If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   Disney: "Redbox, we're not going to sell you our DVDs until 28 days after they are released." Redbox: "That's cool. We'll just send our employees to every store in town and buy your DVDs off-the-shelf"   (money.msn.com) divider line 100
    More: Obvious, DVD, Disney, Redbox, dis, NWS, TWICE, Universal Pictures, convenience stores  
•       •       •

5938 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Jun 2012 at 10:12 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-07 07:37:27 PM
Interesting as every redbox dvd I've rented has always been just the movie with no special features or bonus disk---which is basically the major reason to purchase a dvd.
 
2012-06-07 07:48:12 PM
What if this was Disney's plan the entire time? Deny Redbox access to John Carter, watch Redbox buy every copy of John Carter off the shelves, and profit.

I mean it utterly bombed in the theaters. At least this guarantees some DVD sales at full retail price.
 
2012-06-07 08:04:50 PM
I don't exactly see how Disney loses on this one.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-06-07 08:13:51 PM
In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.
 
2012-06-07 08:18:59 PM
i105.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-07 08:25:09 PM

ZAZ: In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.


Yes, The studio's tried, but failed to make that standard as retailers just refused to play and boycotted those 'rental only' movies. (I also think there was lawsuits involved over fair trade practices).
 
2012-06-07 09:49:17 PM

ZAZ: In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.


I remember way back in the 80s here in my small town, if you lost the VHS or Beta, you paid the $85-100 to replace it.
 
2012-06-07 09:58:48 PM
I just signed up for RedBox this past weekend after my local indie video store finally bit the dust.

I can't stand Blockbuster, and still prefer the "Hey honey, want to rent a movie tonight?" method of picking movies as opposed to the Netflix pick/wait/hope method (we don't have a TV hooked up to the Internet, so streaming is pointless for us).

Bottom line, we liked the selections, the price point is quite good, and there's a kiosk within walking distance of our house. And now that I know they are telling Disney and TimeWarner to go suck a rope, I like them even more.
 
2012-06-07 09:59:06 PM
Also, weren't they having some sort of similar dispute with Warner Bros? It took two weeks after the regular Redbox release date for my local kiosk to get "Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close." When I watched it, the previews were totally crappy quality, but the movie itself was fine.

When I got to the very end of the video there were several different Interpol and FBI warnings saying that the movie was only licensed to be shown in Asia. There was one for Japan, a different one for Thailand, a different one for The Philipines, etc. How is that legal?
 
2012-06-07 10:18:08 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: ZAZ: In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.

I remember way back in the 80s here in my small town, if you lost the VHS or Beta, you paid the $85-100 to replace it.



And God help you if you didn't rewind.
 
2012-06-07 10:21:14 PM

ZAZ: In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.


I recalled hearing the same thing. I believe that libraries pay more than the sticker price for books for the exact same reason.
 
2012-06-07 10:22:58 PM

ZAZ: In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.


I heard from multiple sources that the rental places had higher quality VHS tapes designed for dozens of viewings, unlike the ones they sold to consumers.

Didn't make the bullsh*t stink any less, though.
 
2012-06-07 10:25:03 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Also, weren't they having some sort of similar dispute with Warner Bros? It took two weeks after the regular Redbox release date for my local kiosk to get "Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close." When I watched it, the previews were totally crappy quality, but the movie itself was fine.

When I got to the very end of the video there were several different Interpol and FBI warnings saying that the movie was only licensed to be shown in Asia. There was one for Japan, a different one for Thailand, a different one for The Philipines, etc. How is that legal?


Because they bought the media, and by definition it's only played on one player at a time?
 
2012-06-07 10:28:28 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I remember way back in the 80s here in my small town, if you lost the VHS or Beta, you paid the $85-100 to replace it.


You know why you paid that much to replace a video? Because they could charge you that much to replace a video. It had nothing to do with the actual replacement cost.

Unless we're talking about commodities, cost of goods has absolutely nothing to do with retail cost.
 
2012-06-07 10:32:37 PM
It sent employees out to retail stores to buy "John Carter" and other DVDs.

I believe I see the flaw in the otherwise brilliant plan.
 
2012-06-07 10:33:17 PM
Libraries actually get a discount on book purchases. Some books have an option of a library binding that is more expensive and can improve longevity.

Where they're really sticking it to us is ebooks. You wouldn't believe the kind of stuff publishers are trying to pull right now. Ebooks that burn themselves after 26 checkouts are just the beginning.

/librarian
 
2012-06-07 10:38:34 PM
back in the vhs days, most movies weren't released for sell thru (retail) so the prices were high any where from $60-$100. Blockbuster had to turn those new releases over as many times as possible in the first couple of months to make a profit.
.
Home Alone was one of the first major movies to be releases for retails sale at the same time as rental at a cheap price sub $20 if I recall correctly. the average blockbuster had 200-300 copies and pre sold used copies in the area of $5-$7 to be picked up 30 days after the release date.

some of the studios were experimenting with counters on the tapes, once it hit 25 views when the tape was rewound it would click a magnet down and erase the tape. I believe this was even supposed to be on the ones consumers purchased as the industry was worried about people lending videos out.
 
2012-06-07 10:39:33 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers:

I remember way back in the 80s here in my small town, if you lost the VHS or Beta, you paid the $85-100 to replace it.


My Mom used to belong to all of those movie clubs, like the book clubs...
Anyway, I remember movies, probably Beta, being ridiculously expensive. I remember one or two movies being like $500...

Rent it, keep it, pay the $100. Deal.

/Or wait for it to be on HBO and record it.
 
2012-06-07 10:41:07 PM

Sheila_McSly: Libraries actually get a discount on book purchases. Some books have an option of a library binding that is more expensive and can improve longevity.

Where they're really sticking it to us is ebooks. You wouldn't believe the kind of stuff publishers are trying to pull right now. Ebooks that burn themselves after 26 checkouts are just the beginning.

/librarian


Amen, that really sucks for public libraries. Put the books up at the website of the library and say we can not afford to purchase these for pubic use.
 
2012-06-07 10:47:42 PM

optikeye: Put the books up at the website of the library and say we can not afford to purchase these for pubic use.


I'd imagine it costs extra to sanitize the books after the book worms have been all over them.
 
2012-06-07 10:53:24 PM
I liked John Carter... It wasn't the masterpiece of our life time, but it was as good or better than any other standard issue CGI action fest.
 
2012-06-07 10:57:07 PM
Listen movie studios. I'm your target audience. I own more than 700 movies in all sorts of genres and from the 20's silents to the present day. I've ripped them to my NAS and stream them myself. Why do I do this? Because you don't allow Netflix to offer ALL the movies it can via streaming. It would be worth it to me to pay a bit MORE for Netflix if I can have all the movies I want via streaming (with Director's Commentary and Extras). Of course, there are alternate means for me to get movies as soon as they're released on DVD...would you prefer I do that?

As for RedBox. I didn't want to see John Carter in the theatre because it looked crappy. I'm not going to buy it on DVD unless I LIKE it. So if I have to wait a year for it to be on premium cable, so be it. I'm not going to BUY a DVD for the hell of it. So please get your collective heads out of your asses and allow RedBox and Netflix to offer them via DVD and streaming when they're released. Netflix and RedBox are NOT your enemy. YOU are your own enemy.

Sincerely,

A Movie Snob
 
2012-06-07 11:00:37 PM
Netflix emphasizes its streaming videos over disc rental, and it doesn't much care if customers can't rent "John Carter" for a month.

As far as I can tell, Netflix doesn't care if its customers EVER get to stream more than a token number of big box-office movies.
 
2012-06-07 11:01:04 PM

ZAZ: In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.


The other day when I saw Dances with Wolves in the DVD bargain bin somewhere it reminded me that my friend's mom had to have it when it first came out and she paid around $120 or so to get a rental-quality VHS copy. I was led to believe that those tapes were made to a somewhat higher quality than the ones at regular retail. For DVDs, I'm sure there is no such difference.

Reminds me of how e-book distributors cited or conducted a study where the average paper book survives 25 or so lendings so libraries should be forced to re-buy their ebooks after lending them out the same number of times. F-you, pay me.
 
2012-06-07 11:13:06 PM

Babwa Wawa: ecmoRandomNumbers: I remember way back in the 80s here in my small town, if you lost the VHS or Beta, you paid the $85-100 to replace it.

You know why you paid that much to replace a video? Because they could charge you that much to replace a video. It had nothing to do with the actual replacement cost.

Unless we're talking about commodities, cost of goods has absolutely nothing to do with retail cost.


Wrong. I worked at BBV from 1994-1998 and we paid about $65 for each rental copy, and that was after the bulk discount.

And no, the rental tapes weren't better quality.
 
2012-06-07 11:26:15 PM

Man On A Mission: I just signed up for RedBox this past weekend after my local indie video store finally bit the dust.


How does one "sign up to Redbox"? Put in credit card, take home movie. No contracts involved that I can tell.
 
2012-06-07 11:30:37 PM

JonZoidberg: ZAZ: In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.

The other day when I saw Dances with Wolves in the DVD bargain bin somewhere it reminded me that my friend's mom had to have it when it first came out and she paid around $120 or so to get a rental-quality VHS copy. I was led to believe that those tapes were made to a somewhat higher quality than the ones at regular retail. For DVDs, I'm sure there is no such difference.

Reminds me of how e-book distributors cited or conducted a study where the average paper book survives 25 or so lendings so libraries should be forced to re-buy their ebooks after lending them out the same number of times. F-you, pay me.


That's why I use TUEBL and torrents for my ebook needs. I'll be damned if I'm going to give those assholes any more money than I have to. It's the same principle with movies and TV shows. I pay for Netflix. I want to legally watch what I want to watch. However, if you won't make that reasonably possible for me (I'm looking at you, HBO. I should not have to get cable in order to get your streaming service), or if you make me wait too long for no reason, I will pirate the shiat out of your stuff with absolutely no remorse. I gave you a chance to make your content available to me through legal channels and I have demonstrated a willingness to pay a reasonable price for it. You told me to fark off. Well, I'll get my content needs met through less "official" channels, and where will you be? Standing around with your dick in your hand, that's where.

The biggest problem with these media companies is that no one ever told their corporate officers the story of the goose who laid the golden egg. They can either squeeze their customers for as much revenue as possible now (and piss them right the fark off to the point where they stop paying for the content they consume), or they can cultivate a revenue stream that offers less income per product, but builds a customer base that is enthusiastic about buying the content that is being produced. If there was a media company out there that treated me with respect and gave me a license to do whatever I wanted with the media I purchase (within reason), I'd be a loyal customer until I die. Apple does this with iTunes, and Amazon does this with their mp3 store. I don't buy music (Pandora and Stitcher take care of that), so I have no real use for them. If a movie studio or a television company did this, though, I'd hand over fistfuls of money.
 
2012-06-07 11:31:52 PM

JonZoidberg: Reminds me of how e-book distributors cited or conducted a study where the average paper book survives 25 or so lendings so libraries should be forced to re-buy their ebooks after lending them out the same number of times. F-you, pay me.


Yes. This is a real thing that is happening.

I'd just like to say that this isn't true. A quality hardback can last for decades, even in a public library. And when they break, we usually don't replace them. If we do replace them, they're probably bestsellers or classics and there is no guarantee that we'd buy the replacement from the same publisher.

Bet on formats changing every decade or so, and just charge us whenever the new format comes out. We'll pay for it. But breaking a book on purpose is kind of evil. So is the whole idea that when a library buys an ebook, they're actually buying a license. I'm sorry, but when I buy a book, I'm buying a book, especially if it cost $26.00.

The other killer is that if the library ends a relationship with its third-party service provider (usually Overdrive), they lose access to the books they bought. And Overdrive has been known to raise their prices dramatically year to year. Why not? If you stop paying them, they steal all your books.

/nice library you have there...
 
2012-06-07 11:53:53 PM
I bet on demand rentals through cable and sattelite providers will be ok, can't put my finger on the reason why though.

Next step, fancy DVD covers replaced by EULA's stating rental prohibited, punishable by eleventy billion dollar fine.
 
2012-06-08 12:43:20 AM

Babwa Wawa: ZAZ: In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.

I heard from multiple sources that the rental places had higher quality VHS tapes designed for dozens of viewings, unlike the ones they sold to consumers.


Nope. VHS was VHS. You didn't get a better quality movie from any rental store than you could have legitimately purchased. The early tapes were high dollar cost for a couple of reasons. First, they were competing with (and in many cases replacing) laser discs which were a significantly higher dollar cost per movie, so tape was actually the cheaper option. The other competitor was the ceramic video disc which was a cost competitor to tape though it ultimately lost out because it was not a recordable medium. Second, VCRs were a high-dollar item (typically $400-$800 in early 1980s dollars), so it was presumed that people who bought the expensive players would pay the premium price for the tapes. With such a limited audience the economies of scale that later came into play also weren't there so the cost to produce each tape was higher. One other factor was that the movie was released in both Betamax and VHS early on, further fragmenting the market for the movies. Sony had a monopoly on Betamax with their patents and they charged a premium to release the movie on that tape format. The movie studios would release VHS at the same cost, making a larger margin on it since Matsushiata (Panasonic/JVC's parent company) licensed their patent at a lower rate causing the tapes to cost far less to make than Betamax tapes. Ultimately Sony's foolish decision to not license Betamax to other manufacturers doomed that superior format to the dustbin of time and VHS players proliferated, bringing down the cost of tapes by broadening the market and eliminating the cost of releasing movies in more than one format.

The rental tapes were not any better quality than the consumer versions. Using a heavier mylar or modified magnetic coating or different spindles on a short run of "rental version" movies, then retool for the regular consumer run, would likely make the tapes a whole lot more expensive than even the rental stores would be willing to pay. The picture quality was the same also since the only way to get a better picture with VHS would be to play it in a professional video deck with a line doubler or time-base corrector or other signal processor over an S-video output. The rental stores told you that the replacement cost was something high because they knew they could get it from you. Realistically the premium price probably covered their labor to order another copy, inventory it, tag it, etc. plus a hefty nuisance fee.
 
2012-06-08 01:42:53 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Man On A Mission: I just signed up for RedBox this past weekend after my local indie video store finally bit the dust.

How does one "sign up to Redbox"? Put in credit card, take home movie. No contracts involved that I can tell.


Maybe...maybe...that wasn't a Redbox!!

/I mean, it was red, it was a box, it accepted credit cards, but now your bank accounts are cleaned out.
 
2012-06-08 02:07:24 AM
Disney can go fark themselves, the greedy bastards. Selfish is such an ugly trait, Mickey.
 
2012-06-08 02:25:10 AM
As an employee at "every store in town," I'm quite annoyed when these cretins come in multiple times during the day, trying to buy as many as possible, such that we run out of product for normal people. After the first couple times they got it by us, we actually started to enforce the limits (5 per customer) prescribed in our weekly circular. There's not as many of them now, but they're still a pain in my ass.

I did enjoy the one time I had one such douche was intending to return all the unopened copies he didn't need (nothing wrong with that, per se, other than that he'd basically had all 10 or 20 copies sitting around his domicile the entire past week, while we'd sold out on the 2nd day it was available), and I just so happened to be at the customer service counter on other business. I quickly pointed out the copies he was attempting to return all had Best Buy stickers (side note: my employer is not BB), and that we therefore could not accept them. "But what difference does it make?" was the only defense he could muster. Technically, our POS would have allowed him to return the items, because he had valid receipts, the barcodes are identical, and the items were unopened, but, then again, they clearly were from another store. Not my fault he didn't figure that out before (presumably) returning his other copies to BB, or selling/using them.
 
2012-06-08 02:28:25 AM
Maybe if Disney concentrated on making movies that aren't total crapfests ie. John Carter, they wouldn't have to scrounge for revenue.
 
2012-06-08 02:40:50 AM
If I wanted to buy the motherfarkin' DVD, I'd buy the motherfarkin' DVD ... else I'll just go to piratebay box if no reasonably priced version is not out. Not rocket science.
 
2012-06-08 03:28:57 AM

scottydoesntknow: What if this was Disney's plan the entire time? Deny Redbox access to John Carter, watch Redbox buy every copy of John Carter off the shelves, and profit.

I mean it utterly bombed in the theaters. At least this guarantees some DVD sales at full retail price.


All they had to do was add "Of Mars" to the title and it would have been a hit.
 
2012-06-08 04:03:10 AM
From the article:

"Disney is clearly worried that it won't sell as many DVDs in that first month if people could rent them."

Translation:

If people start to see beyond the advertising hype and realize how much of a shiat sandwich our movies are before we bilk them of their money, we're farked.
 
2012-06-08 04:40:07 AM

Sheila_McSly: JonZoidberg: Reminds me of how e-book distributors cited or conducted a study where the average paper book survives 25 or so lendings so libraries should be forced to re-buy their ebooks after lending them out the same number of times. F-you, pay me.

Yes. This is a real thing that is happening.
I'd just like to say that this isn't true. A quality hardback can last for decades, even in a public library. And when they break, we usually don't replace them. If we do replace them, they're probably bestsellers or classics and there is no guarantee that we'd buy the replacement from the same publisher.
Bet on formats changing every decade or so, and just charge us whenever the new format comes out. We'll pay for it. But breaking a book on purpose is kind of evil. So is the whole idea that when a library buys an ebook, they're actually buying a license. I'm sorry, but when I buy a book, I'm buying a book, especially if it cost $26.00.
The other killer is that if the library ends a relationship with its third-party service provider (usually Overdrive), they lose access to the books they bought. And Overdrive has been known to raise their prices dramatically year to year. Why not? If you stop paying them, they steal all your books.
/nice library you have there...


Here's a citation on the ebook "expiration" bullshiat. Link
How many publishers have jumped in this bandwagon?
 
2012-06-08 04:45:19 AM

doglover: scottydoesntknow: What if this was Disney's plan the entire time? Deny Redbox access to John Carter, watch Redbox buy every copy of John Carter off the shelves, and profit.

I mean it utterly bombed in the theaters. At least this guarantees some DVD sales at full retail price.

All they had to do was add "Of Mars" to the title and it would have been a hit.


Or not have shiatty commercials. The only ones I saw were of this buff, half-naked dude standing in a desert with an army behind him. Quick cut to some fighting and bloodshed. Quick cut to "John Carter" on black.

It looked like a predictable, shiatty, run-of-the-mill brainless action flick. Which is why nobody went to go see it
 
2012-06-08 05:45:27 AM

Sheila_McSly: Libraries actually get a discount on book purchases. Some books have an option of a library binding that is more expensive and can improve longevity.

Where they're really sticking it to us is ebooks. You wouldn't believe the kind of stuff publishers are trying to pull right now. Ebooks that burn themselves after 26 checkouts are just the beginning.

/librarian


How you doing? :)
 
2012-06-08 06:55:33 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Man On A Mission: I just signed up for RedBox this past weekend after my local indie video store finally bit the dust.

How does one "sign up to Redbox"? Put in credit card, take home movie. No contracts involved that I can tell.


Redbox has a signup system for repeat customers. You can actually "reserve" movies to your local Redbox kiosk, receive email alerts when tagged movies are available, get rewards for repeat rentals, freebies etc. Not a member, but my boss is.

Of course, you can always "one off" it and just do as you say..."insert card, withdraw movie" anytime too. My boss swears by Redbox and it's the only premium movie viewing service she uses.

Hell, I'm retro...sometimes if I am in the mood for an old classic, I run down to the brick & mortar Blockbuster and get it for 99 cents. It feels so kitschy and fun browsing the stacks sometimes. How it remains in business is baffling, but cool. The employees are all really interesting as well...

Otherwise I just stream Amazon Prime...
 
zez
2012-06-08 07:29:34 AM

JonZoidberg: Reminds me of how e-book distributors cited or conducted a study where the average paper book survives 25 or so lendings so libraries should be forced to re-buy their ebooks after lending them out the same number of times. F-you, pay me.


WHAT???

My 4 year old has checked this book out over 25 times by himself! and it's still in great shape.

2.bp.blogspot.com

/great kids book
 
2012-06-08 07:59:07 AM

Sheila_McSly: JonZoidberg: Reminds me of how e-book distributors cited or conducted a study where the average paper book survives 25 or so lendings so libraries should be forced to re-buy their ebooks after lending them out the same number of times. F-you, pay me.

Yes. This is a real thing that is happening.

I'd just like to say that this isn't true. A quality hardback can last for decades, even in a public library. And when they break, we usually don't replace them. If we do replace them, they're probably bestsellers or classics and there is no guarantee that we'd buy the replacement from the same publisher.

Bet on formats changing every decade or so, and just charge us whenever the new format comes out. We'll pay for it. But breaking a book on purpose is kind of evil. So is the whole idea that when a library buys an ebook, they're actually buying a license. I'm sorry, but when I buy a book, I'm buying a book, especially if it cost $26.00.

The other killer is that if the library ends a relationship with its third-party service provider (usually Overdrive), they lose access to the books they bought. And Overdrive has been known to raise their prices dramatically year to year. Why not? If you stop paying them, they steal all your books.

/nice library you have there...


It's farking stupid anyway. Why would I want to add that layer of complexity to my consumption of books?

I either buy them outright in the iBooks store, or, if not available, steal them outright from somewhere online. Borrowing an ebook from a library, which is only allowed to "checkout" x copies at a time? How farking stupid is that?
 
2012-06-08 08:03:00 AM

AngryDragon: From the article:

"Disney is clearly worried that it won't sell as many DVDs in that first month if people could rent them."

Translation:

If people start to see beyond the advertising hype and realize how much of a shiat sandwich our movies are before we bilk them of their money, we're farked.


That goes for every entertainment company today: they're trying to sell a shiatty product and whining about copyright when they can't bilk people out of parting with money. So instead of making quality movies, they push through anything and expect us to pay out the noses.

The current model only has one real ending: driving people away from their wares en masse. People are cutting their cable because of the cost and are skimping on going to see first-run movies and not giving a shiat. Guess who this will fark over in the long run when nobody wants to buy their shiat anymore?

The corporations in this nation are being run by people who really have no idea how to function in a capitalistic society. It's remarkable to see all of these empty suits farking themselves over. You have to laugh, really.
 
2012-06-08 08:07:48 AM
There's no walled garden like the Disney walled garden.
 
2012-06-08 08:27:59 AM

JoeJitsu: Babwa Wawa: ZAZ: In the analog days consumer sales of movies on tape did not include the right to rent. Stores had to buy rental editions at ~$100 instead of ~$20 per copy. Are DVDs legally different?

I could be wrong about the legal stuff, but I heard it from multiple sources.

I heard from multiple sources that the rental places had higher quality VHS tapes designed for dozens of viewings, unlike the ones they sold to consumers.


Nope. VHS was VHS. You didn't get a better quality movie from any rental store than you could have legitimately purchased. The early tapes were high dollar cost for a couple of reasons. First, they were competing with (and in many cases replacing) laser discs which were a significantly higher dollar cost per movie, so tape was actually the cheaper option. The other competitor was the ceramic video disc which was a cost competitor to tape though it ultimately lost out because it was not a recordable medium. Second, VCRs were a high-dollar item (typically $400-$800 in early 1980s dollars), so it was presumed that people who bought the expensive players would pay the premium price for the tapes. With such a limited audience the economies of scale that later came into play also weren't there so the cost to produce each tape was higher. One other factor was that the movie was released in both Betamax and VHS early on, further fragmenting the market for the movies. Sony had a monopoly on Betamax with their patents and they charged a premium to release the movie on that tape format. The movie studios would release VHS at the same cost, making a larger margin on it since Matsushiata (Panasonic/JVC's parent company) licensed their patent at a lower rate causing the tapes to cost far less to make than Betamax tapes. Ultimately Sony's foolish decision to not license Betamax to other manufacturers doomed that superior format to the dustbin of time and VHS players proliferated, bringing down the cost of tapes by broadening the market an ...


My dad used to own a video store in the 80's and 90's and I think another reason tapes were so expensive in those days was just simply because they could be. Lots of people already had VCR's since they could be used for recording stuff off tv. So unlike DVD player's you didn't need cheap movies to drive people to adopt the format. The business model was that someone would rent something to watch it once and then take it back. I think when home video first started the idea of someone watching something over and over wasn't really considered. Once kids started watching things like Disney movies 100's of times, they realized there was a market there and started dropping the prices of the titles for sell-through. Once they started doing that for some movies, the rest of the studios kind of had to follow suit.

Plus I think manufacturing of tapes was a bit more expensive back in the day. If you ever find a video tape from the 80's it will be super heavy compared to the same movie on a more recent video tape.
 
2012-06-08 08:31:08 AM

Guntram Shatterhand: People are cutting their cable because of the cost and are skimping on going to see first-run movies and not giving a shiat.


People are cutting their cable because 80% of the programming is comprised of reality shows. I understand it's popular, but for those of us who don't enjoy it, only AMC, HBO and the broadcast networks are creating content we want to watch. And people like me are increasingly unwilling to pay $1200/year for something we don't want.

Movies are another story entirely.
 
2012-06-08 09:01:09 AM
Interesting, Redbox, considering that would be a direct violation of copyright laws pertaining to home rentals.
 
2012-06-08 09:03:41 AM

Chariset: I don't exactly see how Disney loses on this one.


The "thought" process behind stupid things like "no rentals for a month" policies is that it forces people with no self-control (or, more often in the case of Disney movies, no ability to tell their stupid crotchfruit "no") to go out and buy the movie at retail instead of renting it for a buck or two. You figure Redbox buys 1 copy and rents it 100 times, and 10 of those people would have bought the retail copy if it wasn't available to rent, that's a reduction of 90% in revenue for that group of consumers caused by that one Redbox copy.

Of course, all of this assumes the stupid "28 day" rule works as intended in the first place.

/ stop creating artificial scarcity in digital content you idiotic twats
 
2012-06-08 09:07:23 AM

Babwa Wawa: Guntram Shatterhand: People are cutting their cable because of the cost and are skimping on going to see first-run movies and not giving a shiat.

People are cutting their cable because 80% of the programming is comprised of reality shows. I understand it's popular, but for those of us who don't enjoy it, only AMC, HBO and the broadcast networks are creating content we want to watch. And people like me are increasingly unwilling to pay $1200/year for something we don't want.

Movies are another story entirely.


There are a lot of reasons to cut cable, but mine was primarily poor customer service. For economic reasons, we decided to scale back our package that consisted of a dvr, digital box, package of digital, hbo, showtime, and cinimax. What I really wanted was to go from $180 a month to the basic package, maybe with dvr. Called them up and the girl on the phone was very helpful, she said to bring the extra box back and my plan would be adjusted to like $50-$60 a month. I was happy with this. I disconnect the box and brought it back to the store. They say they have no record of my phone call and have no idea what plan she was offering me, the best they can do is like $75 a month for three months then I'm somewhere around $90. About a year before this we got phone service through the same company, which they quoted at like $30 a month. The first bill we had phone, was $60 over the previous month. This was with Insight if anyone is curious. At this point, we decided we'd take a shot at Hulu and ota stuff and see if we were happy with that. We had a xbox360 that could stream it and a tv hooked up to the computer through HDMI. Later on we added a Roku box for around $80. We were really happy with having everything on demand and eventually added Netflix, and Amazon Prime (which was for the free shipping but the movies/tv really justify the cost). Our total entertainment budget is around $30 a month now and it really is far better than cable ever was. The idea of either having to watch something when it is on, or recording it and worrying about remembering to do so and monitoring how much space you have left seems like a huge waste of time. HBO, Showtime, and Cinimax are about the only thing we don't have access too, until it is a season behind. I can't justify spending $100+ a month for those. I was really more frustrated over have no idea what I was getting was going to cost, and being unable to manage it than anything else. Even if they fixed that now I'd have no interest in going back.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report