Looks like Paramount has an out clause (1 Viewer)

[Citizen87645]

If you follow the link to CrunchGear, it just references the Financial Times article. That's not much of a confirmation.

 

[BrettB]

The Digital Bits - Celebrating Film in the Digital Age

 

[Carlo_M]

What's more alarming (for HDD) is Bill's next statement in the following paragraph to the one you quoted, re: Universal talking to the BDA about following suit as well.

Granted all are currently pure rumor right now, but if one or both prove true, then the format war will truly be as close to over as possible until HDD players are removed from store shelves - which Bill alludes to even further down that commentary. If the big box stores do wind down inventory, then it is all over.

 

[Paul.S]

"More confirmation"? Nonsense.

 

[andrew markworthy]

The FT is a UK financial daily paper [if you know anything about economics, you'll know that the 'Financial Times Index' is the UK equivalent of the Dow Jones - or more accurately, the Dow Jones is the US equivalent of the FT Index]. Within British journalism it is respected for being the most accurate of all newspapers. Yes, it does get things wrong, but extremely rarely and it isn't faction or ideology-driven. [On a complete side note, if you want a brief accurate synopsis of Brit news that really matters, read the FT's daily summary].

Bear in mind that we have way stricter laws on slander and libel in the UK and we do a lot more to cover up sources and make precautionary statements like 'alleged' etc. If you're unfamiliar with Brit newspapers you might think this article is being rather vague. It isn't.

Yes, it could still be wrong, but I think it unlikely.

 

[Paul.S]

My (limited) understanding of libel and slander issues in the U.K.--gained largely from what happened to Helen Steel and Dave Morris in the "McLibel" case--is that the accused is guilty until he proves himself innocent, not that there is a lower bar for something to be consider libelous or slanderous.

I'm not saying the piece is vague. I'm saying it very clearly says very little about its headline subject. The Stringer material has more substance than anything about the supposed imminence of what Paramount may or may not do.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Erroneous post...sorry!

 

[Paul.S]

[Deleted after erroneous post to which I was replying was removed.]

 

[Carlo_M]

Umm...did we miss something? You're just linking to the same article as the OP which states they have an out clause and *might* exercise it. Nothing definitive about dropping HD-DVD yet, at least in your link to the FT article.

Unless you meant to link to a different story?

 

[Scooter]

Bloomberg.com: Japan

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Paramount doesn't make enough money on HD to buy out of their contract, unless Sony pays, and I can't help but wonder how much (or little) Sony has left in the warchest. I'm sure they are talking to Sony, but not sure how it would work out.

 

[andrew markworthy]

The Bloomberg story looks at first like a firm denial, but read carefully, it isn't. I think we now wait and see.

Not really. The issue is the strength of grounds a person has for believing that what they say or write is true. Under American law, you can say or write things based on far weaker grounds and remain within the law. Because of this, British media tend to be a little more cautious in the way that they say things.

 

[Yumbo]

Wow...'drops' = 'poised to drop'. The level of comprehension nowadays.

ps. Digital Bits crystal ball posits that Apple will intro BR. We'll see, but not in the new desktops announced TODAY. Really grates me when a (informed?) PC guy tells us Apple users (cool dudes) what will be.

Que sera?

 

[Adam Gregorich]

To borrow a line from the Princess Bride: "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

In the studio world firm denial=maybe=we are weighing our options and don't want to comment further at this time.

WB was saying that they would continue to support both formats while they had stopped authoring new titles and were actively negotiating with both sides. We can speculate all we want, but I think it will take a week or two to see where things with MS, Paramount, Universal, Toshiba and the retailers shake out.

 

[Scott-S]

I can see Paramount having to pay back money it got for signing the exclusive agreement. That is different than having to pay money above and beyond that to get out. Which one is the case?

 

[Paul.S]

I agree.

And I would argue that the lack of substance of the FT "story" is more attributable to its writers simply not knowing anything concrete about the matter than anything having to do with U.K. libel law.

 

[Paul.S]

Can someone please fix the misspelling of the studio name in the thread title please?

(Admin note - okay-dokey)

 

[andrew markworthy]

And I would argue that the FT news item is on to something. But hey, I'm a Brit and read the quality Brit press daily, so what would I know about it?

 

[Paul.S]

Andrew:

Where you are, your nationality and what press you read daily are all at best secondary. The fact remains that the writers are "reporting" speculation. It's remarkable, and of course your prerogative, that you want to believe vaporous "reports" of rumor mean "something" but that another piece that actually quotes someone (Brenda Ciccone, who is with the studio not an outside PR firm) doesn't really mean what it says.

Paramount will continue to deny anything changes. Until they announce otherwise. And in the interim people such as yourself will reify blogosphere rumor into "something" more than it deserves to be.

And people such as myself will continue to argue that the enlightened center of FACT must hold. And the fact remains that we don't know anything yet. And neither do the writers of that piece.

 

[BrettB]

Mods, could we lock this sucker up? Apparently it's all but worthless to discuss until Paramounted makes a move.