Michael Bay attacks Microsoft's plan to destroy Blu-ray disc

Makenshi

Makenshi

Ahoy, ye salty dogs!
http://www.playthree.net/2007/12/michael-bay-attacks-microsofts-secret.html

Michael Bay attacks Microsoft's secret plan to destroy superior Blu-ray

In response to a fan who ask why Bay's movies are not available on Blu-ray disc, Michael wrote "What you don't understand is corporate politics. Microsoft wants both formats to fail so they can be heroes and make the world move to digital downloads. That is the dirty secret no one is talking about. That is why Microsoft is handing out $100 million dollar checks to studios just embrace the HD DVD and not the leading, and superior Blu-Ray. They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads. Time will tell and you will see the truth."
Click to expand...

Sick bastards...
 
Curious; Is there really any noteable difference between HD-DVD and Blue-Ray DVDs? I never could tell...
 
Well.. If you've got a 1080p(or [1080i]) TV, Blu-ray is a little bit more sharper and clearer but not a whole lot.
 
It's about the whole package. Blu-ray improves on software, HD DVD doesn't.
 
starseeker said:
Isn't Blueray another Sony product?
Click to expand...

Yup, and it also seems to me that their backdoor deals are looking to do more than cause confusion in the market place before their digital downloads, since this seems aimed against the format the PS3 also uses.
 
Digital downloads is a sick idea. Basically, all of your media will be under direct control from Microsoft, with no storage medium, they can do what the will with the software. Also, forcing people to use their online services just to be able to acquire software is like a form of internet slavery. Whats sad though, is Sony doesnt really want to fight dirty but Microsoft is still pulling it's shit.

That being said,

I have a Blu-Ray player, and I would kill for it.
 
Personally, I'd rather be under Gate's button than a bunch of gooks. I'm probobly gonna banned for that one lol.
 
Microsoft has been circle jerking to the idea of digital downloads for quite some time. I remember the proposed Windows 97 relying on a fully internet-based storage system where ALL personal data would be stored on Microsoft servers.

The resulting privacy problems are blatantly obvious. Luckily the idea never made the cut for several reasons (some of which were related to the state of technology at the time).
 
Ashmo said:
Microsoft has been circle jerking to the idea of digital downloads for quite some time. I remember the proposed Windows 97 relying on a fully internet-based storage system where ALL personal data would be stored on Microsoft servers.

The resulting privacy problems are blatantly obvious. Luckily the idea never made the cut for several reasons (some of which were related to the state of technology at the time).
Click to expand...
Google will be giving out storage space pretty soon.

(and others have done it one smaller scale already)
 
I'm not saying off-site data storage is inherently evil. I think it's a useful service when you need to have access to data outside your own home, but can't be arsed to burn a CD or copy it to a floppy (and who really uses floppies anyway?) and USB sticks tend to break or get lost.

I'm saying FORCING you to use off-site data storage -- or making it difficult or awkward not to do it, which is what MS usually does to circumvent the "vendor lock-in" shouts -- is evil.

Digital downloads are a part of it. They aren't inherently evil -- they allow cheaper distribution of software without the horrendous production costs of boxed games or selling your soul to a big games production house. They are however easily abused, because they are even easier to copy than traditional software (which is a property of software as a whole, despite the major companies' failure to understand this). The countermeasures are intrusive DRM and vendor lock-in -- both of which ARE inherently evil.
 
This isn't all bad, the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray battle is absolutely ridiculous.

As far as I am concerned, I will yield to neither, because I am perfectly content with a computer as my TV.

The internet is far more efficient than either medium is, and I would largely prefer to buy my movies online. For every DRM out there, there is an equal and opposite group of crackers to level the playing field, and if everything moves to online video buying, memory and video capture devices will quickly override the abilities of DRM.

There is no way for big media to win this battle, none at all.
The rebellious of us on the massive information network that is the intertubes will always be one step ahead.

Computers have altered, permanently, the idea of digital property rights, and there is no going back.
Copying is not theft, and thats something that will eventually take hold as my generation grows older.
 
Copying is not theft, and thats something that will eventually take hold as my generation grows older.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you do with the copy. For personal use? No problem.

For widespread distribution? Purebred theft.
 
There is no such a thing as data theft. There is such a thing as license violation.

Theft means taking something that is yours and making it mine, leaving you with a lack of whatever I took.

I'm not saying piracy is good, but calling it stealing is not helpful in terms of semantics.
 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah Michael Bay.

Sorry had to get that out of the way. Microsoft bullying a competitive formate into failure and general matrydom to the glee of Microsoft's pocket books...is not really a surprise.

I'm just surprised Michael Bay got pissy about it.
 
I believe copyright laws are about as futile as trying to regulate who is allowed to breathe air or see the color blue.

I agree with certain usage laws in business, and the GPL and CC licenses are very realistic, but modern copyright make no sense. What if I was to copyright a picture, perhaps a picture of the president beating his wife, and then prosecute anyone who published it, made it available for download, or downloaded it without explicit licensed permission.

All laws that attempt to inhibit communication are bad laws, without exception.

*edit* now, that being said, what exactly does copyright propose to accomplish?
What is the point of inhibiting the right to copy things?
Inventions will be reverse engineered, and paintings and songs and movies will be copied, there is no fighting it.
Every time I look at a picture, I copy it into my memory, what is the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top