Sharing Digital Content Is Your Right, Intel Says

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108695,tk,dn011003X,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article...n011003X,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>"Consumers have a right to share music, videos, and other digital content that they have purchased between their computing devices, and a commercial model needs to be developed that allows them to do so, Intel Chief Executive Officer Craig Barrett said at the Consumer Electronics Show Thursday. As a company that spends billions of dollars on research and development, and files for thousands of technology patents a year, Intel understands the value of intellectual property, he said. But consumers have an "expectation" that they'll be able to use legally acquired content however they want to."<br /><br />Intel is drawing a line in the sand - it's nice to see the big guys kicking some sand in the face of the RIAA!

[T-Will]

I wonder if this will have any effect on Palladium?

[szamot]

Too bad we in Canada can't claim our $20 from RIAA for price fixing, perhaps we should get our own Class Action Suit going?! If we cold only get MS on board with Intel we would have something to ponder about.

[Mike Temporale]

It's good to hear that some compaines are finally starting to 'get it'. With any luck, we could see some sort of solution to this mess in the near future.

[Kati Compton]

If we cold only get MS on board with Intel we would have something to ponder about.

That's not going to happen. You're not allowed to uninstall MS software from one computer and install it onto another.

[deich]

I'll bet this won't win for most popular post, but ...

Everybody I know has music, video, or software they didn't pay for. (That would include me.) Perhaps RIAA's heavy - handed tacticts are in response to the incredible quantity of files people have been stealing. (Strong word, but true.) Or maybe we should just admit there have been excesses on both sides.

Copy protection started with specially encoded floppy disks and parallel port dongles. It has been around for a long time and is not going away.

It would be nice to have a universal protection scheme that would let us freely move files we legitimately own and simultaneously prevent theft, but it's just not going to happen. As long is copy protection depends on the device using the file, somebody will figure a way to defeat it. Then we're back to the same old treadmill.

[Jerome Carney]

"Consumers have a right to share music, videos, and other digital content that they have purchased between their computing devices... "

For some reason, this statement read a little awkward to me. Then I remembered that the preposition between is used to reference two (objects, people, etc.). So the presumption - hopefully - is that Intel's CEO simply mispoke, and meant to say among their computing devices.

But I can't help wondering... in all likelihood Barrett's presentation for an event as major as CES was worked and reworked endlessly, especially since it includes such a bold statement on the consumer's right to copy digital media. If the choice of between instead of among was intentional, is this a subtle suggestion that Intel is ready to compromise with media companies, pressing for legal copies, but only between two devices? Criminy, I hope not...

[jmurphy]

Sony is one of the companies straddling the fence...

Sony makes around 4 billion selling music, movies, etc.
Obviously, a source of revenue that should be protected.

However:

Sony makes around 40 billion selling consumer electronics.

Going to be interesting to see how this shakes out.

John

[Philip Colmer]

It does look like the RIAA are changing their stance a bit:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2636235.stm

--Philip

[Janak Parekh]

I wonder if this will have any effect on Palladium?
Not as a technology -- it's just a collection of different methodologies that allow various kinds of "protection". But as how MS enforces/supports it, possibly. Your guess is as good as mine... and that's what makes a lot of people afraid. ;)

--janak

[Kevin Daly]

I wonder if this will have any effect on Palladium?
Not as a technology -- it's just a collection of different methodologies that allow various kinds of "protection". But as how MS enforces/supports it, possibly. Your guess is as good as mine... and that's what makes a lot of people afraid. ;)

--janak

It does at least seem to increase the chance that when Palladium enabled/conformant PCs arrive they may not be completely useless.

[vincentsiaw]

well, at least i see that intel is trying to help us, at least they try, something beat nothing...

[Sslixtis]

You're not allowed to uninstall MS software from one computer and install it onto another.
Not true Kati, as long as you're willing to testify under oath that the other machine has no traces of the MS software left on it. :wink: Or were you refering to your horrible Sony experience?

For some reason, this statement read a little awkward to me. Then I remembered that the preposition between is used to reference two (objects, people, etc.). So the presumption - hopefully - is that Intel's CEO simply mispoke, and meant to say among their computing devices.

But I can't help wondering... in all likelihood Barrett's presentation for an event as major as CES was worked and reworked endlessly, especially since it includes such a bold statement on the consumer's right to copy digital media. If the choice of between instead of among was intentional, is this a subtle suggestion that Intel is ready to compromise with media companies, pressing for legal copies, but only between two devices? Criminy, I hope not...

Now for another little quote from our friends at Main Entry: 1be·tween
Pronunciation: bi-'twEn
Function: preposition

usage There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used only of two items and that among must be used for more than two. Between has been used of more than two since Old English; it is especially appropriate to denote a one-to-one relationship, regardless of the number of items. It can be used when the number is unspecified &lt;economic cooperation between nations>, when more than two are enumerated <between you and me and the lamppost> &lt;partitioned between Austria, Prussia, and Russia -- Nathaniel Benchley>, and even when only one item is mentioned (but repetition is implied) &lt;pausing between every sentence to rap the floor -- George Eliot>. Among is more appropriate where the emphasis is on distribution rather than individual relationships &lt;discontent among the peasants>. When among is automatically chosen for more than two, English idiom may be strained.


Trust me, if there is a compromise here, it will be because Intel has been beaten into submission. The RIAA, Disney, The Motion Picture Industry, Time-Warner and others are currently trying to get a Bill passed in Congress that would require Intel and all other chip manufacturers to incorporate copy protection/DRM into the design of all of their chips AND these designs would then have to be approved by a (US) Federal Oversight Commision before the chip could be produced! Skipping how often the design would have to be changed, the technical aspects, and compatability issues, could you even begin to imagine what kind of chips we would get with Politicians(shudder) having a say in the design????

Intel might not be completely altruistic on this issue, but they will not be willing to sacrafice design autonomy either. Intels biggest advantage in the semiconductor industry is and has always been their ability to pull new products out of their R&amp;D bag. Take that ability away and Intel would be cripped, they know it and will fight every step of the way to prevent this from happening. And if Intel and the consumers lose this one we are all screwed.

This is a very touchy topic for me, I hate the very thought of :twisted: :evil: Big Brother :twisted: :evil:

[Kati Compton]

You're not allowed to uninstall MS software from one computer and install it onto another.
Not true Kati, as long as you're willing to testify under oath that the other machine has no traces of the MS software left on it. :wink: Or were you refering to your horrible Sony experience?

No - last time I bothered to read I think it was a Windows license, it said that it was not transferrable to another machine. I'll check again next time I have a chance. One interesting thing, though, is that frequently you *are* allowed to install on 1 desktop AND 1 laptop.

EDIT - fixed quote

[Sslixtis]

No - last time I bothered to read I think it was a Windows license, it said that it was not transferrable to another machine. I'll check again next time I have a chance. One interesting thing, though, is that frequently you *are* allowed to install on 1 desktop AND 1 laptop.

That is interesting and something I will keep in mind when I get my new Centrino :wink:

I had the lovely experience of transfering Office XP from my old PC to my new PC and had to talk to an MS rep and promise her that it was indeed gone from the old machine and that I had reformatted the old HDD so yes I was sure it wasn't on the old machine before they would activate Office on my new machine :)
I really hate activation , but so far they have been very cooperative as long a I beg and plead with them and take various oaths. :werenotworthy:

[Janak Parekh]

You're not allowed to uninstall MS software from one computer and install it onto another.
Not true Kati, as long as you're willing to testify under oath that the other machine has no traces of the MS software left on it. :wink: Or were you refering to your horrible Sony experience?
No - last time I bothered to read I think it was a Windows license, it said that it was not transferrable to another machine. I'll check again next time I have a chance. One interesting thing, though, is that frequently you *are* allowed to install on 1 desktop AND 1 laptop.
Could it also be due to the difference in OEM versus retail licenses? OEM licenses are most definitely not transferable, and MS makes you stick the OEM product code on the computer itself now. Retail licenses have been historically transferable, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were becoming the exception, not the rule.

--janak

[Sslixtis]

Could it also be due to the difference in OEM versus retail licenses? OEM licenses are most definitely not transferable, and MS makes you stick the OEM product code on the computer itself now. Retail licenses have been historically transferable, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were becoming the exception, not the rule.

You're so smart :) I'd bet that was the difference, well atleast it makes sense. I know that doesn't necessarily mean anything but, I like it! :D

[ThomasC22]

well, at least i see that intel is trying to help us, at least they try, something beat nothing...

Guys, and I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Craig Barrett is blowing smoke here. Consider that saying this has no down side to him, if the RIAA dictates otherwise he's certainly going to continue to make hardware for them. He'll just pass the blame off to the RIAA.

Which is exactly what it's there for. It's a nameless, faceless entity designed to shift focus away from the companies like Sony who don't want their name attached to legislation that consumers won't like. Barrett's simply following their lead.

Further, this guy is the CEO of Intel, so the fact that this opinion isn't attached to the announcement of an initiative to design a standard that would accomplish it proves to me that he's just trying to score points here and doesn't really mean much of what he's saying.

[Sslixtis]

Further, this guy is the CEO of Intel, so the fact that this opinion isn't attached to the announcement of an initiative to design a standard that would accomplish it proves to me that he's just trying to score points here and doesn't really mean much of what he's saying.

You're the one that's missed the point. What Intel is trying to do is keep from having to make hardware designed DRM. Which means they want to keep things the way they are, what new initiative would they launch? Hey, everyone, we are going to continue to make chips like we always have and want everyone else to as well????

Intel has upped it's support of the Intel Political Action Committee which is directly opposed to DRM legislation.

And some of those nameless companies are- Disney, Sony, Time-Warner, and MGM.

[ThomasC22]

You're the one that's missed the point. What Intel is trying to do is keep from having to make hardware designed DRM. Which means they want to keep things the way they are, what new initiative would they launch? Hey, everyone, we are going to continue to make chips like we always have and want everyone else to as well????


Ummm...ok, I think you missed my point (and Craig's point). He isn't saying things should stay the same, hence when he said "and a commercial model needs to be developed that allows them to do so". My point then was, why don't they develop that model. People think Intel is a hardware company but they've designed plent of software (and legal agreements to accompany it) in the past and if he really wanted to make a difference he would present a schema to these companies and say "Why don't you use this?" which would then put pressure on the companies to use it. He didn't do that, what he did was throw out a personal opinion that has no weight whatsoever with companies in the hopes of gaining positive press (which is also what the Intel Political Action Committee is as well).


And some of those nameless companies are- Disney, Sony, Time-Warner, and MGM.

Well, yes, but that isn't the point. The point is they're hiding behind a cover (the RIAA) so that their name isn't in every headline because people don't always make the connection. Just as Microsoft, Symantec, et al hides behind the Business Software Alliance. It's all about marketing.

This all goes back to "Why Metallica were idiots", Almost every recording star hated Napster (Limp Bizkit and a few others being the exception) but none of them wanted to get personally involved with lawsuits, etc... because you might as well let the RIAA do it. So, while all those other artists sailed through the thing without any problems, people were ready to burn Metallica at the steak.