Pact Not to Use Image Constraint Token Until 2010? 285
Devlin C. writes "Ars Technica reports that many major movie studios and several consumer electronics companies have an unofficial pact not to use the controversial Image Constraint Token in movies until at least 2010, presumably in an effort to spur early adoption. As the article at Ars notes, this would explain why both
the low-end PS3 and the Xbox360 lack HDMI. The companies think it's not necessary to have right now, and they would rather shave costs than sell future-proof hardware."
great? except it's one more thing to explain (Score:5, Interesting)
At first blush this may seem a happy development, and it will have been if it contributes to the ulimate demise of any future Image Constraint Token or consideration thereof in the future.
I predict one of two things:
Of course, we'll all be on point and have been handed yet one more piece of a puzzle to understand (I read the article, I'm not totally sure it makes sense to me) and be able to guide friends and family to informed decisions about what equipment to buy and how to make it work. (To friends and family: "You'll have to make sure the TV and player you buy has HDMI so you'll get to see the pretty pictures. No, wait!, You might not need HDMI afterall. Of course, you'll have to have it by the year 2010.") I'm pretty close to recommending people who have working equipment to stay with what they have. (Of course, that recommendation has the pitfall of putting them in harm's way when suddenly new transmissions and DVDs they've been persuaded to buy don't work with what they have.)
The entertainment industry has successfully lobbied to enact laws to satisfy their need to control this technology, and now they're showing they can't even manage that!
Seems like I'm ending most of my posts the same way these recent days...:
Sigh.
We'll See (Score:5, Interesting)
The other thing is.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, what problem is ICT supposed to solve? Are there pirates out there right now stealing from DVI signals?
Also, can't will just convert everything to unencrypted analog and digitize the output. D-A and A-D conversion these days should be no different from a direct digital connection on short-length Component video cables. And, when ICT is finally introduced, they'll just digitize the monitor output by placing a camera in front of it, or digitizing the signals going to the framebuffer or display.
Eventually there's going to be a leak of the device keys, like what happened to CSS, and encrypytion of all previous AACS discs are defeated. Although future AACS discs can ban these leaked device keys, a new set of device keys will be leaked. Especially in software decrypters. This is because the AACS doesn't actually define a PHYSICAL secret device key spec, and so these new device keys are going to be continuously leaked as they disassemble software decoders or read EPROMs. I suspect there's going to be a lot of banned devices in the MKB of AACS.
It's always going to be this cat-and-mouse game...
I don't see #1 happening... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony has already said they won't use it, and they have plenty of reason to follow up on that, given that they will be selling HDMI-less players.
If some or most movies play just fine over component, but some don't, the publisher of those that don't will take it in the butt in the marketplace. People just won't buy their discs, because they suspect they won't be able to play them.
So I figured that the agreement will hold for a while at least.
Re:Console wars are silly (Score:5, Interesting)
1080p is the highest the PS3 will support. But from what I've heard high-def support isn't required for PS3 developers as it is for X360 developers. Expect to see a lot of PS3 games shipping with 720p as their max resolution (and rightfully so, it's a pretty good balance between resolution and effects-per-pixel).
The X360 is 1080i max.
To answer the grandparent poster, the PS3 was sold as the next movie platform for high-def televisions. Now it is getting slammed because the low-end won't support the image encryption standard Sony (and others) have forced onto us, making it potentially not a movie platform at all.
The Wii makes no pretention to High-def gaming, while the X360 is flagrantly about it while avoiding the movie debate. The PS3 on the other hand is the full deal, hundreds more than the competition, yet the part that may set it apart from the crowd is the part that simply may cease to work on a Hollywood whim.
It's not a question of whether HDMI is important or isn't. It's a question of achieving the standards set forth in your propoganda. Nintendo never said it had the most powerful console out there, it said it had a "powerful enough" gaming system with a nifty controller and a library of backcatalog games. Microsoft never said the 360 was a movie player, but rather an amazing Xbox Live delivery vehicle that had some solid gameplaying power and high-def graphics. Sony, however, always said the PS3 was going to be a movie box. But without HDMI (or HDMI upgradability), that could end at any moment. It's not important to Nintendo because they aren't selling based upon that. Sony is.
Re:There's a point to be made (Score:5, Interesting)
Please go educate the masses of "average consumer".
I'll bet 90% of people of buy DVDs dont know what DRM is or what it does to them.
In general I think you're probably right, but I did have a surprising conversation last week with someone who definitely wasn't a computer nerd. She had basically been screwed over by iTunes and the 3 computer limit that this software imposes. (Excuse me if I don't get the exact details right -- I'm not interested in buying music in crippled formats for myself). She had activated her laptop and a couple of her work machines, but had then changed jobs and had her laptop stolen. The result was that although she still had the music, she was unable to play it at all, and I can tell you she understood exactly what was going on and she was not happy at all about it.
So it seems to me that as more people get screwed over by the music distributors, the message will eventually get out, even if only in a simple form -- "my ripped MP3s work, but my paid downloads don't".
Rich.
Re:The other thing is.. (Score:1, Interesting)
More likely these DVDs came from MPAA-approved plants working a "night shift". You couldn't "just" make a bitwise copy without a copy of the master.
Re:great? except it's one more thing to explain (Score:3, Interesting)
+ The vast majority of the installed base of HiDef TVs do not have HDMI
+ There's still virutally no computer support for the protocol.
+ The PR Beating that Microsoft took over the "Vista will require a new monitor" FUD.
+ The fact that HDMI is expensive enough that it apparenlty can't be used on low-end players ($500 PS3).
It was only Hollywood's arrogance that got it this far because any sane plan would have included a staged rollout. I wouldn't be suprised if they were "full speed ahead" on this until some studio exective figured out he was crippling his own TV. DOH.
The biggest thing holding back HD adoption is this endless quibbling over copy-protection standards. This has been going on for years now, and maybe someone figured out that it's time to shit or get off the pot -- that they'll never see a dime from HD unless they settle on some standards and stick to them.
So I wouldn't worry about 2010 either. HDMI is optional now, and will still be optional in 4 years. Maybe by 2015.
Re:Funny, that is exactly what so many have done (Score:3, Interesting)
Think back to how many people had pirate copies of ET? Well all did. And it was horrible. All grainy and very dark and very green. However, the sheer buzz of actually having a copy you could watch totally outweighed that.
If I were a commercial pirate, (and I'm not, just to make it clear) - I'd happily burn the 540p downscaled HD content onto DVD - it'd look as good as DVD and most of my punters will be overjoyed at this fact.
-Jar
Still no one gets it - Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)
Wake up folks. This is about preventing independant content makers from having access to a high quality cheap distribution mechanism (i.e., The Internet). Todays production equipment costs are plummeting. Any independant content maker has no excuse not to be able to create his masterpiece.
So today an independant content provider could make a high quality movie, produce it and distribute it for next to nothing (compared to the "old" way of using 35mm film). His costs are hiring actors and his blood, sweat, and tears in shooting, mixing, producing, etc.
**AA is shitting themselves over THIS! NOT PIRACY. They are slimey little devils. They will do _anything_ and use _any_ excuse to prevent any new production and distribution model that doesn't 'deal' them in.