The Inquirer-Home

Intel says there's no DRM in 945 chipset

Official statement
Sat Jun 04 2005, 07:00
WE'RE FLYING OUT of Old Taipei very soon, so have little time but to do more than publish this official statement from INtel about digital rights management and chipsets. We know for a fact AMD ain't gonna do it.

alt='scissors'

May 26: Computerworld Today Australia story incorrectly reported that the Intel Pentium D processor and Intel 945 Express Chipset includes unannounced embedded DRM technology.

The Intel Pentium D Processor and the Intel 945 Express Chipset family do not have unannounced embedded DRM technologies.

The DRM technology referred to in a recent report was not a secret or an embedded DRM from Intel. Intel does support various content protection technologies including DTCP-IP technology, which is publicly offered by a number of companies in the industry to enable protected transport of compressed content within a home network.

Many Intel products today support several existing copy protection or content protection technologies. These include support today for things like Macrovision and DTCP-IP, and in the second half of 2005, Intel will deliver an updated graphics driver that will also support additional content protection technologies including COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others. DTCP-IP technology, which is publicly offered by a number of companies in the industry, enables protected transport of compressed content within a home network. While Intel continues to work with the industry to support other content protection technologies, we have not added any unannounced DRM technologies in either the Pentium D processor or the Intel 945 Express Chipset family.

Share this:

Comments

There are no comments submitted yet. Do you have an interesting opinion? Then be the first to post a comment.

aboutus
Advertisement
Subscribe to INQ newsletters
Advertisement
INQ Poll

Authorities in several countries raided Megaupload recently, shut down all of its services, seized hundreds of servers and arrested several of its executives on criminal charges.

Do you think the move was justified?