Slashdot Mirror
Pact Not to Use Image Constraint Token Until 2010?
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."
This is why it's important to not buy DRM-crippled hardware NOW, even if there is presently a workaround available.
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.
I don't trust this "agreement" at all, I think it only lasts until they think they have the dominant format so if they feel enough people have already moved to the new format by 2008 then they'll pull the plug on the pact at that time. It's just a manipulative tool to get consumers to be comfortable before they can pull the rug out from under them and implement their DRM. I swear I don't "steal" music or movies online but the way they treat me as if I'm a criminal, I might as well. At least then there'd be some justification for the way I get treated as a consumer.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Anyway, this is anti-piracy crap and the problem with anti-piracy is that it only hurts the non-pirates. It has already been shown that the next generation copy-protections for movies can be broken. There are some mighty clever people out there who get a thrill out of doing this and not all of them live in countries that could give a shit if some hollywood studio claimes it looses billions.
Back to silly console business. The Wii is not HD and that is defended because not enough people will have HD tv's for this console generations lifespan. The low end PS3 does not have HD and is slammed for not being future proof?
This is one reason I stopped reading game reviews, because I started to notice that reviewers never heard of consistency. They would slam game A for being X and then slam game B for not being X.
Is the computer industry that immature that we can't at least attempt to judge all things equally?
Either HDMI is important or it isn't. Make up your mind. No I don't get the low end PS3 move either. Yes I am familiar with the way fastfood places offer small medium and large so that the medium looks like the better deal. However the PS3 ain't being pushed as a McD coke. At its price it is supposed to be a fine cuisine served at a top restaurant. One way to tell a good restaurant from a fast food place is the lack of supersizing.
Oh well, lets continue the endless console debate. Were we slam the console we don't like for not having the features the console we like doesn't have either.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
..how is anyone supposed to COPY and pirate HD video in the first place through non-HDCP DVI interfaces?
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 can imagine it being controversial indeed.
+1 Giggletypo
That's how the drug dealers round here work, and they're making good money. Should work for the movie industry too.
They'll be hoping that, by 2010, there won't be any of the old non-DRM hardware still in use.
The main objectives for movie companies with the new digital distribution formats and HDMI are:
1) Get consumers to re-buy their whole movie collection again in a new format
2) Move all or at least the vast majority of their movie sales for home use to a beter protected format so as to defend themselfs from what they currently percieve as their main competition - sharing of movies via the Internet.
3) Monitize or increase their profits in existing markets (for example: video/DVD rentals) and open new markets (internet distribution) while maintaining or extending their ability to control prices.
4) Increase their share of movie publishing.
DRM is the chosen mechanism by which movie publishers aim to remotelly control, enforce and even change (if an internet connection is available) any rules of their choice on the allowed uses of the movies contained on the media that consumers aquire.
Businesses being businesses, they will naturally use those remote control abilities (pun not intended) to maximize their profits - given their behaviour up to now, this will most likelly include maximizing the amount that consumers pay, up to and including pay-per-single-view.
At the same time, the bigguest part of the movie industry (as measured by sales and also, quite likelly, by lobbying power) consists of old-style, long existing, entrenched businesses - they are aiming to remain dominant beyond the next 5 years and certainly have long term strategies in place to ensure that it will be so.
It is clear to all that, before they can achieve their objectives, massive user adoption of DRM supporting hardware is necessary. Assuming that the main players in the movie industry are indeed engaged in a plan which is only expected to give fruit in a medium to long (5+ years) term, it's hardly surprising that they will start by visibly refraining from exercising the remote control that the newest DRM hardware allows them, if they believe that this will accelerate the transition from the current generation of hardware to the new (strong DRM enabled) generation of hardware.
It should also be pretty obvious, that since they haven't actually signed any contract with any consumers by which they [movie publishers] are obliged to not enable their DRM, this announcement of theirs still leaves open to them the possibility to, at any time and with no penalty to them, change their minds if they believe that the market penetration of the newest DRM enable hardware has passed the point beyond which said hardware has become the de facto standard.
In other words, their promises are as worthless as the paper they are written in.
It's very simple - they learned that people don't want DRM, won't buy DRM. So, sell them something without DRM. Don't mention DRM. Then, years down the road when the tech is intrenched, when it's the standard, flip your little secret DRM switch.
This is literally an industry that has decided to screw its customers. Fuck them.
This space available.
From TFA In the meantime, it appears as though Hollywood is playing it safe, hoping to keep the boogeyman of HDMI at bay while consumers weigh their options. Whether or not the strategy is ultimately about keeping users happy or lulling them into a false sense of security remains to be seen, but we're fairly certain that ICT was designed to be used, and used it will be.
It seems to me that the issue isn't any of those stated, its about sales. First most 'consumers' don't know the differences between the standards, and any improvement seems good enough, so they are buying the cheapest improvement they can - that only makes sense. The standards are not in play enough to enforce a change across the buying public. The US government is still working to force all users to switch to digital television. Until that happens, joe public won't give a damn. There is only a small portion of the unwashed masses that even cares. Many of them think big screen == high definition still.
My experience is that if it says HD on it, joe public thinks its the shiznitz, they really don't care, and don't want to earn a EE degree to figure it out. Sony et al are cutting their own throats until they can convince the FCC and joe public that the 'thing they want' is 1080p and BR or whatever they decide on, as if they will ever be able to decide on something.
That may well be a cynical view, but it is the impression I get from various encounters. I have a SideKick phone, and the number of people that don't even know what it is (is that one of them blueberry's?) or what it can do is totally amazing. Trying to get even the technically savvy to understand that buying HD is difficult decision is crazy. One friend told me of spending 2500 on an HD setup (and he's happy with it) and I asked him what resolution it was.... he wasn't sure. What most people know about the technical details of what they buy is what they learned from the 18 year old salesman... who makes a commission on the sale... ya, that's working out well.
Any gentlemen's agreement is about setting the marketplace up so they can make money on the formats, and not kill their bottom line with product that isn't selling because of misinformation on the part of joe public. There is no technical reason, its all about the money. If HD products were selling, LALAwood and DVD/TV makers would very quickly work out any details in a short but sharp format war. This is all about sales, and no content provider is getting on board until the hardware makers "show 'em the money". 14 million copies of a DRM'ed movie are a liability if there is nobody to buy them. Hell, 14 million copies of a movie is a liability if there is nobody buying them even if they don't have DRM.
How may people here (raise your hands) have the capability to do more than 5.1 surround? There are better/improved sound systems... but what's the point, if your ears can't tell the difference in the money you spent? Its going to take some real education to get joe public to understand what the difference is, and then to get him to appreciate it enough to spend the extra money. Its all about the money.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
This is all about control of the medium - NOT PIRACY!!!! The laws simply do NOT address piracy. Laws are already on the books that deal with piracy. The new laws do not change this. Most piracy comes from _within_ the entertainment industry anyway. Every new 'leaked' CD that comes out never came from a store bought and ripped CD.
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.
-- Mean People Suck
I think you woefully overestimate the intelligence and market sway of the average consumer.
What the whole ICT issue is going to do is create an extra upgrade cycle: everybody will get on the HD bandwagon now, and in a few years they'll roll out HDCP, and in order to watch new content, people will get new televisions.
This works well for the electronics manufacturers, because they get another shot at replacing a good chunk of the public's equipment in a few years, and although it slows the studios getting total content control by a few years, they'll still get what they want in the end.
Particularly because I don't expect the MPAA et al. to be idle in the meantime before the ICT rollout. On the contrary: I suspect they'll be watching the non-HDCP HD rollout very closely, and tallying up ridiculous numbers of dollars lost to "piracy" and "home copying", so that when HDCP comes, it won't just come from the studios, it'll have the full weight of Congress behind it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."