I agree with you. But Intel would have to convince skeptical Hollywood executives of that, who are more inclined to just not let PCs have new content at all, since relatively few people consume TV and movies on PCs to begin with.

Personally, I think the right solution is to not have DRM for music, TV, and movies on PCs, purely for business reasons. What's happening today is that Intel is effectively shipping everyone who buys an x86 CPU a content decryption module, burning goodwill among free software advocates even though fewer than 1% of consumers will ever use the functionality (actually, does anyone use it?) It makes more business sense for consumers to just buy set-top boxes to consume content. It's not like anyone who buys a $450 Core i7 is going to balk at paying $35 for a Chromecast.

If you tell me how AES works and also give me the key you're using, then you're compromised. DRM relies on giving consumers the decryption key but making it hard for them to figure out how the system works (and sometimes making it hard to isolate the decryption key you've delivered to them).

That's because encryption is based on sound mathematical principles.

DRM is based on "physical access is not complete access", which is different.

It does make people less likely to want to buy the chip with the DRM though.