my own information and spy me with out iam knowing it.
    also it is possible you will transport it through the secret tunnel you call it “intelinsider”. you remove the feature immediately otherwise it will become another version of “Cougar Point flaw” iam foretelling you.

  111. Blue Angel says:

    I was planning to buy a new game machine with intel sandy bridge, I will not spend $3,000 to have DRM..I want the full control and rights over it…I will seat and wait until Intel comes down from their high horse or go with AMD…Now if AMD decide to take the same approach, I will seat on my old computers for a very long time if needed…I will not have them snooping on my computers…They say DRM is for our own protection, who do you think you are fooling, WE ARE FAR FOR BEING STUPID…I usually change computers every 3 years, maybe now is the time to save money…Hell no DRM…Hell no DRM…Hell no DRM…

  112. James Phillips says:

    Just trying to submit a comment with JavaScript enabled. I made several comments I thought were polite and informative, but they never appeared.

  113. PayTyler says:

    Well, I’m disappointed in Intel.
    Not too long ago I downloaded Harry Potter from Warner Bros. Only to reformat my computer after finding dcmsvc.exe on it. I came to find out that it was spyware associated with the downloading software from WB. My point is that Warner Bros. are so concerned about people watching their content unprotected that they have completely forgotten who keeps them in business. I will NEVER download content from them again. Does Intel really want to do business with them?
    Don’t worry WB, when my friends come over while watching your content I will turn it off to prevent those who have not purchased the material from watching it. Your rules are so asinine that I don’t even care anymore. P.S. Get over yourself.
    Alas, when it comes to things like this, the hacking community ALWAYS finds work-arounds and methods to disable it, so I’m not too worried.

  114. Mikey says:

    I paid for my computer. I have a right to control what features and services are active and which are not, so there should at least be an option to disable this. I don’t want any form of DRM running on it, period.
    For the time being, though, you’ve settled a decision as to whether to get Sandy Bridge or a 1366 I7 in favor of the latter. You very will will make me into an AMD guy, and that’s a lot of builds.

  115. Tim says:

    Is it DRM? -> “YES”
    What is it: -> It is a new DRM that no one really supports yet, but once it is, it will be very secured.
    UPDATE -> I see that people are really smart to see through this. Awesome! I also would agree that streaming 1080P contents is not popular yet because limited internet bandwidth.
    UPDATE 2 -> Intel Insider would not stop you from doing anything TODAY since no medium is supported. But once it is all thieves out there could just day dreaming about copy any contents.

  116. Atreya says:

    I wouldn’t mind DRM, but I still don’t like the fact that it’s bundled with my Processor. It feels like an obligation to have. And the fact that it gets bundled with Intel means that once the providers start sending such media, they will tell me to stick with “Intel” computers. Wouldn’t it be better for this to be a hardware, but included separately so that I can plug it where I want it. It feels unfair for a market giant to club services with the core of my system.

  117. Faubus says:

    Probably the worst part of this is the fact that it’s a feature in the processor that people other that movie companies won’t be able to access, especially foreign companies, or smaller movie companies that actually want to use the internet to promote their content. If I want to stream video to my friend, how do I use this technology to secure the video? Closed-off features just add cost and add no value to the consumer, and are even worrying because of the unknown factors at play.
    This appears to be a feature of the processor that is only able to be used by authorised people. Since when did computers become little black consumer equipment boxes like dvd players?
    Maybe Intel should have made this a more general technology so they could have avoided some of this negative DRM discussion… At any rate i’ll be sticking to my c2d e6600 until a sufficiently fast upgrade processor is available from either manufacturer without inbuilt DRM.

  118. Sam says:

    You are all idiots. To those complaining about the ability to copy videos, let me ask you this. When was the last time you captured a streaming video source? Do you screen capture netflix? For people that want a legitimate way to watch streaming videos, this is a great OPTION. Go ahead, torrent away. It’s going to much faster than capturing a streaming video source.
    So yeah. You’re all dumb.

  119. No-one says:

    Thanks, Intel. A “feature” that adds nothing to me, only to be used in the “States” (per hour), only benefits Hollywood, the RIAA (perhaps the CIA?), EXPEND the energy of MY eletric outlet, MY computer resources and I YET PAID for it! Thanks, Intel, I was in need of a new note and you’ve decided my choice for AMD! Besides, why the blog of Intel in Brazil is posting comments censored? The code never appears! Please check:

  120. Anonymous Poster says:

    I don’t care whether DRM-inclusive software exists in the world, I just don’t want any hardware (especially something so low-level) to enforce Digital Restrictions.
    Don’t see how DRM couldn’t be implemented with software (thereby making it’s existence on a machine possible to annihilate) and I don’t see how we couldn’t download render 1080p video in the first place…
    Not Happy Intel, but glad I saw this before buying a new laptop.

  121. NA says:

    Personally, I dont like that thought or believe somebody should have that much control over my computer and actions on it. I’m not a big fan movies or anything, but from I’ve read it can give full remote access with right privileges set which most vPro chips have.already have set. PR seems to be DRM and security, but non-optional full remote access seems like a big vulnerability to me. The thought makes me wanna jump ship, sell stock, and run to another company for all my computering needs.

  122. Neko says:

    *sigh* Dear Intel, I would have unhappily accepted your addition of DRM to go along with the ability of remote control unstoppable disabling of my purchased Intel CPU/motherboard via your antitheft feature put into SandyBridge and IvyBridge processors.
    However, just say the facts instead of trying to hide these DRM features with “spoken with a forked-tongue” twisted words. Intel is a maker of quality products and should have pride in an untarnished name. But when you have press releases like these, it shows you are listening more to the RIAA, MPAA, and others rather than keeping true to yourselves as you had in the past. Shouldn’t Intel want their brandname to be untarnished such that when Intel says something, users WILL immediately assume it to be true rather than doubt it? There are companies out there with such reputations and they try hard to keep it that way. Why can’t Intel try that path too?
    Anyways, I am sort of looking forward to seeing how ACTA’s effects on law changes will be exploited by RIAA, MPAA, and BSA (phone-home products) to disable our CPU/motherboards as punishment or preemptive action that is part of some 6-strikes or 3-strikes raft of legal agreements supporting ACTA and other future DRM laws. I remain curious about how things will play out. Curiosity killed many past cats eating ARM or PowerPC brand catfoods, but hopefully not this one still dining on Intel branded gourmet fare.

  123. airtioteclint says:

    What does movie copyrights have to do with my processor?? Intel should probably let the movie people worry about it because i want a computer that works for me, not against?

  124. Darren R. Starr says:

    This is not such a big deal in the long term. I’ll say why and I’ll also address some other points. Airtioteclint… actually, it has a lot to do with the processor. A video file encrypted using an AES based encryption can now be decoded in a sealed box environment. Intel’s chips contain (though flawed in Sandybridge) hardware based H.264 decoders, AES decoders, HDMI output with HDCP and more. In reality, thanks to Intel’s new technologies, it is entirely possible that with the assistance of a black box in hardware to handle the finer points of key exchange (such as maybe an SSL/TLS client), with barely any support from software, the CPU can negotiate keys through the Internet and playback AES encrypted video without leaving any aspect of the decoding chain unprotected. This is a major boon for studios who would want to release content to services use as Netflix but is worried about piracy as the original H.264 or VC-1 streams can be encrypted so that even the content owners would never be able to access the first generation encoded bits directly. Great job Intel… was wondering when you’d get around to this. Let me at this point say that Intel’s track record has been pretty awful thus far with regards to this type of tech. They designed CSS for DVD a long time back and lied to the movie industry about how secure it was. They made the industry believe the only way to reverse engineer the protection was in an environment with multi-million dollar lab equipment. This was utter nonsense in the first place because even given the technology the time, everything needed to decrypt the stream would be present in every software based implementation. AACS and BD-R have the same weaknesses. But this technology is a lot more solid since it’s only public access to the decryption system would be within the semiconductors which implement the system and that does in fact require microscopes capable of scanning multilayered 32nm semiconductor layers. Even the Chinese have limited access to this. On top of that, given that Intel doesn’t have to count transistors the way other companies do, they don’t need to depend on little 256-bit AES keys but instead can make use of much longer ones. Hardware decoding of 2048-bit AES is not hard. So even if the keys were factored by a huge amount, the remaining amount could never possibly be brute forced. This brings me to why it’s a non-issue. The content distributed like this will be high quality. Even a second generation of encoding will still look fantastic. Just look at the Bluray rips you find on pirate sites… lovely. So, the first solution to this is to get a board capable of capturing HDCP protected HDMI. They exist and though they cost $300 at the moment, they’re cheap enough. Capture onto another machine and everything will be fine, hell you can even use Quicksync to re-encode in real-time. This tech in full screen should even have the correct field rate. The long term solution is to develop a software based decrypter. This is unlikely unless the key exchange mechanism gets hacked. But, there’s absolutely no reason why it won’t be, I’m sure Intel will encrypt their key requests and responses a second time within the TLS packets, but key exchange isn’t so hard to crack. The bad part is, if Intel did this right, then they are able to update firmware within the processor to change it, so there’s little hope it’ll stay cracked for long. The next problem is, if Intel was smart, then they didn’t just use AES, they almost certainly used a derivative of something of equal or better quality. Therefore not only will the keys need to be cracked, but it’ll be necessary to figure out how to use them. These are all things which are hard to do, but in time is doable. But, the HDMI hole is wide open… so even if you’re grumpy that you can’t get the first generation coded stream, the second generation will be nice enough. It just means that it’ll take 2 hours to rip a 2 hour movie, don’t sweat it. This will in no way impact the world, but at least the movie industry will make rentals easier… maybe even provide better quality. They love believing in things like content protection even if it does no such thing.

  125. zack says:

    Intel what a shame.Intel DRM AKA Sandy bridge is inside the BIOS and Architecture designed(lots of hidden transistors patched). Even if you tapped the streaming movies, its recorded any content which is already paid.And Intel DRM Processors are coming soon.
    I support AMD processors.

  126. Steve says:

    How about a simple solution, Intel? How about a provision to allow users to disable this via a control register? That’ll mean you can’t stream media without it enabled, but so be it. Then users won’t have to worry about it being misused. Those of us enterprise users don’t need yet more backchannels to worry about; especially not one – at least as designed – which there is no ability to monitor let alone protect against.