Looks like Image Constraint Token (ICT) won't be used until 2010 (1 Viewer)

[ChristopherDAC]

To put it bluntly :
I would be shocked if even 1% of the "pirated" SD video on file-sharing networks had been copied from the component outputs of a DVD player. A fortiori for HD video copied from the component outputs of a High Definition source. What is there, on the consumer market, which will even record a HD component signal?

The bulk of "pirated" video is produced by high-speed "ripping" of DVDs through PC hardware, and ICT has no effect whatsoever on digital copying of High Definition video media. It affects only real-time copying via analog connexions, which basically does not exist.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Ryan! d00d! W4+'2 yer nick on #warez?

 

[Ryan-G]

Except you neglect to mention the vast differences in disemination abilites of various P2P clients in contrast to those found in chat programs which are traditionally 1:1.

Many P2P clients today tap a large number of people who have the same file in order to accelerate the download to realistic speeds. Bit Torrent will download as fast as it can, from as many people as it can, within the realm of bandwidth a given user has. With cable this can be around 500-700k/sec. Shareaza, Kazaa, and Limewire all work similiarly to identically.

But a chat program will download from 1 person at their upload speed, which is usually around 40k/sec. Over 10 time slower.

The chat program will meet certain individuals needs as far as 1:1 transferring home movies of kids to grandma, they're getting it at the same speed no matter what client is used.

But 40k/sec 1:1 connections would eliminate the vast majority of the piracy found on P2P sites today.

Any instance of a chat program functioning by drawing from many users to accelerate the download would make it a P2P, just like the others, and needing banned just as badly. Fortunately, very, very, few if any do. They're almost all 1:1's, in fact, I've never heard or nor seen a P2P chat, only 1:1.

So please, quit trying to muddle the topic by giving partial information. P2P and 1:1 connections are not comparable in any way. I have a very good grasp of technology, it appears you are a little confused by it yourself though. 1:1 connections through chat programs are very different beasts than P2P programs which function by each user uploading the segments they've downloaded to each other, while simultaneously downloading more segments.

 

[Rob_HD]

The story cited was only reporting that it saw another report of a rumour that perhaps there was a conversation in which someone said that maybe... etc... you get it...

While they may drag their feet a bit implementing ICT, I would NOT count on anything like 2010.

ICT will be implemented at some point - I'm pretty certain of that.

Notice that this story only started circulating after Sony announced that the base PS3 doesn't include HDMI?

Hmmm.....

I won't believe this story until the studios make a formal release or public announcement.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

(although not a personal attack, only an observation, it's been editied for civility sake)

Regardless, the fact that studios could at any time use ICT on any of their new releases should be clearly understood so those without HDCP compliant displays understand the risk that at some point future titles could be scaled down to 540p on their displays.

 

[Cees Alons]

These personal attacks on members have to stop. Attempts to raise suspicion about poster's motives to voice an opinion one doesn't agree with (or even a plainly incorrect opinion) are no proper way to argue those opinions.

You may have your doubts, but please take them to personal communication with the poster.

People occasionally appear to have strong feelings, some may look driven, some may look zealous. This goes for "both" sides of the fence.

But on this forum one has to respect the mere fact that someone has come to his/her opinion. The inherent truth of any opinion is not determined by the reason for the proponent to cherish it.

You may fight opinions - not the people having them.

This is an official warning. Further remarks of that kind may lead to the immediate removal from this forum of the poster who made them.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Oh my. P2P is just a technology for distributing large amounts of data (like a linux distribution) to large numbers of people without overloading servers. If you can't imagine why individuals would need to download hundreds of megabytes , well, that's your loss.

Frankly I wish that apple would adopt a torrent like schema for distributing xcode. 900 MB is a tad much.

 

[Shawn Perron]

Therefore this is dead wrong.

Please seperate the implementations from the technology. Just because a program uses a technology does not mean it is itself the technology. Bittorrent uses P2P, but is not itself P2P. Chat programs use P2P. Voice over ip uses P2P. If you have a problem with Kazaa or Bit torrent, then rail against those programs, but stop with the attacks on the generic term P2P.

The only muddling going on is from your end. It'd be nice if you stopped spreading disinformation now. There are people that do not understand this technology on this board and you will just confuse them.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

(edited for civility sake)

 

[Edwin-S]

I would take it easy. It might be better to communicate directly to the moderator if you disagree with his assessment of your remarks. There is no use risking getting booted by arguing with him on-line.

Personally, I think a lot of members are already taking Rob-HD's comments with a grain of sand, due to his bias.

 

[Lew Crippen]

As you know Nils, I’m no fan of advertising in a signature—and less so in a user name.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

You are of course right Edwin, I responded too quickly, which is generally not a good thing to do when you are riled up over something some says or does. I've removed it and will keep it private. Suggestion well received.

 

[Rob_Walton]

It's remarkable how much time seems to be spent focusing on the personalities of those posting, instead of the substance of their posts. It's even worse on other forums, sadly.

Back on topic, it would be nice if this turns out to be true, and I can actually imagine most studios keeping to any agreement. You've gotta wonder what will happen when the first studio does switch ICT to 1. Will there be boycotts? If the HD optical format is well established by the time ICT is initiated would that not make any potential problem even worse. I'm thinking about the adverse publicity the studio would potentially suffer by discriminating against a proportion of their customers.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I hope this is true, so I can hook up both the Blu-Ray and HD DVD players to my monitor. I only have one HDMI/DVI input, and I don't want to keep switching them, especially with all the bugs inherent in the HDMI connection.

 

[Ryan-G]

Depends on the state of the market at the time. Penetration of PS3, prevelance of components vs HDMI. Both will have an impact, and I could certainly see Wallmart happily selling people component only HDTV's to make them look cheaper, knowing full well that they could turn up crippled.

As far as a boycott goes, who knows? People out there think that Digital Cable is high-def, they might not even notice.

 

[David Galindo]

More news and proof:

http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/...-HDMI-Pact/p1/