Interesting persepctive on movie industry & downloads

[nightflier]

Now if WM offered both disks side-by-side, then we could get an idea of which one sold better. I asked a sales rep and B&N about this, and he said that the basic version of most movies sells better than the "special edition" version, but that's not exactly representative.

My point, however, is that if we're talking about downloads, it is almost mandatory that different choices exist. It's already that way on free sites like Hulu, so that's what online consumers are expecting. The price for a full-rez + fluff movie, is simply too high to compete. Here is where a good dose of competition is needed - I guess Hollywood doesn't like to compete with anyone.

[pixelthis]

And we're off like a prom dress........

And I heard you looked so pretty in it too...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Spoken like someone who both fears it and doesn't understand it. The internet is, as some commentators have stated, "the purest form of democracy there is." Yes larger corporations have a commanding position, but everyone has a place, everyone. It is not the wild west, and it is not without rules. It's just that the rules are made by the people who exist in it, and that is something the Hollywood execs just can't accept. Sad really.

Bull$hit NF, I understand it completely that is why I do not fear it. Just because somebody mentions that it is the purest form of democracy does not make it so. It is the wild west, where rules are broken, thieves abound, and where people get the idea that you can get something for nothing. The people that exist in this world do not make movies, do not understand the business, and do not want to pay for anything. What is sad is that you are so freakin blind to the other side, that you cannot see that the internet is not ready for widespread movie downloading. It is not making any money for anyone, and at THIS POINT not really worth a wholesale marketing push in the direction. The industry is trying to expand in the direction without chopping off the head of the money maker, which is the disc.

Yes I did. I was wrong about that, I've owned up to it. But it's not like HD-DVD's demise was obvious when you started shouting it from the rooftops. You were fanning the flames of battle well before there was a winner, hoping you could influence the outcome. Pretty inappropriate for someone who claimed to be fair to both sides.

It was over, YOU just didn't know it, and I was trying to explain it to you. This is why I get so pissed at you, because all you just want to hear your own chatter without learning a dang thing. Wooch has this same issue with you I see. The comment that I was hoping to influence the outcome just plain rediculous, and just shows your ignorance. The battle was over, you made your claim when the format you wanted to win had already lost the race.

Not yet, but I didn't put a time-limit on this one. It will happen, sooner than you will feel comfortable with, no doubt.

After your previous attempts at predicting the future, I am not worried one bit. It would not hurt my business at all even if it did.

I guess what you are so upset about here, is that I found an article on a major news-site that actually supports many of the things I predicted and you just can't bear that you may be wrong with your attacks on them. Kind of entertaining to watch this happen, really.

What you found is ONE person OPINION, and nothing more. This person works on the fringe of the business, and knows no more about the business side of the film industry than you do. The blind leading the blind is all you uncovered.

Wishful thinking, but more incorrect hyperbole.

It was rediculous for you to put that out there anyway - like it was really going to influence anything. I don't care about you or your premenstrual box, and you really should know this by now.

You didn't read what I wrote. I was talking about lower-quality, but legal, full-length content as the preview - not misleading bits. I don't expect it to be what people end up with in their homes, but it will curb piracy, which is what everyone wants. This is true simply because it will offer real competition to pirated content, without the risks and, in most cases, at the same quality-level. Did you even read what I wrote?

If you give away (read: give away) a free low quality copy, they are not going to purchase the high quality copy. Folks that watch movies on their computers are not interested in high quality video, or they would not be watching film on a monitor. Besides, in this moment, that is what DVD is for. Aside from that, you can already get some films online, but apparently nobody wants them. They are low quality, full length just as you requested. However these days the DVD is cheaper than the download, and you get better quality for it than you get from a download. Besides, once you put a low quality film on the interenet, that is it, you will never make any money from that release. It will be everywhere. Not no, but hell no to this stupid idea. I read what you wrote for the second time, and my opinion has not changed. It is not an good idea for the film industry, and please do not think you are the first person to come up with the idea.

Considering their failures, I think I've been plenty smart not doing so, wouldn't you say? Never even invested in them either - how's that for smarts. I bet you're loosing your shirt on that gamble too.

Yeah, I guess two failures would be enough huh? Based on what I have read from your post, you are not all that smart. So no, I wouldn't say. Secondly, I am not loosing a thing. As long as they make movies, I will be employed. Ever try watching a movie with no sound?

Coming from someone who fears the internet and computers, that's kind of a comical statement, don't you think?

So back to if I keep repeating a lie, it may become truth. Sorry, does not work. If I was afraid of both the internet and a computer, I would not be here debating against your worthless trash of assumption and misinformation. Cut the lying, it ain't workin.

Kind of like a religious zealot who dismisses everything he doesn't understand as stupid.

I call it just what it is. I bet you are sorry that you come up with the stupid ideas time after time...or maybe this is the best you can do with less than no background in the business.

I happen to know just a little bit about what it takes and costs to implement, and I'm fairly certain that the studios could manage it. But if that's not the case, then why is it so stupid? Enlighten us with your infinite wisdom.

It is stupid because once you put ANY free movie on the internet, it is toast as a sale. It is just that simple, and has already been proven. No need to do this stupid idea again.

Well we won't know until it's tried, now will we? Someone will, and it won't be a bankrupt model. That's another prediction for you, so run with it. By the way, we wouldn't be giving it away for free, we would be giving a lower-quality version away for free, as a preview. Have you read nothing that I so painstakingly described?

We already have enough examples of why this is stupid. For the brain challenged....... A person downloads a DVD to their hard drive. It is then uploaded to a bit-torrent, and distributed everywhere for free. You have now just lost thousands of customers, and millions of dollars. Now take that and change the DVD to a legal low quality download, and you have the same problem, unless it has DRM on it (something you hate). Think of all the folks that have burned copies of movies and distributed them for free. All that is lost customers who are not going to buy the legit copy. What you need to do is get out of Wonderland, where everyone is honest, does not steal, and does not propagate stolen material over the internet. Most of us do not live in that world.

Small-minded people always have this desperate propensity to put everything into little black & white categories and bite-sized chunks to get their little minds around them.

Sorry, but your small mind has yet to grasp something called a balance sheet. It is simple profit and loss, add or take away. When you have a billion dollar industry on the line, black and white is all you get. Grey is too unsure to risk billions of dollars on. This is where your small mind betrays you. No for profit business deals in the grey, it is simple black and white. Will I make a profit from this venture, or not.

The idea that one industry can learn from another is so anathema to their very existence that they will stop at nothing to destroy the thought. This is why they can't see the bigger picture. The RIAA and the MPAA have the same goals and the same draconian methods. Surely you can agree that there are more parallels than disparities? Just deal with the reality of that thought for a minute, while the rest of us go on.

Look simpleton, don't think all of your ideas are original. They are not. The music industry was drunk on the profits they made from the CD. They did not competitivly price their product as they saved money on manfacturing costs. As the CD got cheaper to make, they continued to charge the same price as the CD introduction. People balked at the price of the media, and began to distribute it for free. This is not the case with films. The price of DVD's and Blu rays fell as the cost of making them did. You can find DVD's for for less than ten dollars, and the average cost of a Blu ray sits between $20-30 bucks. You can now find Blu ray catalog prices at under $20. Out of all the things I hear over the internet about Blu-ray, cost is not one of them.

DRM is no deterrent. If it was, then there would be no piracy. It is despised because it irritates consumers of legitimate products.

Well, it is too bad that everyone has to pay for the illegal activity of a few. 19 people sent airplanes crashing into the WTC, and for that we have have security delays that effect everyone.

I don't think I've ever read that thieves are bothered much by DRM, but I've read countless ways that law-abiding consumers are frustrated by it.

Well this shows how much your really know. I know one particular flagrant pirate who develops software that allows an individual to download a Blu ray disc to their hard drive (which is illegal). Once he figures out the key that does this and attempts to sell his product, the studio changes the key and he is back to the drawing board. If this guy and others like him where not around, law abiding consumers would have nothing to complain about. Perhaps consumers should be getting on the folks that break the rules instead of asking the film studio to give up protective measures that allow them to make a profit.

Maybe you should review what you just said, because the backwards logic just doesn't work. Go ahead, but excuse us for proceeding, there's lots to cover, in your backwards illogical inconsistencies, LOL.

Since was are making recommendations, let me make one as well. Take your stupid, assinine, rediculous, and unoriginal ideas and stuff them where you crap. It might be a little crowded in there, but I am sure you can manage. LOL

If I search enough, I can find every single new song or movie, cracked. Obviously Hollywood is clueless. DRM is not working and it is being fazed out because it is more an irritant to law-abiding consumers than a deterrent to thieves.

I have already explain this to you. The idea is not to eleminate piracy, but to slow it down so the studio can at least make a profit during a timelime that sales are highest. That would be when it is first released. The studios want to get away from DVD's because its copy protection was compromised years ago...hence why you can find movies on the net. The movies you find on the net have been compressed to hell, and are really only viewable on computer monitors. They are not nearly the quality you get with DVD or Blu ray, and are certainly not viewable on folks' 40-50" LCD or plasma screens.

If you really believe DRM is being phased out, then you are indeed as stupid as I think you are.

Completely false. The only people complaining are law-abiding consumers (go ahead, do a search). While it's obvious you despise computer geeks so much, you should be thankful they exist - they expose more bugs to the industry than the industry could ever do on its own. You really need to read a bit more about the people who make up the Internet you so misunderstand.

What I despise are people who believe thay are allowed to steal other people things, get something for nothing, and folks like you that come up with some of the most stupid and unoriginal ideas. I know who makes up the internet. The honest ones I sure do appreciate. The pirates make me sick. For a person who absolutely loves to take the high ground, you sure are in the gutter right now supporting those online thieves.

As a democratic and fairer distribution medium that stands in contrast to the corporate-dominated top-down model, the internet is not so forgiving of indiscriminate bundling and price gouging that Hollywood execs so depend on for their profiteering.

This is your opinion, and of course the opinion of computer geeks. Or perhaps this is one in the same. Yeah, its is not forgiving at all. Not with people who are willing to steal and propogate somebody elses product. You and your computer geek friends seem to think you are entitled to everything for free. It does not work that way, and you guys need to come out of those basements, and live in the real world. Funny you would be demonizing the film industry, when right in your own backyard in the form of Microsoft you have the same bundling and price gouging going on. This is called corporate American, and whether you or I like it, that is the way it is.

What you profess as a "legit business model for the film industry" is simply not one that benefits the consumers because it denies them choice. Again, as I said before, if it was so fair, then why not allow people to buy movies w/o the fluff?

Once again, the consumer has downloads, DVD's and Blurays, so your choice argument is just a little weird. Now let's deal with the fluff. Right now on Itunes, Netflix, and Amazon you can purchase some movies that have a simple stereo track and the movie encoded for easy download. No extras or chapter stops, no lossless or uncompressed track, and unfortunately no 1080p. They are not selling. Nobody is making money on them, nada, zilch. So not only is your argument stupid, it is also not new. The downloading of films is not selling PERIOD. Music is selling, and television programming is being downloaded, BUT NOT FILMS, bare bones and all. Now how is this the studio fault? They don't set the pricing structure, and they don't decide how the movie is presented.

Let's put that to the test and see how much better those movies would sell. Hollywood doesn't even want to try it, because they will loose their reason for charging more. I'm guessing you wouldn't either?

It has already been tested. Try Itunes, try Amazon, try Netflix. Movies are all there for sale, and they are not selling. How many times do I have to drill that into your big fat brainless head?

My what a loaded statement. So computer geeks want everything for free? Maybe they're all thieves, too? Where do you get off?

Where I get off is none of your damn business....next.

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]It cost to make a movie, and the people who invest in films want to make as much as they can from their investment.

Then pray answer this question for us: why should a consumer pay the same amount for, oh I don't know, The Bridges of Madison County and T3, to name a couple of oldies? Did these cost the same to make?

It cost the same to author, compress, stamp it on disc, and distribute it. Besides, ALL business charge for their product what the market will bare. That IS free market.

Is that a free market? Oh, but wait, there's a solution: load them both up with lots of fluff, add another disk with more fluff, re-release them as new editions, and lo and behold: $19.99 for each film - isn't that clever! Not a good example?

If the market will bare it, that just the way it is. The funny thing is the new editions can sell just as well as the original release. If folks are willing to pay, the studios are willing to release it. What is funny here is your sorry a$$ is swimming against the tide on one issue. There are more folks that want the fluff on disc than those that don't. That is a fact that survey after survey has uncovered. Sony/Columbia/Tri star's super disc is a perfect example of that. Super disc did not do well because they did not carry any extra content, content the masses wanted on DVD's. You are attempting to spread your values over the entire world, and it does not work. People want the fluff, or it would not sell.

Then how about Seven Pounds and Hancock, to stick with one of your favorite actors for a minute? Why should consumers pay $15 bucks a ticket to see each of these movies? Certainly they did not cost the same to make. So what are consumers really paying for?

Yo brightness, the theaters set the charge for the tickets, not the studios. They set the price the market will bare. If this is how well you understand the film industry, no wonder you have been wrong on so many fronts. You do not even have a basic grasp of what roles the studio play, and what role the theaters and online distributers of video play. So much for maintain a perception of knowledge.....

Interesting you should be so enthusiastic about the free-market, when you are equally enthusiastic, some would say exceedingly zealous, about regulation, controls, and limits on the free market.

I know where the free market fits, and were it does not. The free market does not fit when one life and livelyhood is at stake. That is why I believe in universal healthcare. When it comes to buying movies(which does not effect life and health), then the free market reins, as this is not a necessity of life. Healthcare is. The fact that you do not understand the nuance between the two shows that you are not really as bright as you try and pass yourself off to be.

If it was a free-market model, then people would pay different prices for different movies. They would also pay less (not more) for re-releases, and box-sets, and not have to pay extra for fluff.

So much for your film industry business education. It does not make a difference whether a movie is new, or old, the cost of the disc, authoring, compressing, stamping, and distribution remains the same. With your stupid logic, I would lose money distributing a classic movie (which would discourage me from marketing it), break even with others (which I would not market), and make a profit off a few. NF, you don't know $hit about this process, so don't try and come off as an authority on the issue. Box sets use more materials, hence why they cost more. The funny thing is, while you are complaining, people are buying them. If there weren't, you would not see them on the market.

Likewise, they would not have to pay a full $0.99 for downloading a song that they already own on CD, LP, or Cassette. No this is very much a cost-controlled market, one not unlike the diamond industry.

If you already own it on CD, why would you download it? There are LP to hard drive recorders, so why download it if you already have the LP? Why would anyone want a copy of a cassette? Cost controls are necessary when you have a cost controlled manufacturing process. Diamonds are the same way.

Signs of trouble were there well before October 2008. We discussed some of them on this very site, if you recall.

We discussed a format war, not that the movie industry was in trouble. That format war was more a manufacturers issue, not a film studio. The film studios made product available for both, and then eventually for just one. The film studio could afford to make the choice of which format they wanted to support. Does not sound like anyone was in trouble, or they would have unified behind one format at the onset. Everyone could afford to pick sides, or they would not have done it. A manufacturing issue is not always a film studio issue. Folks who understand the industry (which you don't) can understand the difference.

It's a symbiotic relationship, and you know that as well as I do. Quit splitting hairs and making mole-hills out of mountains.

No, its not. The film industry does not need Blockbuster, they own the product. Blockbuster need the movies to stay in business. The film industry has other distribution outlets like Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and Amazon. To rent, they had the mom and pops stores before the big guys got into the market. Quit splitting your brain cells trying to figure out what you don't know.

One shared by the article I posted. Isn't it convenient how you choose to ignore that little detail?

So you two share the same opinion. One on the fringe of the business, and not involved in the business and marketing side, and the other just a poser who wants everyone to believe that he is knowledgeable on the issue. Both of you with $hit in your eyes on an issue that neither of you have any experience in. Two blind (and apparent ignorant) mice. Wow, you two are who I would go to if I wanted detailed and knowledgeable information on the industry (sarcasm off)

Boy talk about twisting words. I said they were clueless about the Internet.

You are equally clueless about how much they know.

Unless you're an independent or smaller outfit, right? So this system really only benefits the big guys.

Does it? Well, there are at least a hundred or more small European studios releasing both DVD's and Blu-rays. Genius Entertainment..small outfit. Weinstein Entertainment...smaller outfit. Let's look at Blu-ray concert studios like Eagle Entertainment...small outfit. Surround Records...small outfit. 2L...a dinky outfit. Whether you are a small outfit, or the majors, you set your own price levels so that it benefits your business.

More generalizations about computer geeks - and what overt hatred! Did they steal your lunch money?

I guess no more than the film industry poisoning your kids baby bottle. You don't know whether I hate geeks, or just stating an opinion of fact. I can have an opinion without hating something, maybe you can't though.

The only reason that the big studios can't make any money this way is because the over-priced bundled movies + fluff (read: old business-model) are of no interest to online consumers, so they don't sell.

Your opinion, easily dismissed because of complete ignorance. Once again idiot, the video distribution entities set the price, decides what get's downloaded, and how much content is accessible. This is not the decision of the studios. Downloads don't have fluff, or they would not be download friendly. If you are so smart on the business, then why don't you know this? The bottom line is, people are not showing any signs they want to watch movies on their computers, or they would. They watch television programming they missed, and buy music. That is all they are interested in. Movies are being offered bare bones (no lossles tracks, no extras) right now, and they are not buying them.

If they would just stop and learn a little from the how the music industry has changed - oh, but wait, that's not allowed in your world-view, right? Well that ought to be a big clue as to why the studios won't sell online and why your argument is so hollow. OK, we'll wait a few seconds for that sentence to sink in, for ya....

The music industry has the benefit of offering a single song off a CD. How far would the movie industry go just offering chapters off a movie? Not very far fool.

I'm sure I don't command the kind of salary that you do, but I've certainly managed to successfully minimize my exposure to this sliding economy and I've done OK. So I guess you could say, I "fell" on a soft pillow.

In this case you didn't need the pillow, cause you didn't fall that far.

No you do it because you are belligerent and will not tolerate a different point of view. It frustrates you and you become defensive. It's really quite enervating..

I listen to Wooch all of the time. He is smart, extremely knowledgeable, and very logical as well. What I don't listen to is a poser, a fake trying to pass himself off as knowledgeable, when he has the depth of education equal to a teaspoon of water. Maybe I should stop engaging in debates with stupid people, and I won't be frustrated. (note to one self)

...and now you feel that yelling is justified. Quite enervating, especially since you are so excited that you cannot even understand a simple explanation anymore.

A simple explanation from a simpleton. Nope, can't understand that. I was hoping that yelling, after calmly explaining it to you previously would help you understand. Now I am learning its not the volume, but he capacity for one to learn something new.

I'm saying quite simply that the studios should get online already, and sell directly. That this isn't the case now, is another indication of how they just don't have a clue. And apparently, neither do you.

If Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Netflix can't make any money selling movies online, then why do you think the studios should adopt a money losing proposition. More advice steeped out of ignorance...the world could do without this.

Again, trying desperately and in vain to categorize everything into little boxes you can wrap your head around. You want to think of Amazon et al is completely separate from the studios and this is not only false, but a sure-fire recipe for future failure.

What did you think the studios did before Amazon? Does the mom and pop corner store mean anything to you? They would still exist if it wasn't for Amazon. Aside from that, Amazon does not make movies, the studio does.

They already have very close ties to each other and influence each other. As much as you'd like to think of Netflix as doing their own thing (very typical of someone who needs everything to be black & white and who fears or loathes two categories mingling), but they would be nothing without the content.

Since Netflix rents movies, they are nothing without the content. The only influence that Netflix has on the studio is how hard they can work to get content. That is it. They do their own promotions, without the permission of the studios. The studios had outlets before Netflix and Amazon, have you forgotten? Netflix and Amazon destroyed those outlets, but the did fine before they came.

It's not just a contract-signing and then everybody goes on their merry way. It's a symbiotic relationship (I know, big word, already used above - you might want to look it up before we, heven forbid, use it again).

And what first hand experience do you have with this? None. I know how the process goes, I work in this industry. They sign the contract, they pay, we send the product. All promotions and other things, are handle by the entity the product is sold to. The studios do not actively work with the online sellers and renters for anything else. Sorry, you are wrong again.

Furthermore, that relationship needs to grow and expand so that both entities can benefit from them. Yes, that means more blurring of your precious compartmentalization of the world. Get used to it, the world is not black & white, it is almost entirely gray.

Laws are black and white, so the world is not all that grey. The relationship does not NEED to do anything in reality. What needs to be done is you computer geeks get off your collective a$$e$, and create a internet infrastructure that supports the mass downloading of movies. You are not there yet, hence why there is no rush to move the industry online.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The model already exists, it's called iTunes. It's the studios who are lagging behind. The online model is not going to accept their old bundling-gouging practices, so either they get on board or they will continue to flounder.

Wrong again. Itunes is not selling movies well. They are there, but they are not selling. That is not the studios issue, that is Apples. Apple decides what get downloaded, so stop blaming the studios for bundling. They don't do it online. So much for your industry knowledge.

Again, twisting the meaning of everything I said. The choice I'm talking about is about the individual product - let consumers choose what quality and how much fluff they want.

They already have that choice. If they want high quality movies, they choose Blu-ray. If they want a medium quality movie, they choose DVD. If they want low quality bare bones movies, they have PPV, downloading or streaming to choose from. There are even bare boned DVD's and Blu-rays out there as well. Just because you are blind to this, does not mean it does not exist. Open your eyes.

That is the way the music industry has progressed, and that is the way the movie industry must progress too, or they can just continue to struggle with an aging model that stagnates and festers.

Their progression will be different, and not like music. Music companies have the luxury of releasing a song at a time. The movie industry cannot release a movie a chapter at a time. There are plenty of outlets that have low quality downloads without extras. Itunes, Netflix, and Amazon are perfect examples of this. It ain't sellin NF, get that through your fat head.

Well, it's at their own peril. In case you haven't noticed, Hollywood is one industry that is not recovering with the rest of the economy. Ironically, it's computers and high-tech that's driving the new economy. Isn't that funny?

How do you know they are not recovering with the economy? The economy has not recovered yet. If computer and high tech are driving the economy, then why are we seeing massive layoffs in those industries as well? You are full of it, and it is affecting your empty head.

You're proving my case, wouldn't you say? TV is free (Hulu), that's why. And the advertisers are laughing all the way to the bank.

And so are the studios that collect a share that advertising money with the online distributors. Why do you think it is free dummy?

Because Hollywood just won't play ball. How much more does it have to hurt before they will finally pay attention? Well, from reading your posts, perhaps a whole lot more - enjoy the punishment - it's not like we didn't warn you.

Ohhhh I am so scared. Here is an individual who has never worked in the film industry at any level trying to get his short arms around it. You don't know what Hollywood is doing, you are just a fake trying to figure it out.

Yes. You'd think Hollywood would notice.

Yes, they notice that they are not making money off movies.

That's why there ought to be choice in what people download. If a consumer has a 32" CRT TV and 2.0 sound, then he should not have to wait 4 hours to download the 1080p DTS 6.1 version in three languages, nor should he have to pay for the premium.

Airhead, the movies on Itunes are low bit level, low resolution stereo sound downloads. If they have to wait for hours for a download, then the internet is the problem. There is no film out there offering Dts 6.1 or 1080p for downloading. It is 720p(in name only) and stereo sound with no extras. Where have you been, hiding under a rock?

Pure speculation. You don't know that. They certainly aren't going to pay full price for it, that we can all agree on. And not everyone has a 50" 1080p plasma, either. Some folks just want to download it to their iPod or PSP.

There is Itunes, Amazon, and Netflix for that. Its already here.

Well, we'll see if "the Internet" bows down to your wishes. I seriously doubt it. In a few years we'll see who blinked first, and I'm putting my money on Hollywood eating crow.

With the failure of all your other predictions, you must be a glutton for punishment. If the internet does not increase bandwidth, capacity, and stability, the consumer will not get their film from that source. Those that buy and collect films want the best product, not some dummied down product that satisfies some computer geek.

We are, but not because Hollywood is making us. Boy, you Hollywood insiders sure are full of yourselves.

No more than you computer geeks.

Look at it another way, sooner or later your employer is going to turn his greedy eyes on you too. He will say: you know, I need to cut costs, and this guy is making way too much. Maybe I can offer him a pay-cut, which he'll take for fear of being fired. Or maybe I'll raise his insurance premiums so that I have to pay a smaller share of them. Maybe I'll stop matching his 401k contributions. After all, I've got to stay afloat, now. Nothing else I've tried seems to be working. I just can't figure out why the consumers are no longer buying my overpriced bundled disks anymore. And why is our stock price in the dump when everyone else on Wall Street is riding high? What is happening to my precious business model? ...Wait a minute, is that a pink slip in MY inbox?

What a stupid a$$ statement. This can happen to anyone, even you idiot!!!

[Rich-n-Texas]

The above post is like 10 feet long!!! HOLY SMOKES!!!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Now if WM offered both disks side-by-side, then we could get an idea of which one sold better. I asked a sales rep and B&N about this, and he said that the basic version of most movies sells better than the "special edition" version, but that's not exactly representative.

My point, however, is that if we're talking about downloads, it is almost mandatory that different choices exist. It's already that way on free sites like Hulu, so that's what online consumers are expecting. The price for a full-rez + fluff movie, is simply too high to compete. Here is where a good dose of competition is needed - I guess Hollywood doesn't like to compete with anyone.

Barnes and Nobles is the worst place in the world to ask about sales of disc for either format. They are not even close to the top five sellers, so what they say is not representative of the entire market.

[GMichael]

The above post is like 10 feet long!!! HOLY SMOKES!!!

Holey RGA vs Florian flashback Batman!

[GMichael]

And my prom dress was blue.

[pixelthis]

And my prom dress was blue.

sorry, I will get it right next time.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]Bull$hit NF, I understand it completely that is why I do not fear it. Just because somebody mentions that it is the purest form of democracy does not make it so. It is the wild west, where rules are broken, thieves abound, and where people get the idea that you can get something for nothing. The people that exist in this world do not make movies, do not understand the business, and do not want to pay for anything. What is sad is that you are so freakin blind to the other side, that you cannot see that the internet is not ready for widespread movie downloading. It is not making any money for anyone, and at THIS POINT not really worth a wholesale marketing push in the direction. The industry is trying to expand in the direction without chopping off the head of the money maker, which is the disc.





It was over, YOU just didn't know it, and I was trying to explain it to you. This is why I get so pissed at you, because all you just want to hear your own chatter without learning a dang thing. Wooch has this same issue with you I see. The comment that I was hoping to influence the outcome just plain rediculous, and just shows your ignorance. The battle was over, you made your claim when the format you wanted to win had already lost the race.





After your previous attempts at predicting the future, I am not worried one bit. It would not hurt my business at all even if it did.



What you found is ONE person OPINION, and nothing more. This person works on the fringe of the business, and knows no more about the business side of the film industry than you do. The blind leading the blind is all you uncovered.





It was rediculous for you to put that out there anyway - like it was really going to influence anything. I don't care about you or your premenstrual box, and you really should know this by now.




If you give away (read: give away) a free low quality copy, they are not going to purchase the high quality copy. Folks that watch movies on their computers are not interested in high quality video, or they would not be watching film on a monitor. Besides, in this moment, that is what DVD is for. Aside from that, you can already get some films online, but apparently nobody wants them. They are low quality, full length just as you requested. However these days the DVD is cheaper than the download, and you get better quality for it than you get from a download. Besides, once you put a low quality film on the interenet, that is it, you will never make any money from that release. It will be everywhere. Not no, but hell no to this stupid idea. I read what you wrote for the second time, and my opinion has not changed. It is not an good idea for the film industry, and please do not think you are the first person to come up with the idea.





Yeah, I guess two failures would be enough huh? Based on what I have read from your post, you are not all that smart. So no, I wouldn't say. Secondly, I am not loosing a thing. As long as they make movies, I will be employed. Ever try watching a movie with no sound?





So back to if I keep repeating a lie, it may become truth. Sorry, does not work. If I was afraid of both the internet and a computer, I would not be here debating against your worthless trash of assumption and misinformation. Cut the lying, it ain't workin.



I call it just what it is. I bet you are sorry that you come up with the stupid ideas time after time...or maybe this is the best you can do with less than no background in the business.



It is stupid because once you put ANY free movie on the internet, it is toast as a sale. It is just that simple, and has already been proven. No need to do this stupid idea again.





We already have enough examples of why this is stupid. For the brain challenged....... A person downloads a DVD to their hard drive. It is then uploaded to a bit-torrent, and distributed everywhere for free. You have now just lost thousands of customers, and millions of dollars. Now take that and change the DVD to a legal low quality download, and you have the same problem, unless it has DRM on it (something you hate). Think of all the folks that have burned copies of movies and distributed them for free. All that is lost customers who are not going to buy the legit copy. What you need to do is get out of Wonderland, where everyone is honest, does not steal, and does not propagate stolen material over the internet. Most of us do not live in that world.





Sorry, but your small mind has yet to grasp something called a balance sheet. It is simple profit and loss, add or take away. When you have a billion dollar industry on the line, black and white is all you get. Grey is too unsure to risk billions of dollars on. This is where your small mind betrays you. No for profit business deals in the grey, it is simple black and white. Will I make a profit from this venture, or not.




Look simpleton, don't think all of your ideas are original. They are not. The music industry was drunk on the profits they made from the CD. They did not competitivly price their product as they saved money on manfacturing costs. As the CD got cheaper to make, they continued to charge the same price as the CD introduction. People balked at the price of the media, and began to distribute it for free. This is not the case with films. The price of DVD's and Blu rays fell as the cost of making them did. You can find DVD's for for less than ten dollars, and the average cost of a Blu ray sits between $20-30 bucks. You can now find Blu ray catalog prices at under $20. Out of all the things I hear over the internet about Blu-ray, cost is not one of them.





Well, it is too bad that everyone has to pay for the illegal activity of a few. 19 people sent airplanes crashing into the WTC, and for that we have have security delays that effect everyone.




Well this shows how much your really know. I know one particular flagrant pirate who develops software that allows an individual to download a Blu ray disc to their hard drive (which is illegal). Once he figures out the key that does this and attempts to sell his product, the studio changes the key and he is back to the drawing board. If this guy and others like him where not around, law abiding consumers would have nothing to complain about. Perhaps consumers should be getting on the folks that break the rules instead of asking the film studio to give up protective measures that allow them to make a profit.



Since was are making recommendations, let me make one as well. Take your stupid, assinine, rediculous, and unoriginal ideas and stuff them where you crap. It might be a little crowded in there, but I am sure you can manage. LOL



I have already explain this to you. The idea is not to eleminate piracy, but to slow it down so the studio can at least make a profit during a timelime that sales are highest. That would be when it is first released. The studios want to get away from DVD's because its copy protection was compromised years ago...hence why you can find movies on the net. The movies you find on the net have been compressed to hell, and are really only viewable on computer monitors. They are not nearly the quality you get with DVD or Blu ray, and are certainly not viewable on folks' 40-50" LCD or plasma screens.

If you really believe DRM is being phased out, then you are indeed as stupid as I think you are.





What I despise are people who believe thay are allowed to steal other people things, get something for nothing, and folks like you that come up with some of the most stupid and unoriginal ideas. I know who makes up the internet. The honest ones I sure do appreciate. The pirates make me sick. For a person who absolutely loves to take the high ground, you sure are in the gutter right now supporting those online thieves.





This is your opinion, and of course the opinion of computer geeks. Or perhaps this is one in the same. Yeah, its is not forgiving at all. Not with people who are willing to steal and propogate somebody elses product. You and your computer geek friends seem to think you are entitled to everything for free. It does not work that way, and you guys need to come out of those basements, and live in the real world. Funny you would be demonizing the film industry, when right in your own backyard in the form of Microsoft you have the same bundling and price gouging going on. This is called corporate American, and whether you or I like it, that is the way it is.



Once again, the consumer has downloads, DVD's and Blurays, so your choice argument is just a little weird. Now let's deal with the fluff. Right now on Itunes, Netflix, and Amazon you can purchase some movies that have a simple stereo track and the movie encoded for easy download. No extras or chapter stops, no lossless or uncompressed track, and unfortunately no 1080p. They are not selling. Nobody is making money on them, nada, zilch. So not only is your argument stupid, it is also not new. The downloading of films is not selling PERIOD. Music is selling, and television programming is being downloaded, BUT NOT FILMS, bare bones and all. Now how is this the studio fault? They don't set the pricing structure, and they don't decide how the movie is presented.




It has already been tested. Try Itunes, try Amazon, try Netflix. Movies are all there for sale, and they are not selling. How many times do I have to drill that into your big fat brainless head?





Where I get off is none of your damn business....next.

It cost to make a movie, and the people who invest in films want to make as much as they can from their investment.

It cost the same to author, compress, stamp it on disc, and distribute it. Besides, ALL business charge for their product what the market will bare. That IS free market.




If the market will bare it, that just the way it is. The funny thing is the new editions can sell just as well as the original release. If folks are willing to pay, the studios are willing to release it. What is funny here is your sorry a$$ is swimming against the tide on one issue. There are more folks that want the fluff on disc than those that don't. That is a fact that survey after survey has uncovered. Sony/Columbia/Tri star's super disc is a perfect example of that. Super disc did not do well because they did not carry any extra content, content the masses wanted on DVD's. You are attempting to spread your values over the entire world, and it does not work. People want the fluff, or it would not sell.



Yo brightness, the theaters set the charge for the tickets, not the studios. They set the price the market will bare. If this is how well you understand the film industry, no wonder you have been wrong on so many fronts. You do not even have a basic grasp of what roles the studio play, and what role the theaters and online distributers of video play. So much for maintain a perception of knowledge.....




I know where the free market fits, and were it does not. The free market does not fit when one life and livelyhood is at stake. That is why I believe in universal healthcare. When it comes to buying movies(which does not effect life and health), then the free market reins, as this is not a necessity of life. Healthcare is. The fact that you do not understand the nuance between the two shows that you are not really as bright as you try and pass yourself off to be.



So much for your film industry business education. It does not make a difference whether a movie is new, or old, the cost of the disc, authoring, compressing, stamping, and distribution remains the same. With your stupid logic, I would lose money distributing a classic movie (which would discourage me from marketing it), break even with others (which I would not market), and make a profit off a few. NF, you don't know $hit about this process, so don't try and come off as an authority on the issue. Box sets use more materials, hence why they cost more. The funny thing is, while you are complaining, people are buying them. If there weren't, you would not see them on the market.



If you already own it on CD, why would you download it? There are LP to hard drive recorders, so why download it if you already have the LP? Why would anyone want a copy of a cassette? Cost controls are necessary when you have a cost controlled manufacturing process. Diamonds are the same way.



We discussed a format war, not that the movie industry was in trouble. That format war was more a manufacturers issue, not a film studio. The film studios made product available for both, and then eventually for just one. The film studio could afford to make the choice of which format they wanted to support. Does not sound like anyone was in trouble, or they would have unified behind one format at the onset. Everyone could afford to pick sides, or they would not have done it. A manufacturing issue is not always a film studio issue. Folks who understand the industry (which you don't) can understand the difference.



No, its not. The film industry does not need Blockbuster, they own the product. Blockbuster need the movies to stay in business. The film industry has other distribution outlets like Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and Amazon. To rent, they had the mom and pops stores before the big guys got into the market. Quit splitting your brain cells trying to figure out what you don't know.



So you two share the same opinion. One on the fringe of the business, and not involved in the business and marketing side, and the other just a poser who wants everyone to believe that he is knowledgeable on the issue. Both of you with $hit in your eyes on an issue that neither of you have any experience in. Two blind (and apparent ignorant) mice. Wow, you two are who I would go to if I wanted detailed and knowledgeable information on the industry (sarcasm off)





You are equally clueless about how much they know.





Does it? Well, there are at least a hundred or more small European studios releasing both DVD's and Blu-rays. Genius Entertainment..small outfit. Weinstein Entertainment...smaller outfit. Let's look at Blu-ray concert studios like Eagle Entertainment...small outfit. Surround Records...small outfit. 2L...a dinky outfit. Whether you are a small outfit, or the majors, you set your own price levels so that it benefits your business.



I guess no more than the film industry poisoning your kids baby bottle. You don't know whether I hate geeks, or just stating an opinion of fact. I can have an opinion without hating something, maybe you can't though.



Your opinion, easily dismissed because of complete ignorance. Once again idiot, the video distribution entities set the price, decides what get's downloaded, and how much content is accessible. This is not the decision of the studios. Downloads don't have fluff, or they would not be download friendly. If you are so smart on the business, then why don't you know this? The bottom line is, people are not showing any signs they want to watch movies on their computers, or they would. They watch television programming they missed, and buy music. That is all they are interested in. Movies are being offered bare bones (no lossles tracks, no extras) right now, and they are not buying them.




The music industry has the benefit of offering a single song off a CD. How far would the movie industry go just offering chapters off a movie? Not very far fool.





In this case you didn't need the pillow, cause you didn't fall that far.





I listen to Wooch all of the time. He is smart, extremely knowledgeable, and very logical as well. What I don't listen to is a poser, a fake trying to pass himself off as knowledgeable, when he has the depth of education equal to a teaspoon of water. Maybe I should stop engaging in debates with stupid people, and I won't be frustrated. (note to one self)





A simple explanation from a simpleton. Nope, can't understand that. I was hoping that yelling, after calmly explaining it to you previously would help you understand. Now I am learning its not the volume, but he capacity for one to learn something new.



If Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Netflix can't make any money selling movies online, then why do you think the studios should adopt a money losing proposition. More advice steeped out of ignorance...the world could do without this.





What did you think the studios did before Amazon? Does the mom and pop corner store mean anything to you? They would still exist if it wasn't for Amazon. Aside from that, Amazon does not make movies, the studio does.




Since Netflix rents movies, they are nothing without the content. The only influence that Netflix has on the studio is how hard they can work to get content. That is it. They do their own promotions, without the permission of the studios. The studios had outlets before Netflix and Amazon, have you forgotten? Netflix and Amazon destroyed those outlets, but the did fine before they came.



And what first hand experience do you have with this? None. I know how the process goes, I work in this industry. They sign the contract, they pay, we send the product. All promotions and other things, are handle by the entity the product is sold to. The studios do not actively work with the online sellers and renters for anything else. Sorry, you are wrong again.



Laws are black and white, so the world is not all that grey. The relationship does not NEED to do anything in reality. What needs to be done is you computer geeks get off your collective a$$e$, and create a internet infrastructure that supports the mass downloading of movies. You are not there yet, hence why there is no rush to move the industry online.





Wrong again. Itunes is not selling movies well. They are there, but they are not selling. That is not the studios issue, that is Apples. Apple decides what get downloaded, so stop blaming the studios for bundling. They don't do it online. So much for your industry knowledge.





They already have that choice. If they want high quality movies, they choose Blu-ray. If they want a medium quality movie, they choose DVD. If they want low quality bare bones movies, they have PPV, downloading or streaming to choose from. There are even bare boned DVD's and Blu-rays out there as well. Just because you are blind to this, does not mean it does not exist. Open your eyes.



Their progression will be different, and not like music. Music companies have the luxury of releasing a song at a time. The movie industry cannot release a movie a chapter at a time. There are plenty of outlets that have low quality downloads without extras. Itunes, Netflix, and Amazon are perfect examples of this. It ain't sellin NF, get that through your fat head.





How do you know they are not recovering with the economy? The economy has not recovered yet. If computer and high tech are driving the economy, then why are we seeing massive layoffs in those industries as well? You are full of it, and it is affecting your empty head.



And so are the studios that collect a share that advertising money with the online distributors. Why do you think it is free dummy?




Ohhhh I am so scared. Here is an individual who has never worked in the film industry at any level trying to get his short arms around it. You don't know what Hollywood is doing, you are just a fake trying to figure it out.





Yes, they notice that they are not making money off movies.





Airhead, the movies on Itunes are low bit level, low resolution stereo sound downloads. If they have to wait for hours for a download, then the internet is the problem. There is no film out there offering Dts 6.1 or 1080p for downloading. It is 720p(in name only) and stereo sound with no extras. Where have you been, hiding under a rock?





There is Itunes, Amazon, and Netflix for that. Its already here.




With the failure of all your other predictions, you must be a glutton for punishment. If the internet does not increase bandwidth, capacity, and stability, the consumer will not get their film from that source. Those that buy and collect films want the best product, not some dummied down product that satisfies some computer geek.



No more than you computer geeks.



What a stupid a$$ statement. This can happen to anyone, even you idiot!!!

Well, there goes the whole carbon budget for the USA in one fell swoop,
just shot to heck.
Hitch up the wagons.
Sad thing is there is plenty more where that came from.

[Mr Peabody]

10 feet long and it wasn't even from Texas, Rich

[pixelthis]

10 feet long and it wasn't even from Texas, Rich

Texans tend to concern themselves more with substance(thats real TEXANS,
NOT transplants from "JERSEY")

[nightflier]

For one, I noticed that when I eliminated every insult, tantrum, and all cursing, your post was half as long. You may want to consider that. Second, you repeat the same nonsense over & over again - kind of like a stuck record - and we can eliminate that too. Finally, you spend an awful amount of space on trying to put everything in neat little black & white categories (yes, I know small minds need to do this), but reality just isn't like that. Square pegs into round holes, if you will. So if we eliminate all that fluff, we can probably widdle your comments down to something that could even be downloaded fast enough into your little brain, LOL. Now I can respond in a more reasonable amount of space...

I understand (the internet) completely that is why I do not fear it..... It is the wild west, where rules are broken, thieves abound, and where people get the idea that you can get something for nothing....

Fear and loathing. You don't understand the internet at all and I'm sure everyone who reads your posts will agree that you just don't get it - it's obvious from the way you speak of it. It is not the wild west, it has rules, lots of them. Certainly big corporations would not be doing business over it, if it was as wild as you claim.

You made your claim when the format you wanted to win had already lost the race.

I wanted HD-DVD to win? Where did you get that nonsense? I never said such a thing - you're making up lies. I was merely pointing out that HD-DVD had a chance. You, on the other hand were fanboy #1 for BluRay, well before there was a clear winner. You professed on many occasions to be impartial, but your obvious favoritism showed through every word.

It would not hurt my business at all even if it did.

If the funds needed for movie production come down, yes, it will hurt you big time. This is why you hate downloading so much, because it will lower prices for the consumers. Well I've got news for you, salaries across every industry are coming down in this economy, and there will come a time when your employer will find you to be too expensive, too.

What you found is ONE person OPINION, and nothing more. This person works on the fringe of the business, and knows no more about the business side of the film industry than you do. The blind leading the blind is all you uncovered.

Well that one person sure shook up your little world, didn't he?

I don't care about you or your premenstrual box, and you really should know this by now.

See it's comments like that that piss the other readers off and weaken your argument. Don't you get that, yet?

OK, now we're getting to something we can actually discuss.

If you give away (read: give away) a free low quality copy, they are not going to purchase the high quality copy.

You don't know this at all. You're just guessing. If iTunes distributed 32 or 64kbs MP3 files for free, I'm pretty sure it would still sell plenty of higher res files. If a studio were to allow free downloads of 320i, low-res-stereo movies, people at home would never be satisfied with this and would then buy the higher quality version. The big advantage is that this will kill off most of the pirating, much of it being low quality anyhow.

Folks that watch movies on their computers are not interested in high quality video, or they would not be watching film on a monitor.

More guesses. You don't know this at all. Many of the computer-literate people I know actually only want high-quality for themselves. You are making wildly reaching generalizations about people who use a computer, which by the way, is everyone who's reading this discussion. So in essence you've spent quite a bit of time insulting me, them, and also yourself. Funny how that works, huh?

Besides, in this moment, that is what DVD is for.

Wrong again. We're talking about downloads. DVDs are physical media, and as much as your elitist mind would like to think, DVD is not what "low quality" viewing is for. Are you going to insult everyone?

Aside from that, you can already get some films online, but apparently nobody wants them. They are low quality, full length just as you requested.

They are too expensive for a low quality version. If they were that price for the high-quality version, then they would sell. Every online consumer knows that a download represents a digital version of the physical disk. That is why they won't pay prices that are higher than the physical disk. For someone who claims to know the market so well, that ought to be a pretty simple equation, no? Maybe you really don't know that much....

However these days the DVD is cheaper than the download, and you get better quality for it than you get from a download.

Gee I wonder why the downloads aren't selling. Hmmmm, could it be that they're too expensive? Ding! ding! ding! ding! ding!

Besides, once you put a low quality film on the interenet, that is it, you will never make any money from that release.

You don't know this. It's just a guess, and a bad one at that.

and please do not think you are the first person to come up with the idea.

Never said I was. More nonsense from you.

As long as they make movies, I will be employed. Ever try watching a movie with no sound?

Not if they can get someone in China to do it for 1/10th what you charge. No matter how you look at it, prices are coming down and sooner or later, your salary will too, or they'll find someone else to do it for less. You're not that invulnerable.

If I was afraid of both the internet and a computer, I would not be here debating against...

Typing on an online forum is a far cry from understanding how the internet and it's economic structure functions. You are afraid of the internet, admit it.

I call it just what it is.

Insults? wild generalizations? cursing? petty attacks? sexual innuendos? OK, you go on believing that this helps your argument....

It is stupid because once you put ANY free movie on the internet, it is toast as a sale. It is just that simple, and has already been proven. No need to do this stupid idea again.

It has been proven? Really, where? Let's hear about it.

A person downloads a DVD to their hard drive. It is then uploaded to a bit-torrent, and distributed everywhere for free. You have now just lost thousands of customers, and millions of dollars.

First you assume this is a computer hard drive. It could just as well be a component in an A/V system. Second, it assumes that every person who downloads a movie is going to put it on BitTorrent. You're basically assuming that everyone is a criminal. I have a number of movies on my hard drive, and none of them have been uploaded elsewhere. They are for my own enjoyment, and I'm going to guess lots of people here have the same. Third you are assuming the ripped movie is of decent quality. It may be just good enough for a computer screen, but people who watch movies at home on their TVs won't have any interest in that. Finally, you're assuming that it will be widely distributed. With copy protection, applicable laws, and the fact that it will likely only have a single language track, it will not be all that interesting to "millions." You're making so many generalizations and assumptions about a process you really know very little about. Or are you also ripping, cracking, and sharing movies illegally, now?

Now take that and change the DVD to a legal low quality download, and you have the same problem

As I've dais several times already, you don't know that at all. The low quality will be much more of a deterrent that you assume. You really don't understand this at all, do you?

unless it has DRM on it (something you hate)

More conjecture. Where did I say I hated this? I said consumers hate it, that's what I'm reading online. I could care less about DRM, I buy my movies on disk, and that's my preference.

Think of all the folks that have burned copies of movies and distributed them for free.

I don't know too many. I know that there are some out there, but I don't really know them.

What you need to do is get out of Wonderland, where everyone is honest, does not steal, and does not propagate stolen material over the internet. Most of us do not live in that world.

Everyone is also not a criminal. That is what you're professing and it's a complete lie. Most people are actually law-abiding citizens, not criminals. You're kind of like FoxNews, you focus on the most extreme wellfare-queen to make your case. Pretty poor judgment, if you ask me, especially for a liberal.

Sorry, but your small mind has yet to grasp something called a balance sheet. It is simple profit and loss, add or take away. When you have a billion dollar industry on the line, black and white is all you get. Grey is too unsure to risk billions of dollars on. ...No for profit business deals in the grey, it is simple black and white.

See this is how you betray the fact that you know nothing about business. Opportunity, progress, and change is found in the gray, not the black & white, rigid, structured controlled, and DRM-slapped fringe that you believe in. You may make a decent living off your salary, but I bet your investment decisions stink. Businesses succeed and grow by making investments, not by relying on yesterday's stale and stagnant models. You really could learn something from what I'm telling you here, if only you weren't so stuck in your old rigid mindset.

Look simpleton, don't think all of your ideas are original.

I never claimed they were. I made some predictions, and some of them didn't pan out, but others did. I'm fine with that, but apparently, you aren't. Go cry about it elsewhere, will you?

They are not. The music industry was drunk on the profits they made from the CD...People balked at the price of the media, and began to distribute it for free.

It wasn't just that it was free, but that it was unbundled. People could buy or download for free just the songs that they liked. They were no longer stuck with having to suffer through a whole bad album just to listen to one good hit.

Well, it is too bad that everyone has to pay for the illegal activity of a few. 19 people sent airplanes crashing into the WTC, and for that we have have security delays that effect everyone.

Now we're talking about 9-11? Aren't we just a scosh off topic, here? Or are you trying to sneak in a comparisons between downloaders and terrorists? That kind of cheap shot backfired for the MPAA, big time, remember? So you start loosing a discussion, and this is what you resort to. Nice.

Well this shows how much your really know. I know one particular flagrant pirate who develops software that allows an individual to download a Blu ray disc to their hard drive (which is illegal).

Why is that illegal? If I own the disk, should I not be allowed to watch it from any medium in my possession? Why exactly is that illegal?

Once he figures out the key that does this and attempts to sell his product, the studio changes the key and he is back to the drawing board. If this guy and others like him where not around, law abiding consumers would have nothing to complain about.

You know, a few years ago, the industry didn't want to allow DVDs to be played on Linux. They really didn't have a good reason, except that they didn't understand the OS or the people that used it at all (boy this is starting to sound awfully familiar, no...). Anyhow, the millions of Linux users out there were not allowed to watch DVDs on their computers while Mac & PC users were. So some brave soul cracked the DVD copy-protection so that he could view the DVD on his Linux box. He wasn't trying to distribute the movies, he was just trying to view them the same way that PC & Mac users were. Terrorism, cried the MPAA! and they threw everything they could at him - fortunately he lived in a country where the courts are a bit less owned by the corporations, and he got off.

But the moral of this story is that if the movie industry had just simply taken the time to understand the Linux user community a little better, they could have avoided the cracking of the DVD code altogether. But they didn't. They sat up in their lofty towers, on top of their millions in profits, and so here we are. No doubt you would call him a terrorist too, but he only wanted to watch a movie on his computer - he was not a criminal and certainly not a terrorist.

Now the movie industry (and you as well, I'm afraid) are taking the same haughty attitude towards downloads. But that veil of invincibility is thinner than you think. Let's hope that the people that are left after all the layoffs, are a little brighter than you, because if not, then it's not a rosy future for ya'll.

Perhaps consumers should be getting on the folks that break the rules instead of asking the film studio to give up protective measures that allow them to make a profit.

You use the word protective pretty liberally. Are you sure you don't intent to say "protectionist," or maybe that expression is lost on you. The movie studios insist on bundling and that is the reason why they can't stimulate the online market. It's as simple as that. They refuse to compete because they believe they don't have to - that song & dance has been tried by many other industries and it has failed every time.

The idea is not to eleminate piracy, but to slow it down

Ironically, distributing low-quality but full-length versions will also do that.

so the studio can at least make a profit during a timelime that sales are highest. That would be when it is first released.

That time-frame is shrinking fast. With downloads it will go away entirely. Are the studios ready to find a new profit-model? I don't believe so. No wonder they are fighting progress at every turn.

The movies you find on the net have been compressed to hell, and are really only viewable on computer monitors. They are not nearly the quality you get with DVD or Blu ray, and are certainly not viewable on folks' 40-50" LCD or plasma screens.

Hence the reason they are so unappealing in the TV room, just like legal low-quality versions would be. Can't you see that you're making my point?

What I despise are people who believe thay are allowed to steal other people things, get something for nothing,

But you are also making the assumption that everyone does this. It's a very small portion of the public, really, especially here in the US.

...and folks like you that come up with some of the most stupid and unoriginal ideas.

Cute how you mention me in the same sentence. Do you consider me a terrorist too because I've ripped a few movies to my hard drive? Apparently I must have broken the law there, too, although I used commercially available tools to do this. It's quite entertaining to see you get so worked up, but I hate to break it to you, you're way off base, here.

I know who makes up the internet. The honest ones I sure do appreciate.

I make up the internet and I don't steal video. Do you appreciate me? I certainly didn't get that feeling, 'til now. All the people reading this also make up the internet, some of them less law-abidingly than me. Do you appreciate them? Are you sure Wooch is a saint? Sticks? Pixie? 'Careful when you start casting stones....

The pirates make me sick. For a person who absolutely loves to take the high ground, you sure are in the gutter right now supporting those online thieves.

Well, with your comments, insults, and cursing, you're the one who's up to his nakles in that gutter, wouldn't you say? Now I never said I supported online thieves. Tsk, tsk, you're making stuff up again. Now if you consider every computer-user a thief, than I suppose you got me, but otherwise, I expect you to take that back. Not very polite, now.

This is your opinion, and of course the opinion of computer geeks... Not with people who are willing to steal and propogate somebody elses product. You and your computer geek friends seem to think you are entitled to everything for free. It does not work that way, and you guys need to come out of those basements, and live in the real world.

Boy look at all those stereotypes, generalizations, and insults. I think we've lost you point in there somewhere....

Funny you would be demonizing the film industry, when right in your own backyard in the form of Microsoft you have the same bundling and price gouging going on. This is called corporate American, and whether you or I like it, that is the way it is.

Microsoft is in my backyard? Didn't even see them park. Anyhow, I've been as vocal about MS as any other corporation. What's puzzling is that you defend the most base and opportunistic money-grubbing of those corporations that in other threads you are so critical of. You say you're a liberal, but I really don't see it. I'd say you're a closet Republican, the Fox-News corporitist type, not the free market fair-competition type.

Once again, the consumer has downloads, DVD's and Blurays, so your choice argument is just a little weird.

We're talking about downloads vs. disk, and you keep wanting to use each interchangeably as it suits your argument. Pretty pathetic.

Right now on Itunes, Netflix, and Amazon you can purchase some movies that have a simple stereo track and the movie encoded for easy download. ....They are not selling. Nobody is making money on them, nada, zilch.

Boy you sure are dense. Let me use your own example again: they cost more than DVDs at lower quality. Still puzzled why they aren't selling? I can't make it any plainer than that. The elementary classroom is down the hall.

Music is selling, and television programming is being downloaded, BUT NOT FILMS, bare bones and all. Now how is this the studio fault? They don't set the pricing structure, and they don't decide how the movie is presented.

If they sell it at too high a price to Amazon, then Amazon can't make a profit on it, now can they? Together they are selling it above what the market will bear. Why? Because they are making so much on disk sales (your own words). Is it any wonder they would like nothing more than for the download business to fail? So to explain this to you without wasting more time: they do influence Amazon by pricing it out of range to them. The end product is then too expensive and it does not sell. That is the incestuously diseased relationship you keep claiming is not there.

It has already been tested. Try Itunes, try Amazon, try Netflix. Movies are all there for sale, and they are not selling.

You sure are an absolute tool. Are you even reading what I'm writing? It is both because of poor quality and because of high price that they are not selling, and the studios (as well as you apparently) are perfectly happy with that. The problem is that this leaves the industry with only one, aging, medium for sales: disk, and prices are dropping. This is a no win situation and you're smack dab in the middle of it.

It cost the same to author, compress, stamp it on disc, and distribute it. Besides, ALL business charge for their product what the market will bare. That IS free market.

My that was a wide brush, but I'll give you a little rope. You're saying that packaging is such a large factor that the cost of making the movie is irrelevant. This is nonsense, especially from Hollywood's perspective. What you're saying is that Seven Pounds & Hancock cost the same? Hogwash. Either that, or you're acknowledging that Seven Pounds costs too much to the consumer, and thereby acknowledging that movies should not cost the same and making my point again. Well which is it?

If folks are willing to pay, the studios are willing to release it.

No, there is not enough choice, so people are forced to buy product they don't want and the studios are profitting from the bundling.

There are more folks that want the fluff on disc than those that don't. That is a fact that survey after survey has uncovered....People want the fluff, or it would not sell.

This would not be the case online because people there are used to having more choice. Only in a disk-dominated no-choice world does that model hold true. Once someone starts selling the current online fare at a competitive price, that fact will become obvious.

the theaters set the charge for the tickets, not the studios. They set the price the market will bare. If this is how well you understand the film industry, no wonder you have been wrong on so many fronts.

I'm pretty correct so far. You on the other hand.... If theaters set the price according to what the market will bare, then why is the price about the same at every theater? Surely, in poor neighborhoods or at lower-quality theaters, the price should be lower, no? But it's not. It is set and Hollywood influences that decision through the price that they charge the theaters.

I know where the free market fits, and were it does not. The free market does not fit when one life and livelyhood is at stake.

So you're going to tell the rest of the world where the free market fits? Cute. Psssst, there are a lot of differing opinions about that, and this is not the place to discuss them!

That is why I believe in universal healthcare.

Healthcare? Are you sure you aren't in the wrong discussion?

With your stupid logic, I would lose money distributing a classic movie (which would discourage me from marketing it)

Well it's already been made, right, so why would you need to redo the soundtrack? Or is this one of those re-edition scams to get us to pay for it again?

Box sets use more materials, hence why they cost more. The funny thing is, while you are complaining, people are buying them. If there weren't, you would not see them on the market.

I never said people weren't buying them. I said they were being sold a bill of poor goods. What you seem to want to ignore is that if consumers already own a version of it, then why is it illegal for them to download for free the same content in a digital format? What's the difference?

Well, the studios can't resell the same bundled re-hash, that's the difference. In the end the consumer isn't paying for content anymore, but just packaging. The problem with this physical-bundling model is that it carries no value online. If someone paid for an AC3 version of a song, then he should be able to download the MP3 version for free, no? After all, he can convert it legally. So now the bundling model no longer works and those studios that have relied exclusively on that model no longer have a profit-motive. That's why they are trying so hard to squash the online model.

If you already own it on CD, why would you download it?

Because it's easier. Why should I be restricted from doing so?

There are LP to hard drive recorders, so why download it if you already have the LP?

Obviously, you've never done this - it's a pita.

Cost controls are necessary when you have a cost controlled manufacturing process. Diamonds are the same way.

So you have no problem with the diamond industry model? Figures.

The film industry does not need Blockbuster, they own the product. Blockbuster need the movies to stay in business.

They set the price of the movies they sell to BB & NetFlix, no? Then I'd say, that's a pretty big factor tying their business models together.

The film industry has other distribution outlets like Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and Amazon.

I thought we were talking about rentals. Totally different model.

To rent, they had the mom and pops stores before the big guys got into the market.

Where are the mom & pops now? We're talking about the present, not last decade. Did you just wake up?

So you two share the same opinion. One on the fringe of the business, and not involved in the business and marketing side, and the other just a poser who wants everyone to believe that he is knowledgeable on the issue. Both of you with $hit in your eyes on an issue that neither of you have any experience in. Two blind (and apparent ignorant) mice.

Well it sure got the industry's panties in a bunch. I guess he wasn't so fringe after all.

Does it? Well, there are at least a hundred or more small European studios releasing both DVD's and Blu-rays. Genius Entertainment.. Whether you are a small outfit, or the majors, you set your own price levels so that it benefits your business.

Well than why are prices the same across the industry? What is the great price equalizer? Packaging? Well, sorry to break it to you, but that means nothing online. Bits is bits.

I guess no more than the film industry poisoning your kids baby bottle.

What does that have to do with anything? What are you talking about?

You don't know whether I hate geeks, or just stating an opinion of fact. I can have an opinion without hating something, maybe you can't though.

No, I think we all can agree that yo hate computer geeks. Ironic for such a geeky guy.

Once again idiot, the video distribution entities set the price, decides what get's downloaded, and how much content is accessible. This is not the decision of the studios.

If you are so smart on the business, then why don't you know this? The bottom line is, people are not showing any signs they want to watch movies on their computers, or they would.

Correction: people aren't showing signs they will pay inflated prices for it. Let's keep this straight, OK?

They watch television programming they missed, and buy music. That is all they are interested in.

Because it's free. Actually, because of the expenses, involved in having internet access and the equipment, the lesson is that people are willing to pay a small, regular, subscription fee for the service. Hollywood, needs to realize that this is the way people will pay for the movies. What Hollywood charges not is highway robbery, and people know it. And Hollywood is just fine with that.

Movies are being offered bare bones (no lossles tracks, no extras) right now, and they are not buying them.

Again for the umpteenth time, because it's not a good deal to the consumer. This is what Hollywood (and you) want.

The music industry has the benefit of offering a single song off a CD. How far would the movie industry go just offering chapters off a movie? Not very far fool.

Well isn't that how TV series are sold? Seems to be working just fine, if you ask me. But we're digressing. The point is that the current Amazon fare should be much less in price. What they charge now, should be what a full/high-quality download should cost. I know that's going to be a hard pill to swallow, but it will happen, sooner or later.

I listen to Wooch all of the time. He is smart, extremely knowledgeable, and very logical as well.

I agree. You're none of those.

What I don't listen to is a poser, a fake trying to pass himself off as knowledgeable, when he has the depth of education equal to a teaspoon of water.

Well you're describing yourself more than anyone else. You must really hate yourself right about now.

Maybe I should stop engaging in debates with stupid people, and I won't be frustrated. (note to one self)

Stop talking to yourself? Whatever floats your boat.

A simple explanation from a simpleton. Nope, can't understand that. I was hoping that yelling, after calmly explaining it to you previously would help you understand. Now I am learning its not the volume, but he capacity for one to learn something new.

Still talking to yourself, I see.

If Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Netflix can't make any money selling movies online, then why do you think the studios should adopt a money losing proposition.

We already covered this ad infinitum: the price that the studios charge and the lack of choice they offer is hobbling the medium. And they do it on purpose because they don't understand it.

What did you think the studios did before Amazon? Does the mom and pop corner store mean anything to you? They would still exist if it wasn't for Amazon.

Hello? Let's get back to the present.

Since Netflix rents movies, they are nothing without the content. The only influence that Netflix has on the studio is how hard they can work to get content. That is it.

That is a whole lot more influence than you're wanting everyone to consider. Aside from Netflix and Blockbuster, the rental market is pretty much non-existent.

The studios had outlets before Netflix and Amazon, have you forgotten? Netflix and Amazon destroyed those outlets, but the did fine before they came.

Back to that? It's 2009, not 2002. Catch up already, will you?

And what first hand experience do you have with this? None. I know how the process goes, I work in this industry. They sign the contract, they pay, we send the product. All promotions and other things, are handle by the entity the product is sold to. The studios do not actively work with the online sellers and renters for anything else.

Hey, you're just a petty little sound editor and you get paid a lot so you can subscribe to uber-expensive publications, but that's it. You certainly don't understand enough about distribution, and especially not online. It scares you, that we can see, but understand how it can be profitable? Not by a long shot.

Laws are black and white, so the world is not all that grey.

Look we're already wondering how much you actually do know about anything, but don't go spouting off about law, now. Laws are never interpreted as black & white. This what they teach in law school, in case you're wondering. Laws are interpreted by each case that is brought before the court, and that is definitely not B&W. Only small-minded closet neo-cons control-freaks need to see the world that way and they spend a lot of time trying to convince the world that is how it should be. Kind of sad how far from the middle these extremists really are.

What needs to be done is you computer geeks get off your collective a$$e$, and create a internet infrastructure that supports the mass downloading of movies.

Is this that appreciation for computer-users you were bragging about? The intranet is just fine the way it is thank you, and we like it plenty. If you want to join in, stop being stuck in the past.

You are not there yet, hence why there is no rush to move the industry online.

The reason is that the studios are killing the medium with all the zeal and malice they can muster. It has nothing to do with the internet or the computer geeks who are there.

Wrong again. Itunes is not selling movies well. They are there, but they are not selling. That is not the studios issue, that is Apples. Apple decides what get downloaded, so stop blaming the studios for bundling. They don't do it online. So much for your industry knowledge.

No it's you that is wrong. More FUD. See above.

They already have that choice. If they want high quality movies, they choose Blu-ray. If they want a medium quality movie, they choose DVD. If they want low quality bare bones movies, they have PPV, downloading or streaming to choose from.

Boy you sure are dense. You mixing everything up. There are no choices online, that is the problem.

Their progression will be different, and not like music. Music companies have the luxury of releasing a song at a time. The movie industry cannot release a movie a chapter at a time. There are plenty of outlets that have low quality downloads without extras. Itunes, Netflix, and Amazon are perfect examples of this. It ain't sellin NF, get that through your fat head.

Already explained. See how you keep repeating yourself to waste everyone's time?

How do you know they are not recovering with the economy? The economy has not recovered yet. If computer and high tech are driving the economy, then why are we seeing massive layoffs in those industries as well? You are full of it, and it is affecting your empty head.

Well no wonder you don't see any recovery, because you're still at the bottom of it. Computer geeks have been cashing in on a pretty fantastic bull market. Maybe this is an indication of how poor your judgment on this topic really is? In any case, it's not helping your argument.

Ohhhh I am so scared. Here is an individual who has never worked in the film industry at any level trying to get his short arms around it. You don't know what Hollywood is doing, you are just a fake trying to figure it out.

Well I know they're not selling online. And that is to their own peril.

Yes, they notice that they are not making money off movies.

You'd think they'd get the clue. I mean I know you can't wrap your brain around it, but I keep hoping they are not all as dull-witted as you.

Airhead, the movies on Itunes are low bit level, low resolution stereo sound downloads. If they have to wait for hours for a download, then the internet is the problem.

Hours? Clearly you haven't downloaded any. Or are you still using a 56K modem to get online?

There is no film out there offering Dts 6.1 or 1080p for downloading.

And that is why nobody's...

It is 720p(in name only) and stereo sound with no extras.

...buying. How many times have I had to explain this? Boy you sure are slow.

There is Itunes, Amazon, and Netflix for that. Its already here.

The first two sell. The latter rents. Totally different models.

If the internet does not increase bandwidth, capacity, and stability

It's getting better every day. Kind of hard to notice on that 56K modem.

Those that buy and collect films want the best product, not some dummied down product that satisfies some computer geek.

That physical product is going away. You may want to brace yourself for the shock.

What a stupid a$$ statement. This can happen to anyone, even you idiot!!!

My job is fairly safe. You on the other hand... Maybe you cost too much.

___________________________

I tried to keep it short, but there is so much nonsense to wade through, that it's not an easy task. Well at least I edited out some of the insults and most of my paragraphs are short. I tried, people, I really did.

[Mr Peabody]

Glad you were able to shorten that NF, hate to see it if you weren't.

[poppachubby]

Flier, Flier, Flier......oh the irony....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Okay, rather than just responding to all of his small stupid petty points, let us look at the major points he continues to regurgitate lies about. To be clear, NF makes all these claims, assumptions, and predictions, yet he has never worked at any capacity at any studio, let alone a major one. His last predictions on downloading did not come to pass, his predictions on the format war did not come to pass, and his predictions that things like slingboxes and Apple TV being a part of hometheaters did not come to pass. He has no education in the film industry, no experience in the cost and budgeting of production, marketing, and distributing video, whether it is online or by traditional methods to brick and motar, and online disc sellers. He has no idea what roles the studios have in relation to theaters, and online distributers. He has no idea of the negotiating process, or what it costs to store downloads. Yet he feels he is qualified in every way to make assumptions, predictions, and lay blame as to why the studio are having a tough time right now. So, here is the truth to counter his lies and uneducated misinformation..

A) The studios are afraid and do not understand the internet.

If this was true, then why did the studios start Hulu? Hulu was started by NBC/Universal, and Fox, but Disney and Sony have bought into hulu along with a couple of smaller studios in Hollywood. Now, if the studios were so afraid, and did not understand the internet, why are did they create the third largest download service in this country?

http://searchengineland.com/google-s...s-rising-18227
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305877,00.html

If the studios were so afraid of the internet, then why did Disney and Universal get multiple Academy awards for technical achievement for the all digital studios designed to produce content solely for the internet? These two studios are so far ahead in producing digital content for the internet, they are more highly awarded than Microsoft or any other internet based company. Doesn't sound like they are afraid to me. Maybe it is your lack of knowledge of what the film studio are currently doing that shapes your warped and out of touch perspective.

B) Downloads are bundled, too expensive, and it is all the fault of the studios.

First, no there are no bundles with downloads. You get the movie, and a basic 5.1 or stereo soundtrack. Is it too expensive? Perhaps it is, but that is not the fault of the studios, that is the territory (and fault) of the online distributor ONLY. He contends in the absence of never being in a negotation session, never seeing a signed contract by the two parties, and not knowing exactly how much it costs to store the content, the high cost is strictly the studios fault. By what special gift in light of these facts can he come to this conclustion? Can't the online distributors reject the higher price the studios ask? Yes they can, and they often do. It's called negotiation, where everyone is trying to get the best deal for themselves. Do the studios set the price of downloads? No, that is set by the online distributors themselves. Now that that has been lie has been refuted, how much does anyone want to bet he will repeat this lie over and over again in his next post. Anti-trust laws prevent the studios from collectively setting prices, as that would be anti-competitive and monopolistic.

C)Downloading a free, legal, full length movie will detrack pirates, and spur interest.

Completely false. A consumer does not need a full download to spur their interest, that is what a film trailer and previews do. Since low quality downloads already exist on the internet thanks to P2P bit torrents, and folks are downloading them big time, a low quality download will just be another oportunity to spread illegal downloads all over the internet. DRM exist (whether we like it or not) because P2P sharing has become so popular and prolific on the internet. The best surveys done on P2P traffic have shown that almost all of that traffic is in the form of illegal porn, movies, and music. The ISP's don't like it, and neither do the cable companies, because it hogs their bandwidth, and slows everything down. We know that most of this downloading is illegal because while P2P traffic has significantly picked up from 2003 to 2009, revenues for these products have been dropping within the same period.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2...et-traffic.ars
http://www.ipoque.com/resources/inte...net-study-2007

These reports are butressed by a experiment done and sponsored by the the film industry itself. This entailed creating a large file the size of a typical full length movie, but using a video codec and watermark that is proprietary to a particular studio, but not used in public. That means the file would not open when downloaded to the hard drive, and will look corrupted. The file was uploaded with the title of a major release movie, a BIG release. In less than 24hrs that file was downloaded over two million times. Over days, more than 7 million times. This was repeated over and over for over two years, and the data was compiled and presented to each studio head. Another example involved an Issue with Amazon movie downloads being stripped of their DRM, and propogated on the internet. They knew it came from an Amazon download based on its unique digital watermark.
While the internet is relatively safe, all kinds of digital crimes are on the rise. Like identity theft, phishing and the like. Even encypted data has been found broken
NF attitude regarding somebody elses intellectual property is typical of computer guys. A guy cannot play his DVD on a linux based system, so the "poor soul" breaks the law so he can. This guy is not a poor soul, he is a common thief, and nothing more. Apparently by NF poor choice of words, he supports such activity. So much for the high ground.

D) It is legal for me to rip what I buy to my hard drive.

Both true and false. If you purchase a CD, and want to rip it to your hard drive, perfectly legal. If you purchased a DVD and want to rip it to your hard drive, totally illegal. Why is this? CD carry no copyright protection measures, and fair use is in full play in this case. DVD's are encrypted with CSS, and based on the DMA this is a completely illegal activity because you have to defeat the copy protection when you rip it. The studio do not go after the makers of ripping software because they know CSS was cracked in 1999, and there is no point in going after those after the point. While the courts have ruled that consumers are allowed to make personal back up copies of their purchase, they can only do so on unencrypted media, of which neither Blu-ray or DVD fall under.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping

E) Downloads and movie tickets are too expensive, and its all the studios fault.

Wrong again. Apparently NF is not aware of the Sherman Anti-trust act which forced film studios to give up ownership (and therefore influence) of exibition theaters and distributors. By 1952, not a single studio owned a theater. If you do not own the establishment, then you cannot control its pricing structure, and that goes for downloads as well. The studios lease a film to a theater for a percentage of the gate. In the first week that percentage is pretty high. With digital theaters it is a lot less, as they are only renting a digital file. After the first week, the studio percentage goes down big time. Just like with home video, their profit window is in the first week, and drops from there. The theater chains and studios negotiate the pricing structure of these film leases independently (anything else would violate anti-trust laws), each trying find a deal advantageous to their interest. The studios have consistently advocated the theaters go digital as this reduces the cost for everyone as there is no film to purchase and distribute. IMAX costs more because they can demand it, and the digital files they get are a little more expensive to produce.

F) The film industry should do the same as the music industry.

A typical album takes up the space of a CD. That would be about 700mb for a typical commercial Redbook compliant CD. A complete movie with a stereo soundtrack downloaded from the online distributor is between 1.2 and 1.7gigs. The typical song on a CD is between 2 and 4 minutes. When sold as a per song value, a digital music file is tiny compared to a movie file. A large server can easily hold 6,000 or so individual tracks which could make up thousands of albums. That same server could only hold about 600-700 movies, which means it takes far more servers to store 6000 movies than it takes to hold 6000 individual music tracks. This means an online distributor's overhead for storing films is far higher than individual tracks or music, therefore increasing cost for film storage. This justifies why a single track can be offered for .99 cents, but a movie purchase is significantly higher. Since you cannot sell a movie chapter by chapter, movies will always have a significant price disadvantage in comparison. The file size difference, the amount of storage, energy costs, the cost of maintaining servers and air conditioners, compression costs for both video and audio make it impossible for the business model of film downloads to be similar to online music's business model. The scale is much too large, and far more complex. Sure, you can compress the video even more, but that makes your end product less flexible in use. It might look good on a Ipod or computer screen, but terrible on most televisions. Music is far more flexible in usage than video products just by their nature. I can take my Ipod to the gym, running or walking, because only my ears are necessary. Movies require both the eyes and ears which is not safe to use while running, walking, or using gym equipment. The nature of the two is so different, that identical business models is just impossible.

G) Bandwidth, stability and the ISP's.

Let's face it, it takes far less bandwidth to deliver music versus video and music. If we were to magically make the costs differences of the two disappear tomorrow, and everyone went to downloading everything, the internet would come to a complete standstill. As I have argued, all of the downloading services have to pass through some kind of IP to deliver their product. These IP's are dominated by telecom and cable companies that offer their own services. The online distributors main competition is really with the telecoms and cable companies, as they are offering the same convience, basically the same resolution both in audio and video, but one owns the pipeline, and the other does not. More fractures. The advantage is weighed heavily in favor of those who control the pipeline. Even with only a fraction of the population actively downloading movies and video content, the telecoms and cable companies are crying the blues at the bandwidth they use. As more folks download, it will be more stress on their infrastructure. Already the cable and telecom's are investing in Sandvine deep packet inspection system, instituting caps on bandwidth or throttling down download speeds. The Net Neutrality act may kill the down throttle of speed, it will not cover download caps or prevent tiered pricing. If this takes off, and it looks like it will, the online video distributors are going to be in real trouble, and will be at a severe competitive disadvantage unless they can build their own pipelines for delivery. Since this is an ultra expensive proposition, it is just not going to happen, and the film industry knows this. Now, we are only talking about low bit 720p video, and low bit 5.1 stereo soundtracks delivered at the most common DSL speed of 1.5mbps, the same as a single full bit lossy Dts soundtrack. It is widely acknowledged that even VUDU's 1080p downloads cannot compete with Blu-ray disc because the necessary bits to reproduce the color, accurate greyscale and other video specs just aren't there. Availability and affordability of broadband is another issue that hasn't been discussed. Our broadband is not stable enough, not widely available enough, and still remains quite costly. With so many folks losing their houses in the recession, the cable and telecom's have really taken a big hit as consumers have cut their budgets, with cable being the worst off. While Metro areas are well served by broadband, the rural areas still lack access. Even in metropolitan areas, broadband costs a bundle, and is totally underutilized by consumers.

NF suggests the window for disc media is short, but nobody else in the analysis business agree's with this. Almost everyone agree's it will be at LEAST 15 years into the future minimum, while others insist that because of this recession it will now be even further in the future.

H) Downloading culture versus disc buyers.

I do not think anyone with any common sense will argue that downloading our entertainment content is the wave of the future. The question is, when is that future? PPV and VOD is ten years old in my area. The combination of downloading, PPV, VOD and online distribution of entertainment content just surpassed the billion dollar in revenue mark earlier this year, after all the years in the market. Bluray hit one billion dollars in software and hardware sales in its first year, and DVD is off the charts in comparison to the other two. While the downloading of music is really increasing, the downloading of movies for purchase is no better than two years ago. Renting and download rents are increasing, but downloading rentals is just a pittance compared disc rentals. As consumers embraced portable digital devices more readily for music, it still has not caught on for movie purchases. Even removing the computer out of the picture has not really helped download sales of movies. NF says they are too expensive and that is because of bundling. This is untrue as there is no bundling of movies, it is just the movie only. The cost of these downloads is no more than a typical DVD price(both are about $14), and based on recent comparisons the quality is about the same. So if you can get a downloaded movie for the same cost as a DVD, and with the same resolution, why aren't they selling? Two things; no extra content(that includes a high quality soundtrack), and what people's past habits. The main folks with the disposal incomes for entertainment are folks 35 years old and older. They are used to physically owning what they purchase. A "bit" is something they cannot see, and at this point cannot justify the purchase of. This is slowly changing as the younger folks get older, but it is CURRENTLY not there. The studios just like the Networks are in the same transition as the populace is. There is not a single network or studio out there that does not have a internet presence of some sort. All of the studios are offering some sort of product for the internet, whether it is owning a downloading service, or offering content to the online distributors. As the population shifts, their focus will shift as well. WE ARE NOT THERE YET!

I) The laws of the land:

What NF fails to take into consideration with his pitiful anaylsis and unoriginal recommendations is that there is not single law in every country to cover intellectual property, and its distribution over the net. The internet is a world wide medium, and laws that cover the distribution of IP is not consistent in every country. There are no borders on the internet, but there are for the laws of individual countries. In the US, it is illegal to download and distribute an encrypted movie to your hard drive, or to burn it on to a blank DVD. It is the same in the European Union. In Russia, it is not. In the Cayman Islands it is not. In South American it is not. In Mexico, it is not. In China, it definitely is not. In all of Asia with the exception of Japan and South Korea it is not. So if you do as NF mentions, and put a low quality full length promotional copy up for download, even with an invisible digital watermark and instruction to not download or distribute, in countries that don't share our laws, they will just do it because it is not against the laws there. Access to the internet does not stop at any individual countries borders, so it is impossible to put content on the net that goes only where the laws that cover IP are the same. Since most of these countries are not affected by what happens in Hollywood, there is no desire to change their laws to protect the IP Hollywood produces. In Russia and China piracy accounts for more revenue than legal products. Neither of these two countries actively pursue pirates, and pressure from the United States on both of these countries has been futile.

I could go on and on with this, but I think I have made my point. NF simplistic, uneducated observation and assumption are so foolish and absent minded it boggles the mind. These issues are so much more complex than his little brain can wrap around. His observation are naive, his ideas not well thought out not to mention not very original. And this little treasure of a comment is priceless:

Hey, you're just a petty little sound editor and you get paid a lot so you can subscribe to uber-expensive publications, but that's it. You certainly don't understand enough about distribution, and especially not online. It scares you, that we can see, but understand how it can be profitable? Not by a long shot.

Now either this idiot is stupid as hell, or he just cannot read. This is from post #6

I thought since I have worked in the film industry (and audio overall) my entire life, risen through the ranks, and now in upper management while still mixing and engineering, I have a pretty good perspective of the industry I work in

Now, nowhere in this response is a reference to sound editing, and sound editors do not have access to the publications I get. This is just a small example of his overly emotional and gut inspired notions that are not supported by any education or first hand knowledge or experience. NF has proven just how easy it is to be a fake, and has proven little more than that.

[nightflier]

A) The studios are afraid and do not understand the internet.

If this was true, then why did the studios start Hulu? Hulu was started by NBC/Universal, and Fox, but Disney and Sony have bought into hulu along with a couple of smaller studios in Hollywood. Now, if the studios were so afraid, and did not understand the internet, why are did they create the third largest download service in this country?

Hulu is primarily a streaming medium, and primarily for television content. Your own words, by the way. Hulu's model is the right one, but it currently does not focus on the areas we are discussing. Hulu is fine with the studios because it doesn't pose a threat to their disk sales.

These two studios (Disney & Sony) are so far ahead in producing digital content for the internet, they are more highly awarded than Microsoft or any other internet based company. Doesn't sound like they are afraid to me. Maybe it is your lack of knowledge of what the film studio are currently doing that shapes your warped and out of touch perspective.

Microsoft is an internet-based company? Huh? They've been trying, but they certainly aren't there, by a long shot. That just goes to show how little you do understand the computer industry - you compare Microsoft to Disney & Sony. You think you know something about Microsoft, and you really know so little. It's fear, loathing, and utter confusion about the computer industry that shines through your posts.

B) Downloads are bundled, too expensive, and it is all the fault of the studios.

First, no there are no bundles with downloads. You get the movie, and a basic 5.1 or stereo soundtrack. Is it too expensive? Perhaps it is, but that is not the fault of the studios, that is the territory (and fault) of the online distributor ONLY.

It the studios set the initial price, then they are partially to blame. No need to go into long explanations about the complex details of every other middle-man that also tacks on their fee, it's the initial product price that starts the ball rolling.

Is it too expensive? Most definitely, yes. By your own words: it costs as much as a DVD, so why should the download (which does not include the physical media or packaging) cost the same? It's a ridiculous proposition that only someone who doesn't have a clue about computer culture could put out there. For their part, the Studios are simply killing the medium because they cannot accept that it should cost less.

The fact is, a physical disk can be replayed as many times as it lasts, it can also be played on many different players throughout the house, it can be lent to another household (for private in-home viewing), it can be played on other devices / screens, and it can be converted to the digital medium, all legal and relatively simple to do, which is the point. The digital download, on the other hand can't do those things, not legally. So why should it cost the same? So yes, it is too expensive.

Can't the online distributors reject the higher price the studios ask? Yes they can, and they often do. It's called negotiation, where everyone is trying to get the best deal for themselves.

Utter nonsense. Movies have a fixed price regardless of their production cost. If this was really negotiable, then movie theaters (and then the distributors) could negotiate the price of the movie based on it's true value and how well the movie is likely to do. This is important for them because it affects their bottom line. But the fact that consumers pay the same price for Seven Pounds as well as Hankock, can only indicate that the price is fixed. The latter should cost more at the box office and on disk, so why is that not the case?

Do the studios set the price of downloads? No, that is set by the online distributors themselves. Now that that has been lie has been refuted, how much does anyone want to bet he will repeat this lie over and over again in his next post.

If they set the the initial price, then they also control the end price the consumer is going to pay for it. Yes, there are additional costs for distribution, but that still does not explain why production cost is not reflected in the final product.

It's cute how you're so knowledgeable about "the industry" yet you completely blew off my question on this point. So I'll ask it again: are the distribution costs so high that they make the production cost differences irrelevant? If not, then why do the studios price them the same when they hand them over to the distributors?

But let's also remember that the distributors must have a very close symbiotic relationship with the studios. Your claim that they don't influence each other is certainly hard to believe. For example, the studios must influence the people making the packaging, no? Or would you deny that, too?

Anti-trust laws prevent the studios from collectively setting prices, as that would be anti-competitive and monopolistic.

Yet, all movies cost the same. Isn't that peachy?

C)Downloading a free, legal, full length movie will detrack pirates, and spur interest.

Completely false. A consumer does not need a full download to spur their interest, that is what a film trailer and previews do.

You haven't explained why this is false. I don't agree with your point on this, and you haven't said anything that refutes my claim that it will detract pirates. As for the trailer, it's one medium, but shouldn't be the only one. There is room for low quality full-length downloads that will not eat into the studio's profits. Let's remember that the bread & butter of the movie industry is home viewing, so if these don't look good enough for that, then they should still generate plenty of high-quality sales. But the bigger bonus is that the illegal downloading would be severely hampered by this.

But if you're so unconvinced, why not have full-length movies offered online with a big watermark over the screen and offered in stereo only. It is distracting, but it allows the consumer to see the whole movie and then decide if they want to buy it. It could still be a quick download, by reducing the video quality as well. And that is precisely the point: these low-quality / watermarked versions will not be available on disk, only online. It will allow a full preview on smaller screens, but this will be far less appealing on HT setups. The problem we're trying to address is piracy online, and this would address it very well, in my opinion.

Since low quality downloads already exist on the internet thanks to P2P bit torrents,

Yes, but these are illegal and a hassle. There a lot of people, including myself, who don't want to download illegal movies and take those risks.

and folks are downloading them big time

Not as "big time" as you're trying to make it seem. You sound like another FoxNews fear monger: "be afraid, be very afraid."

a low quality download will just be another oportunity to spread illegal downloads all over the internet.

If it's offered as a legal low-quality download from the studios, then it's no longer illegal, right? You're not making any sense now.

The best surveys done on P2P traffic have shown that almost all of that traffic is in the form of illegal porn, movies, and music.

Well let's leave the porn issue out of this for a minute. It's just an incendiary sub-genre, and the reason it's so prevalent on torrent sites is also because of the privacy concerns that the downloaders have. It muddies the waters of your argument and isn't adding to this discussion in any meaningful way.

We know that most of this downloading is illegal because while P2P traffic has significantly picked up from 2003 to 2009, revenues for these products have been dropping within the same period.

There is still no conclusive evidence that illegal music downloads have been a major cause of music sales slumping. I'm going to guess the same is true for movies. I'm going to guess that the falling dollar, trade deficit issues, and the economic downturn of the past two years are also a major factor. You're reaching.

These reports are butressed by a experiment done and sponsored by the the film industry itself. This entailed creating a large file the size of a typical full length movie, but using a video codec and watermark that is proprietary to a particular studio, but not used in public. That means the file would not open when downloaded to the hard drive, and will look corrupted. The file was uploaded with the title of a major release movie, a BIG release. In less than 24hrs that file was downloaded over two million times. Over days, more than 7 million times. This was repeated over and over for over two years, and the data was compiled and presented to each studio head.

So what's the point? It shows that there is tremendous demand for online movie downloads, even when the file is large. If instead of doing this they would have released the actual movie at 1/4 what the consumer ordinarily pays, then they could also have had 2 million additional sales in 24 hours. Imagine that!

While the internet is relatively safe, all kinds of digital crimes are on the rise. Like identity theft, phishing and the like.

More fear mongering. If you leverage that against the growth of sales over the internet, it's actually quite small.

NF attitude regarding somebody elses intellectual property is typical of computer guys. A guy cannot play his DVD on a linux based system, so the "poor soul" breaks the law so he can. This guy is not a poor soul, he is a common thief, and nothing more.

He didn't steal anything. He cracked the code so that he could play the disk on his computer. That doesn't make him a thief. Your prejudices and fear are really shining through. That the studios and the MPAA were throwing the whole book at at him is also an indication of their own prejudice and fear.

As for intellectual property, I don't think I'm alone is thinking that maybe the laws in the US are a little out of whack with the rest of the world. IP enforcement has become so draconian and repressive that it actually stifles innovation today, the exact opposite effect for which it was created. That you don't think this is so, shows again your bitter myopia about where this is headed: stagnation and decline.

Apparently by NF poor choice of words, he supports such activity. So much for the high ground.

I support someone's right to own and view digital content in any way he seems fit. I do not support breaking the law, unless that law violates his freedom. Slavery was the law once too and thank god there were abolitionists.

D) It is legal for me to rip what I buy to my hard drive.

Both true and false. If you purchase a CD, and want to rip it to your hard drive, perfectly legal. If you purchased a DVD and want to rip it to your hard drive, totally illegal. Why is this? CD carry no copyright protection measures, and fair use is in full play in this case.

Why does fair use not extend to movies? There really is no reason why it shouldn't.

DVD's are encrypted with CSS, and based on the DMA this is a completely illegal activity because you have to defeat the copy protection when you rip it.

It's the DMCA, not the DMA, by the way. And this ill-advised DMCA is about as far from fair to the consumer as any set of regulations ever written, except maybe the USA Patriot Act. We can only hope that it gets repealed. It does more to harm innovation, progress and growth in this industry than you'd like to admit.

The studio do not go after the makers of ripping software because they know CSS was cracked in 1999, and there is no point in going after those after the point.

No, you're wrong about that too. The MPAA is not pursuing this because they know they won't win and everytime they go to court, they risk the integrity of their precious DMCA.

While the courts have ruled that consumers are allowed to make personal back up copies of their purchase, they can only do so on unencrypted media, of which neither Blu-ray or DVD fall under.

Yes, it was consumer advocates who got that passed. Funny how you should be so nonchalant about this major victory for fairness. You neglected to mention how much the MPAA and their teams of money-grubbing lawyers fought that. I bet you were rooting for them too.

E) Downloads and movie tickets are too expensive, and its all the studios fault.

Wrong again. Apparently NF is not aware of the Sherman Anti-trust act which forced film studios to give up ownership (and therefore influence) of exibition theaters and distributors. By 1952, not a single studio owned a theater. If you do not own the establishment, then you cannot control its pricing structure, and that goes for downloads as well.

Oh please spare us the pathetic history lesson. If the studios set the price of the movies that are then distributed to the theaters, then they certainly influence the final price. Fact is, if it really was a free market, then high-production-cost movies would cost more, and they don't. Anyhow, istribution costs at this point should be about the same for either type of movie, no? So we don't even need to bring that into this equation. So the only variable here is the production cost and there is no reason inexpensively-made movies should cost as much as Batman or Watchmen.

The studios lease a film to a theater for a percentage of the gate. In the first week that percentage is pretty high. With digital theaters it is a lot less, as they are only renting a digital file....The studios have consistently advocated the theaters go digital as this reduces the cost for everyone as there is no film to purchase and distribute.

Wait a minute, here! It's a lot less because it's a digital file? Something stinks here, doesn't it? Why are the studios the only ones who can claim that discount? Why shouldn't downloaded movies (aka digital files) for consumers cost less, too? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? Care to explain that one for us?

The theater chains and studios negotiate the pricing structure of these film leases independently (anything else would violate anti-trust laws), each trying find a deal advantageous to their interest.

So why do movies all cost the same at the box office? Something doesn't add up. Are you saying that the movie theaters charge too much for the inexpensively-developed movies then, i.e. the ones they got a better deal on from the studios? Yes? No? Well which is it? Either way, the consumer is still getting ripped off.

F) The film industry should do the same as the music industry.

A typical album takes up the space of a CD. That would be about 700mb for a typical commercial Redbook compliant CD. A complete movie with a stereo soundtrack downloaded from the online distributor is between 1.2 and 1.7gigs.

Ahem, so the movie is twice as big? That's not so bad, now is it? By the way, hi-rez digital music downloads are a whole lot larger. You're comparing Fuji apples to Sweet Delicious - yes they taste different, but they're still apples.

The typical song on a CD is between 2 and 4 minutes. When sold as a per song value, a digital music file is tiny compared to a movie file. A large server can easily hold 6,000 or so individual tracks which could make up thousands of albums. That same server could only hold about 600-700 movies, which means it takes far more servers to store 6000 movies than it takes to hold 6000 individual music tracks.

Wait a minute, let's not get ahead of the math here. You just said that a CD is 1/2 the size of the movie, so that server stores half as many movies. This isn't a huge difference. It's cute how you switch between CDs and individual tracks as the arguments suits you, but you're just using this to mislead now, aren't you?

This means an online distributor's overhead for storing films is far higher than individual tracks or music, therefore increasing cost for film storage. This justifies why a single track can be offered for .99 cents, but a movie purchase is significantly higher.

"Far Higher"? It's twice as much as it is for CD's and the cost of storage is going down every year. Let's keep that straight.

Since you cannot sell a movie chapter by chapter, movies will always have a significant price disadvantage in comparison.

Why not? Beethoven's symphonies are sold in individual movements, aren't they? TV shows are sold by season, aren't they? If consumers could buy Batman in four pieces at $1.99 each, it would speed up the downloads, allow the viewer to start watching the first one while the others are arriving, and would bring down overall cost for everyone. I think $8 is a fair price for that movie, don't you? After all, I'm only downloading a limited use digital version of it (almost like a rental), and there's no need to pay for packaging.

While we're at it, why don't you allow me to choose what audio quality I want? I only have 5.1 speakers, so I really don't need all the 7.1 or DST-MA fluff. Speaking of fluff, if you think people are so interested in extras, why don't the studios just offer that as an extra $1.99 download for those that really want it. My guess very few people will buy it, but that's just a guess on my part. Who knows? We certainly don't know that now.

The file size difference, the amount of storage, energy costs, the cost of maintaining servers and air conditioners, compression costs for both video and audio make it impossible for the business model of film downloads to be similar to online music's business model. The scale is much too large, and far more complex.

Oh, pluuuueeeeeze. It's not that daunting, really, and let's remember, it's only twice as much as for a CD. And the CD business model is going swimmingly, by the way.

Sure, you can compress the video even more, but that makes your end product less flexible in use.

Not so fast there, doc. It's not that complex at all, kind of like compressing and decompressing a zip file. What you're trying to brush over so quickly is actually one very intriguing solution and one that could very well be a major factor. It's pretty much how BD live is downloaded and that's a huge success, right (your own words)?

It might look good on a Ipod or computer screen, but terrible on most televisions. Music is far more flexible in usage than video products just by their nature. I can take my Ipod to the gym, running or walking, because only my ears are necessary. Movies require both the eyes and ears which is not safe to use while running, walking, or using gym equipment. The nature of the two is so different, that identical business models is just impossible.

Boy, you really are trying to paint this in a negative light, and failing miserably in your efforts. People sit down and use their iPods too, you know. Geez, your disdain for downloaded content is so obvious it oozes from every sentence. And while a lot of people do use their music as background ambience while they perform other tasks, the fact is that many people also don't want to, because it is distracting.

What the movie execs (and you, apparently) are completely oblivious to is the tremendous growth projection for netbooks, small portable devices, video-capable phones, and higher wireless speeds like LTE. These devices won't be downloading hi-quality content nor will it be surround sound, but it will definitely be subscription-based content. So rather than dismissing this as only for a few computer geeks, maybe you need to go see about getting your cell phone upgraded.

G) Bandwidth, stability and the ISP's.

Let's face it, it takes far less bandwidth to deliver music versus video and music.

Well half as much, so let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, here.

If we were to magically make the costs differences of the two disappear tomorrow, and everyone went to downloading everything, the internet would come to a complete standstill.

Are you a script writer for Limbaugh? Not only will this not happen, but even if it did, suggesting that the whole Internet will be coming to a stand-still is ludicrous fear-mongering. Can't happen, it's designed not to. Again, this shows how little you really know about the technology. Stick to what you know (and I'm still wondering what that might be).

Even with only a fraction of the population actively downloading movies and video content, the telecoms and cable companies are crying the blues at the bandwidth they use. As more folks download, it will be more stress on their infrastructure. Already the cable and telecom's are investing in Sandvine deep packet inspection system, instituting caps on bandwidth or throttling down download speeds. The Net Neutrality act may kill the down throttle of speed, it will not cover download caps or prevent tiered pricing.

Boy for a liberal, you sure are way out on a limb. It's obvious you're an opponent of Net Neutrality too. You're just another corporatist hiding behind a thin veil of liberal rhetoric. Why don't you come out and say that you want some people to pay more for Internet access than others. FYI: Net Neutrality is diametrically opposed to tiered pricing schemes, that's why it exists, buddy.

If this takes off, and it looks like it will, the online video distributors are going to be in real trouble, and will be at a severe competitive disadvantage unless they can build their own pipelines for delivery.

Those that do will survive. Those that don't will be joining with the futile crusade of the studios in fighting progress.

Since this is an ultra expensive proposition, it is just not going to happen, and the film industry knows this.

It's not ultra-expensive, and we've already covered this. As I already stated, I know this because it's part of my job to know this.

It is widely acknowledged that even VUDU's 1080p downloads cannot compete with Blu-ray disc because the necessary bits to reproduce the color, accurate greyscale and other video specs just aren't there.

Most consumers don't care about those minute differences in 1080p, and many more couldn't see the differences on their equipment, even if they did. Vudu is a bit on the expensive side, but it's popular with those that can afford it.

Availability and affordability of broadband is another issue that hasn't been discussed. Our broadband is not stable enough, not widely available enough, and still remains quite costly. With so many folks losing their houses in the recession, the cable and telecom's have really taken a big hit as consumers have cut their budgets, with cable being the worst off.

Oh, so the economy is indeed a factor. Nice for you to finally acknowledge that in our discussion.

While Metro areas are well served by broadband, the rural areas still lack access. Even in metropolitan areas, broadband costs a bundle, and is totally underutilized by consumers.

Underutilized? Wait a minute, a few paragraphs back you said that downloads were choking up the Internet?

NF suggests the window for disc media is short, but nobody else in the analysis business agree's with this. Almost everyone agree's it will be at LEAST 15 years into the future minimum, while others insist that because of this recession it will now be even further in the future....

I do not think anyone with any common sense will argue that downloading our entertainment content is the wave of the future. The question is, when is that future? PPV and VOD is ten years old in my area. The combination of downloading, PPV, VOD and online distribution of entertainment content just surpassed the billion dollar in revenue mark earlier this year, after all the years in the market.

You're blowing smoke onto a smoke-screen. 15 years 'til what? That disk-based media is completely gone? We both know that won't happen. LP's are still with us today, remember? Or are you saying that most of it will be gone? Well then how much of it would be that threshold? This is a vacuous point, and you know it.

Bluray hit one billion dollars in software and hardware sales in its first year, and DVD is off the charts in comparison to the other two.

Wonderful for BR, now let's get to my question: when will downloads be enough for you to consider them important enough?

While the downloading of music is really increasing, the downloading of movies for purchase is no better than two years ago.

Well, yes, because they are wayyyy too expensive for what the consumer gets. And there's a very good reason for that: nobody other than consumers want to see downloads succeed. The studios don't, the packaging folks don't, the distribution folks don't, and even the B&M retailers don't. Is it any wonder they aren't doing well?

NF says they are too expensive and that is because of bundling. This is untrue as there is no bundling of movies, it is just the movie only. The cost of these downloads is no more than a typical DVD price(both are about $14), and based on recent comparisons the quality is about the same.

You're making my point and you simply won't address it. Why should they cost the same if the product purchased is not the same? The consumer isn't that dumb.

... why aren't they selling? Two things; no extra content(that includes a high quality soundtrack), and what people's past habits.

Huh? The reason they're not selling is because it doesn't include fluff? Absolute nonsense. It's because it's too expensive for what it is - simple economics. And I have no idea what you mean by "what people's past habits." What are you blabbering about?

The main folks with the disposal incomes for entertainment are folks 35 years old and older. They are used to physically owning what they purchase. A "bit" is something they cannot see, and at this point cannot justify the purchase of.

My point exactly. So why should it cost the same?

There is not a single network or studio out there that does not have a internet presence of some sort. All of the studios are offering some sort of product for the internet, whether it is owning a downloading service, or offering content to the online distributors. As the population shifts, their focus will shift as well. WE ARE NOT THERE YET!

If they have a site, if they are already selling, then why are they trying so hard to hobble their own product by exorbitant and fixed bundle-pricing? Because they are afraid and confused. They only trust in their bundling price-model, and they can't seem to get beyond that. Kind of sad and pathetic really. Kind of like that old miser searching for the glasses sitting on his own nose.

I) The laws of the land:

What NF fails to take into consideration with his pitiful anaylsis and unoriginal recommendations is that there is not single law in every country to cover intellectual property, and its distribution over the net. The internet is a world wide medium, and laws that cover the distribution of IP is not consistent in every country. There are no borders on the internet, but there are for the laws of individual countries. In the US, it is illegal to download and distribute an encrypted movie to your hard drive, or to burn it on to a blank DVD. It is the same in the European Union. In Russia, it is not. In the Cayman Islands it is not. In South American it is not. In Mexico, it is not. In China, it definitely is not. In all of Asia with the exception of Japan and South Korea it is not.

Again, you're making my case: you and your studio exec friends are afraid of the Internet. Rather than admitting that US law is not appropriate or fair, and working to equalize things a bit, you continue to think that US law ought to be the law of the Internet world-wide. Simply put: you are not being good Netizens, in fact, you're the opposite of one.

IP laws in the US are way out of whack with the rest of the world and really only serve ridiculous protectionist mercantilism. Rather than continuing to think that your way is the only way, why don't you try and change your business model to compete against your competition from abroad, rather than trying to live on an island that only benefits the absolute upper crust. For a progressive, you surely are one odd bird.

Since most of these countries are not affected by what happens in Hollywood, there is no desire to change their laws to protect the IP Hollywood produces.

Spoken like a true imperialist. Everyone in the world should follow Hollywood's IP laws. Isn't there a small vestige of doubt in your mind about what you've just stated?

I could go on and on with this, but I think I have made my point.

Hardly.

I thought since I have worked in the film industry (and audio overall) my entire life, risen through the ranks, and now in upper management while still mixing and engineering, I have a pretty good perspective of the industry I work in

Oh, so you are a movie studio exec! Well now we know what we're dealing with. But don't come back here and claim you're impartial or can somehow see both sides. You're a corporatist, plain and simple. A limousine liberal, in other words.

Sir Terrence the Terrible, I've worked with progressives, I known many progressives, some progressives are my friends. Terrence, you're no progressive.

[Mr Peabody]

A couple thoughts, there can't and won't be full length movies, at least new releases, for free no matter how poor the quality or water marked. People have still seen the entire story. Consider that people buy bootleg movies shot on camcorders in movie theaters. The sound and picture give a new meaning to bad but yet people buy them. So if they let them stream for free I'd imagine that would have a big negative impact on sales and rentals.

Some movies go direct to video. Movie theaters only show what they think will sell, that's why I believe tickets are all one price. You can get lower price tickets if you go during rush hour or matinee. Also, movie companies do sample showings but they don't know what is going to blow up into a box office smash. I'm sure they wish more did. What's that Paranormal movie that started in theaters there in Cali and got such a buzz it went national? The one that is supposed to be so scary people were walking out. This is probably a low budget film that will make some one rich. It was 3rd at box office over the weekend. Then you have Water World with a record setting budget for the time and I doubt if they ever made their money back on that one. It's show biz, like the music biz, hype only gets you so far then the rubber has to meet the road.

Disclaimer: Although I sound highly intelligent and like I know what I'm talking about I am not a movie executive or in the biz. No, I don't even play one on TV. But, I do own a camcorder. So feel free to take everything I say as absolutely accurate.

[Worf101]

Cnet has been looking at the same dilemma faced by H-Wood. Their predictions aren't much better.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10...dStoriesArea.1

Hey, I don't download content, save a song or two, usually way out of print. I stopped my son from doing it too after he got a virus at a p2p site on his mum's puter. He may do it at school but I ain't supporting it. I've no love for the record company's may they rot in hell but H-Wood is another matter, their product costs way too much to do it yourself in the basement. Can't be done. Somebody brighter than I better find a way out of this mess though.

Da Worfster

[nightflier]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10...dStoriesArea.1

...full-length low-quality downloads. I know it sounds awfully unapetizing to all the Hollywood fatcats, but as this article points out, nothing else has worked. Like so many employers are telling their employees facing pay-cuts: at least you still have a job.

The fact is that most of the illegal content is low-quality already, not high-quality, so if that became available for free, then that would kill most of the illegal downloading, plain and simple. The sites would be flooded with legal, but low-quality full-length content, and the illegal content will just seem like too much trouble. If there's one thing I do know about hackers, crackers, and gray-market programmers, they always look for the path of least resistence - after all, that's what they know best: find the easiest way to an end. So if it's just too much trouble and gets lost in the jungle of legal content, then they'll find other projects to work on (not that I'm altogether comfortable with the thought of that either, but at least it gets Hollywood out of their crosshairs).

If the studios absolutely need to make some money on this, they can toss in an intermission or two with commercials - as long as there's not too many of them, this will still work. Consumers just want convenience and choice a whole lot more than free content. It's ironic that even in an economic downturn, people are so preoccupied that convenience still trumps free - just like the bear-market safe-stocks like McDonalds. And let's remember that for convenience, consumers will even pay subscription fees if they have to, as long as it's substantially less than what the individual content costs - Netflix has already shown that this can work.

Alternatively, the industry can re-consider fair use and the assessing of small fees to ISPs, hard drives, and players, like they did with cassettes, way back in the day. Their reluctance to look at such solutions is all centered on their pathetic desire to hold onto the wide profit-margins that were once completely under their control. Unfortunately that time is over, but they just don't want to see the writing on that wall. It's kind of pathetic, really.

So yes, outrageous Will Smith type contracts, Batman-like production costs, hyper-expensive CGI budgets, and fat-cat CEO payouts are becoming scarcer. I'm not a Hollywood insider, but I've read and heard enough to know that times are changing for the studios and all the people in that industry. In this economy, everyone has to pay the piper sooner or later.

Ironically, I've got a brand new BR player on the way, and I'm just not that excited about it as I thought I would be. I almost regret the purchase. I was a lot more into my last swap-meet score of Jazz LPs than anything movie-related. And I've been reading quite a few books of late. I guess for some of us, there is more to entertainment than just Hollywood. ...And it's all legal!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hulu is primarily a streaming medium, and primarily for television content. Your own words, by the way. Hulu's model is the right one, but it currently does not focus on the areas we are discussing. Hulu is fine with the studios because it doesn't pose a threat to their disk sales.

I don't think the purpose of their mention was for you to dissect its content. The bottom line is they are on the internet (can't be that afraid of it huh), and they are offering a product folks want (it is the 3rd largest whether it is a stream or download). This also show the wisdom of the studios. Give the public what they want without killing your bread and butter.

Microsoft is an internet-based company? Huh? They've been trying, but they certainly aren't there, by a long shot. That just goes to show how little you do understand the computer industry - you compare Microsoft to Disney & Sony. You think you know something about Microsoft, and you really know so little. It's fear, loathing, and utter confusion about the computer industry that shines through your posts.

You missed the point again dummy. I am demonstrating to you that the film studios have just as much savvy online as a lot of internet based companies.

It the studios set the initial price, then they are partially to blame. No need to go into long explanations about the complex details of every other middle-man that also tacks on their fee, it's the initial product price that starts the ball rolling.

Nope. The price can increase dramatically anywhere within the chain, not just at the top. That is one dimensional thinking. You shouldn't dismiss what you choose not to understand.

Is it too expensive? Most definitely, yes. By your own words: it costs as much as a DVD, so why should the download (which does not include the physical media or packaging) cost the same? It's a ridiculous proposition that only someone who doesn't have a clue about computer culture could put out there. For their part, the Studios are simply killing the medium because they cannot accept that it should cost less.

Once again, you are skipping detail to suit your own shallow arguments. While they may not have packaging costs, they do have storage costs, and they are ongoing and get more expensive as you ad content to your servers. The cost of electricity is not static. This runs the air conditioning (which is year round), the servers themselves (also year round). You then have to advertise both your service and content. As you increase content, you have to increase the amount of servers. This means more workers as they cannot fix themselves. Up goes your overhead as you continually expand. You are skipping major detail that adds to the price of the product.

The fact is, a physical disk can be replayed as many times as it lasts, it can also be played on many different players throughout the house, it can be lent to another household (for private in-home viewing), it can be played on other devices / screens, and it can be converted to the digital medium, all legal and relatively simple to do, which is the point. The digital download, on the other hand can't do those things, not legally. So why should it cost the same? So yes, it is too expensive.

Thanks for representing the major reason why disc continues to be more popular than a download. It is just that flexibility that people want just like they had with the LP, cassette tape, and CD. You can also play that DVD on a computer, which is another reason discs are more popular than downloads at this point. It is all about what the end user is used to.

A DVD cannot be converted unless you stip away its copy protection. That is illegal.

Ask Amazon and Itunes why it costs the same. They can tell you exactly why it does.

Utter nonsense. Movies have a fixed price regardless of their production cost. If this was really negotiable, then movie theaters (and then the distributors) could negotiate the price of the movie based on it's true value and how well the movie is likely to do.

So what you are saying in your first sentence is I should sell my product at the same price no matter how much it cost to produce? This is stupid as hell. By their very nature, a big office blockbuster cost more than a chick flick to make. A blockbuster would draw a larger crowd than most chick flicks. Since it is likely a blockbuster will make a theater more profit than a chick flick (they stay in the theaters longer), it would stand to reason based on your logic that the theater should charge less for a chick flick than it would a blockbuster. They don't, they are both the same price. The theaters charge the same admission fee's for every movie, no matter how much it cost to lease the film. . A theaters costs are pretty fixed, not variable. How does one charge a variable price with pretty fixed overhead? Doesn't make much sense does it? There is a chain here (lots of places with potential added costs), and you seem to not understand this very well.

This is important for them because it affects their bottom line. But the fact that consumers pay the same price for Seven Pounds as well as Hankock, can only indicate that the price is fixed. The latter should cost more at the box office and on disk, so why is that not the case?

You are having a tough time with connecting the dots, and comprehending what you read. Each product has it's own specific and unique costs. You think it is just a digital file, and therefore should cost less. Well, maybe in time it will. But frankly, downloads have not reached the critical mass that drives the price of the product downward -the DVD has. So as it stands, storage costs and overhead are still high until the amount of downloading reaches a critical mass that spur's the company to find cost efficiencies. It has happened with DVD and Bluray, but not with downloads.

If they set the the initial price, then they also control the end price the consumer is going to pay for it. Yes, there are additional costs for distribution, but that still does not explain why production cost is not reflected in the final product.

Now you know your first sentence does not make sense when there are layers and layers that add to the cost of the product downstream of production. Every piece adds to the cost, not just one piece. Everyone in the chain's bottom line costs are quite different. How do you know what affects what, have you seen the cost breakdown of any of these delivery systems? No you have not. You are making assumptions in an uneducated vacuum.

It's cute how you're so knowledgeable about "the industry" yet you completely blew off my question on this point. So I'll ask it again: are the distribution costs so high that they make the production cost differences irrelevant? If not, then why do the studios price them the same when they hand them over to the distributors?

Nobody separates the front end costs from the back end. As it passes through whatever chain, that cost is added to the end product. That goes for both disc and downloads. Catalog titles (whether downloaded or on disc) have a lower price than new releases. That is based on the current value of the product. A product previously released has a lesser value than the product just released. The production and manufacturing costs are the same whether the product is catalog or a new release. They go on the same disc, which goes through the same authoring and compression processes, which cost the same to stamp. Packaging may be different based on whether it is a single disc case, or a double disc case. If there is a second disc, then the cost of that disc is added in to the final product. The real issue with pricing is manageability of the inventory system for the end sellers. Do you want to manage a data base that has twenty six different prices for twenty six different versions of the same thing, or just price them based on whether the product is older or newer. That is the worry of the end seller of the disc, not the studios. Same goes for downloading.

But let's also remember that the distributors must have a very close symbiotic relationship with the studios. Your claim that they don't influence each other is certainly hard to believe. For example, the studios must influence the people making the packaging, no? Or would you deny that, too?

The studios have a different packaging method than the retailers, and no there is no influence when a end seller uses their own unique packaging. Discs you buy from Costco have a different packaging than that of Amazon. BB may order exclusive extra content on their discs not found on Amazon. Let's take the Wizard of Oz new release on Blu-ray, as this is a good example of my point. When you order the disc from the studio via their website, you get the basic cover and the disc with basic extras, with a digital copy at thus price. Amazon orders the full extras including the book, extra content disc along with exclusive extra content. Amazon orders that packaging from another third party. BB orders a two disc set with no book but the extra content disc in a book like storage case, of which they get from another third party. These are all instances where the packaging is decided by the retailer, and not the studios. Its the retailer that is trying to get the customer in the store with their unique branding of these products, and their individual discounts as well. Ever wonder why Amazon prices are so much lower than Best Buys?

Yet, all movies cost the same. Isn't that peachy?

More missing connections. For a person who wants to appear so knowledgeable that you can make assumptions and predictions, you sure miss a lot of the detail in the process. Does the retail or seller want to mange 80 different prices for 80 different movies, or a pricing tier of just two or three? The retailer has that choice, not the studios. They studios do not manage the retailers computers do they? Same goes for download distributors. Most chose a two tiered system based on catalog and new releases. That is manageable for retailers, not trying to put a value on an individual product. The studios offer and catalog and new release manufacturers suggested price, and the retailer decides the ultimate price they will sell. That is why when a title is announced, it reflects the manufacturers suggested price. When it hits the shelves, that price is usually a lot lower EXCEPT, in the case of Best Buy which usually charges the manufacturers suggest retail price. Each have their own pricing structure based on the profit they expect to make from the product.

You haven't explained why this is false. I don't agree with your point on this, and you haven't said anything that refutes my claim that it will detract pirates. As for the trailer, it's one medium, but shouldn't be the only one. There is room for low quality full-length downloads that will not eat into the studio's profits. Let's remember that the bread & butter of the movie industry is home viewing, so if these don't look good enough for that, then they should still generate plenty of high-quality sales. But the bigger bonus is that the illegal downloading would be severely hampered by this.

You are just not reading my posts, you are answering with your emotional uneducated gut. Piracy is not a huge issue here, which is probably why you are downplaying it. It is huge in Russia, China, India and Asia in general. It is much more prominent in Europe than here. The internet does not stop at the US borders. The people in these countries (based on television sales) use smaller monitors for viewing that we do here. There is an enormous thirst for Hollywood's movies there. What may look like poor quality on the average US consumer set, may look perfectly acceptable for those in these other countries, which are sales markets as well. Their whole idea of quality is quite different from ours. We look at 1080p as being the end all, but these people are used to 480p or lower. North America has the highest concentration of HD displays and 5.1 sound systems in the world. To a lot of people in the world good enough is better than nothing at all.

But if you're so unconvinced, why not have full-length movies offered online with a big watermark over the screen and offered in stereo only. It is distracting, but it allows the consumer to see the whole movie and then decide if they want to buy it. It could still be a quick download, by reducing the video quality as well. And that is precisely the point: these low-quality / watermarked versions will not be available on disk, only online. It will allow a full preview on smaller screens, but this will be far less appealing on HT setups. The problem we're trying to address is piracy online, and this would address it very well, in my opinion.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Just like copy protection can be stripped away, a watermark can be also. Especially the kind you mention which is added to the video later in the process. There is no current way to add a watermark embedded directly into the video, it is always added later. By that very nature, software can be developed to strip it away. Besides, the watermark would have to be of very large size on the screen, or it will not detract anyone from zooming and resizing the picture later. Remember Mr. know it all, folks buy copies of movies shot on a camera from a theatrical presentation. The pirates have already lowered the bar on what folks will purchase.

Yes, but these are illegal and a hassle. There a lot of people, including myself, who don't want to download illegal movies and take those risks.

What you seem to enjoy doing is looking at your small world, and believing that small world exist world wide. You are not college age in this country. You do not know the amount of P2P activity that is going on at the campus level. These kids want the movies, but they do not have the disposable income to buy them. So they download movies illegally. In Russia where IP laws are pretty non existant, whatever is found on the web can be downloaded, burned to a DVD and played back. In China, this is done for the average chinese consumer via a pirate with an internet connection. The same goes for South America, and eastern Europe. Illegal downloads are HUGE in these areas, and it is no secret that DVD burners are also very popular there as well. Do not try to minimize something because the people in your own little world don't do it. There are different laws in different countries, and different habits as well. What is illegal here, is legal elsewhere.

Not as "big time" as you're trying to make it seem. You sound like another FoxNews fear monger: "be afraid, be very afraid."

Oh really. If between 40% and 80% of all traffic on the world wide web is P2P, and 95% of that traffic is movies, music and porn (all of which are reporting a downward trend in revenue), then it is big time to somebody.

If it's offered as a legal low-quality download from the studios, then it's no longer illegal, right? You're not making any sense now.

DVD's start off as a legal sale, but you even admitted you rip DVD's to your hard drive (which is illegal based on the laws of the DMCA system). So what starts off legal (even by your standards) ends up being illegal. If a studio released a low quality full length download, it will have DRM on it, which means it probably will have restrictions on how it is propagated. There is no doubt in my mind since we have already seen Amazon and Itunes based movies stripped of their DRM propagated on the internet, (they know where they came from via digital watermarks) that what started off as a legal transaction, can turn into an illegal one quickly.

Well let's leave the porn issue out of this for a minute. It's just an incendiary sub-genre, and the reason it's so prevalent on torrent sites is also because of the privacy concerns that the downloaders have. It muddies the waters of your argument and isn't adding to this discussion in any meaningful way.

Bull$hit. It is just another genre of movie making, like animation, action and adventure etc. It is a prime example in the most profound way. Let's not push it aside, it completes the very picture one could paint on the issue. You sure do like to ignore or push facts around to suite your stupid idiotic arguments don't you? Stolen porn is just another faucet of stolen video content, just like R rated rap is just another form of rap.

There is still no conclusive evidence that illegal music downloads have been a major cause of music sales slumping. I'm going to guess the same is true for movies. I'm going to guess that the falling dollar, trade deficit issues, and the economic downturn of the past two years are also a major factor. You're reaching.

There is ample evidence one has taken from the other. CD sales where going strong until the year 2005. Back in 2004, P2P traffic made up 35% of all web traffic, that is up from 6% the year before. Back then, most of the P2P traffic was small music files, and a very low percentage of porn movies. Anyone with a wif of analysis skills can plainly see that as more music was traded off P2P's, sales of CD's began to fall rapidly. An analysis that covers from 2003-2008 clearly shows that as the level of illegal P2P content grew, revenue on porn, regular movies and music fell. . Since this activity started happening before any recession or major curency shifts, something else other than that must be the issue.

So what's the point? It shows that there is tremendous demand for online movie downloads, even when the file is large. If instead of doing this they would have released the actual movie at 1/4 what the consumer ordinarily pays, then they could also have had 2 million additional sales in 24 hours. Imagine that!

This shows a demand for STOLEN movies as the movie had not be released to DVD yet. Once again glossing over detail to suit your argument..how convient. And your other comment is pure speculation, and thats is a fact. How about that!

More fear mongering. If you leverage that against the growth of sales over the internet, it's actually quite small.

Not anymore it isn't small. It is the fastest growing crime out there. Your minimizing what is already heard all over the news is telling of the strength of your argument.

He didn't steal anything. He cracked the code so that he could play the disk on his computer. That doesn't make him a thief. Your prejudices and fear are really shining through. That the studios and the MPAA were throwing the whole book at at him is also an indication of their own prejudice and fear.

Cracking the code is ILLEGAL idiot!!! If you were doing something legal, you wouldn't have to crack anything. The book is being thrown because he broke the law, and posted the code online so others could do it as well. Don't try and omit your way out of this one nightiar.

As for intellectual property, I don't think I'm alone is thinking that maybe the laws in the US are a little out of whack with the rest of the world. IP enforcement has become so draconian and repressive that it actually stifles innovation today, the exact opposite effect for which it was created. That you don't think this is so, shows again your bitter myopia about where this is headed: stagnation and decline.

Laws are laws, whether you think they are out of whack or not. Just because you think they are out of whack, does not mean the content providers and the folks that invest in the production of content think it is. Your attitude in regards to law show you have a wild wild west mentality. If you don't like it, break it, its old anyway. If everyone did as you did, the world would be in worse chaos than it is now. Your opinion on the laws does not give you the right to circumvent them in any way. You work to legally change them. So much for that high road.

I support someone's right to own and view digital content in any way he seems fit. I do not support breaking the law, unless that law violates his freedom. Slavery was the law once too and thank god there were abolitionists.

Yes, you may support somebody right to do something. But does the laws support it? Nope. Since you rip your DVD's to your hard drive, you are a law breaker. A just because the software is there to do it, doesn't change that law. A slaves freedoms were fought for, not stolen.

Why does fair use not extend to movies? There really is no reason why it shouldn't.

You seem to know everything (or not) why are you asking me? They do not extend to movies because movies are encrypted with copy protection, and music is not. Simple answer that you Mr. Know it all show already know.

It's the DMCA, not the DMA, by the way. And this ill-advised DMCA is about as far from fair to the consumer as any set of regulations ever written, except maybe the USA Patriot Act. We can only hope that it gets repealed. It does more to harm innovation, progress and growth in this industry than you'd like to admit.

The DMCA rules were designed by the folks you sent to Washington. Whether the rules are fair or not is your opinion, but not the law. You want it changed, you lobby for it. You don't circumvent it because of your personal views or opinions.

No, you're wrong about that too. The MPAA is not pursuing this because they know they won't win and everytime they go to court, they risk the integrity of their precious DMCA.

They won't win? This is laughable. If it was the choice of the studios to crack down, they would have surely won. They would have easily gotten those software makers for knowingly propagating a stolen code - a code required to rip defeat the copy protection, and rip the product. It does not matter if whether they created the software, or got the code off the internet. They used it, and that would have been enough to get them put out of business.

Yes, it was consumer advocates who got that passed. Funny how you should be so nonchalant about this major victory for fairness. You neglected to mention how much the MPAA and their teams of money-grubbing lawyers fought that. I bet you were rooting for them too.

How can you parse whether I am nonchalant or just plain stating fact. Please, do attempt to read my emotions when you can't. There was nothing to really contest here. CD's have no copy protection, so you are not circumventing a law. Where the law does kick in is when you try and propagate that personal copy. . When it was invented, there was no internet, and therefore no thoughts for the security of the IP. DVD was different, and so was bluray. Movies as a whole are completely different than music, in that all video content from Hollywood has some copy measures attached. No worries, just strip it away (easy enough when a code is already cracked, and the code to do it posted online), and now you have an internet full of stolen video as well. .



[quote]Oh please spare us the pathetic history lesson. If the studios set the price of the movies that are then distributed to the theaters, then they certainly influence the final price. Fact is, if it really was a free market, then high-production-cost movies would cost more, and they don't. Anyhow, istribution costs at this point should be about the same for either type of movie, no? So we don't even need to bring that into this equation. So the only variable here is the production cost and there is no reason inexpensively-made movies should cost as much as Batman or Watchmen.

I have already explained this a couple of times. Since you are bent on believing your own press, then ignorant and stupid will you remain. Since it takes the same distribution system to get a new movie and a old movie to market, the costs don't change idiot.

Wait a minute, here! It's a lot less because it's a digital file? Something stinks here, doesn't it? Why are the studios the only ones who can claim that discount? Why shouldn't downloaded movies (aka digital files) for consumers cost less, too? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? Care to explain that one for us?

Doesn't it cost to store a digital file? Yep. How is it stored?( I should not have to explain this to you). It is on servers. Is electricity free? Nope. Was the air conditioning system that cools the servers free? Nope. Was the electricity that runs the servers free? Nope. Was the maintainence costs and added and replaced equipment free? Nope. Was the maintainence crew salaries free? Nope. Was the CEO of the company that host the servers free? Nope. How about his assistant? Nope. Or the AP/AR department of the business? Nope. Was the rent or mortgage of the place the servers sit free? Nope. Was the compression costs free? Nope. Was the compression software free? Nope. How about the computers the software runs on? Nope, that cost too. Did the compressionist work for free? Nope, he has a salary or contract. Was marketing cost free? Nope. Where the people who make up the marketing department volunteers, Nope.

Can you plainly see how your simplistic naive perspective makes you leave out important data. Now it is easy to see why you cannot connect the dots. You mind leaves too much space between them, as all of the detail that would put the picture together is fractured in your tiny little head.

So why do movies all cost the same at the box office? Something doesn't add up. Are you saying that the movie theaters charge too much for the inexpensively-developed movies then, i.e. the ones they got a better deal on from the studios? Yes? No? Well which is it? Either way, the consumer is still getting ripped off.

It adds up alright, you just cannot add. A movie theater will not make any profit if a movie is only a week long in their theaters. A movie theater has fixed costs that are there even if a distributor charges one price for a film can, or a digital file. Open that little pea brain and try and understand this. It is not just the rental cost of the film or digital file. It is the cost of the rent of the building, the employees benefits and compensation, equipment replacement and purchase. Daily maintainence of the theater, costly replacement of the projection system bulbs, A chain and B chain playback system, the digital or analog playback system costs, building electricity, and the beat goes on. You have to purchase concessions and the furniture (display cases) to house it, and make it. (popcorn makers)

When somebody is getting "ripped off", somebody else is stealing from them. Since a consumer willingly chooses to go to the theater, and pay the ticket price, they are not getting ripped off. They are playing the cost for that entertainment. Cut the hyperbole, it just makes you look dumber than your ignorance of the facts.

Ahem, so the movie is twice as big? That's not so bad, now is it? By the way, hi-rez digital music downloads are a whole lot larger. You're comparing Fuji apples to Sweet Delicious - yes they taste different, but they're still apples.

Since they are not downloading whole CD's, but just a song from one, the file sizes are a lot smaller. Keep up stupid, I know you are not this dumb. A high rez digital download is not all that large. If you use (and they do) Dts-HD master audio as your lossless compression encode, that file size can look the same size as a low bit rate lossy file when transported over the net. It is the storage on the other side when the file is decompressed that is the issue.

Wait a minute, let's not get ahead of the math here. You just said that a CD is 1/2 the size of the movie, so that server stores half as many movies. This isn't a huge difference. It's cute how you switch between CDs and individual tracks as the arguments suits you, but you're just using this to mislead now, aren't you?

Jeeze, you are not very bright are you. People are downloading indivdual tracks, not whole CD's. A single track is far smaller than a single movie download. 6000 individual tracks takes up a fraction of the space than 6000 movies on a server. While whole albums are available, it is the single track that is the largest seller by far. Some online distributors only offer the most popular tracks off a particular album, without offering the album itself.

Since you are too dense to see my point. I was using a whole CD to demonstrate that it is smaller than a single movie download. And a single compressed track is even FAR smaller than one movie download, and certainly smaller than a uncompressed track on a CD. Get it?

"Far Higher"? It's twice as much as it is for CD's and the cost of storage is going down every year. Let's keep that straight.

Yes while the maintainence and overhead goes up every year. One is not offsetting the other.

Why not? Beethoven's symphonies are sold in individual movements, aren't they? TV shows are sold by season, aren't they? If consumers could buy Batman in four pieces at $1.99 each, it would speed up the downloads, allow the viewer to start watching the first one while the others are arriving, and would bring down overall cost for everyone. I think $8 is a fair price for that movie, don't you? After all, I'm only downloading a limited use digital version of it (almost like a rental), and there's no need to pay for packaging.

If a consumer could buy Batman in four parts??? Why am I not surprised at this comment.

While we're at it, why don't you allow me to choose what audio quality I want? I only have 5.1 speakers, so I really don't need all the 7.1 or DST-MA fluff. Speaking of fluff, if you think people are so interested in extras, why don't the studios just offer that as an extra $1.99 download for those that really want it. My guess very few people will buy it, but that's just a guess on my part. Who knows? We certainly don't know that now.

Hey, Amazon and the others can choose to offer whatever they want. The soundtrack encode is already available. Ask them why don't they offer it. They sure don't ask for it from the studios, that is for sure. Dts-HD Master Audio can certainly be transmitted online,

Maybe the reason that you cannot get your choice of audio is because you are too stupid to ask the right people. If you ask the studio to offer it, you are barking up the wrong tree, and that is part of your problem. Go to Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon, and pitch the idea. I am sure they will be all ears on this one.

Oh, pluuuueeeeeze. It's not that daunting, really, and let's remember, it's only twice as much as for a CD. And the CD business model is going swimmingly, by the way.

We are not talking CD here. A single track online is compressed, A single CD track is uncompressed. So a single online music track(which is what is selling) is a FAR, FAR smaller size than the basic movie download. It is a compressed file from the original uncompressed master. If you were to encode an entire CD using a typical digital music file, you would have far more music on it than you would the typical uncompressed CD. You don't know your technology very well NF.

Not so fast there, doc. It's not that complex at all, kind of like compressing and decompressing a zip file. What you're trying to brush over so quickly is actually one very intriguing solution and one that could very well be a major factor. It's pretty much how BD live is downloaded and that's a huge success, right (your own words)?

Sorry NF, but your ignorance is killing you here. Video compression is not like a zip file at all. Video compression is a lossy activity whereas the encoder looks at redundancies and throws out the repetitive data IN REAL TIME. An encoder scans individual areas of the pixels in real time and decides what the eyes can see as detail, and what is not perceived, and throws away anything that the eye cannot detect. That is not how a zip file works. BD live is a streaming activity, not a download like you get at Itunes. It is more like Netflix.

Boy, you really are trying to paint this in a negative light, and failing miserably in your efforts. People sit down and use their iPods too, you know. Geez, your disdain for downloaded content is so obvious it oozes from every sentence. And while a lot of people do use their music as background ambience while they perform other tasks, the fact is that many people also don't want to, because it is distracting.

Come on, even you are not this stupid. If I had a choice of sitting down and listening to music, I sure in the hell would not do it using an Ipod when I have a 5.1 system to listen through. Ipod's are portable devices made for portability. I do not listen to my 5.1 system in Starbucks, but I do listen to my Ipod there. I do not listen to my 5.1 system when I work out, run, or walk. That is what my ipod is for. I do not listen critically over my ipod, as I can hear the compression artifacts. My music on my 5.1 system is uncompressed, so quality is much higher than what I can hear on my Ipod. I don't like downloaded music because I can near compression artifacts. You don't get compression artifacts in uncompressed encodes.

What the movie execs (and you, apparently) are completely oblivious to is the tremendous growth projection for netbooks, small portable devices, video-capable phones, and higher wireless speeds like LTE. These devices won't be downloading hi-quality content nor will it be surround sound, but it will definitely be subscription-based content. So rather than dismissing this as only for a few computer geeks, maybe you need to go see about getting your cell phone upgraded.

The film industry is not interested in the latest computer related products, and the computer industry is not interested in the latest video release either. They serve two different markets. The online distributors may be interested in the latest computer products, but not the film industry. While the industry is interested in branching out to other distribution systems, it is not interested in specific products as related to the computer industry.

Well half as much, so let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, here.

Oh really half as much? Well, a uncompressed file encoded to Dolby digital at 384kbps throws away 90% of the original file in the name of efficiency. MP3 encodes compress the data even more, but with alot more degradation to the signal. So its not just half, it is far less, far far less than half. Don't you know how compression works? Have you ever looked at the size of a uncompressed file versus a compressed MP3 file of it? It is a just a hair smaller than half the size of the original uncompressed file depending on the efficiency of the software. So it is not just half, and if you understood the technology, you would not be stupid enough to say half.

Are you a script writer for Limbaugh? Not only will this not happen, but even if it did, suggesting that the whole Internet will be coming to a stand-still is ludicrous fear-mongering. Can't happen, it's designed not to. Again, this shows how little you really know about the technology. Stick to what you know (and I'm still wondering what that might be).

It can't happen? Wow, NF you are sounding alot like Limbaugh yourself. The internet has finite capacity, not infinite. It is not made of stretch fabric. It is just like a freeway during rush hour. If you have too much large data (such as video files) going through the system, it slows down traffic. Put more data, and it goes slower still. Anything that can be slowed, can be stopped. If the internet has infinite capacity, then why these warnings?

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/04/30...-coming-years/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518405,00.html

It can't happen? These guys say it can. Who is lying? I think it is you based on the fact that right now, ISP can't even offer the speed and bandwidth they advertise. From what I have read, the speeds the ISP's market, is actually 50%-80% slower in real life. Could this be because the internet is becoming clogged?

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...claimed_speeds

Boy for a liberal, you sure are way out on a limb. It's obvious you're an opponent of Net Neutrality too. You're just another corporatist hiding behind a thin veil of liberal rhetoric. Why don't you come out and say that you want some people to pay more for Internet access than others. FYI: Net Neutrality is diametrically opposed to tiered pricing schemes, that's why it exists, buddy.

Once again (out of desperation) you are twisting a mentioned fact into some sort of ideology. I am for Net Neutrality. I do not want anyone slowing down the speed I pay for - they have no right. Now if they billed me less when they slow speeds down, that is another story. But I want the ISP to deliver the speed they sold me. The internet is nothing more than a digital highway, and just like any highway it can be slowed, and eventually stop.

Those that do will survive. Those that don't will be joining with the futile crusade of the studios in fighting progress.

They will get there when they get there. No need to rush, the internet isn't ready anyway.

It's not ultra-expensive, and we've already covered this. As I already stated, I know this because it's part of my job to know this.

It may not be expensive to YOUR company. But your company is not a online video distribution company. And you cannot take your experience (which has nowhere near the depth) and translate that to an entity with far more products, and far more servers. Does your company have 6-10,000 movie titles ready to rent or sell? Nope. So to compare your companies internal video collection of corporate videos to an online distributors is just plain silly.

Most consumers don't care about those minute differences in 1080p, and many more couldn't see the differences on their equipment, even if they did. Vudu is a bit on the expensive side, but it's popular with those that can afford it.

So now you can see what everyone see's. This is rich. You must be the best channeler in the world. Can you read my mind too? Can you hear my cell phone conversations with your tremendous channeling powers? The Amazing Nightliar...I guess it has a nice ring to it (sarcasm off)

Oh, so the economy is indeed a factor. Nice for you to finally acknowledge that in our discussion.

The economy is affecting everyone. In any depressed economy, you have bright spots, and dark areas. The film industry has had a good box office run this year so far. DVD sales, not so good. Blu-ray sales, VERY good. The problem with film industry has nothing to do with downloads, or any other issue you have mentioned. It has more to do with bloat than anything else. Too many people doing the same thing. Does a film company really need three different PR companies to handle their three smaller film labels, or can one do the job? We hired too many people when times where good (just like any company), and now that we are transitioning, we find that we need less people. My studio has been shedding excess capacity for years, which is why it is a financially healthier studio than the other majors. All of the studios are downsizing, just like American businesses everywhere.

Underutilized? Wait a minute, a few paragraphs back you said that downloads were choking up the Internet?

Underutilized by the majority, but overused by the minority. Its a minority of users choking up the internet. Everyone isn't downloading.

You're blowing smoke onto a smoke-screen. 15 years 'til what? That disk-based media is completely gone? We both know that won't happen. LP's are still with us today, remember? Or are you saying that most of it will be gone? Well then how much of it would be that threshold? This is a vacuous point, and you know it.

It will take 15 years minimum of investment (one estimate puts a dollar figure at $55 billion) before the internet will be a viable delivery system for TRUE HD videos. Not highly compressed substitutes, but HD video with audio that would pass mustard with the videophile crowd. Now I hear that the recession was so deep, that it will add five years to that figure.

Wonderful for BR, now let's get to my question: when will downloads be enough for you to consider them important enough?

When they can match the quality and user experience I get from BR. That is for me personally. For a studio? When they see an infrastructure that can support a high quality distribution, as opposed to the compromised quality we see because of bandwidth issues. When they see the trend of improving download sell throughs. When they see a business model that make them a profits. Right now, they see none of this, hence why you don't see them quickly marching towards an online distribution model. The backbone isn't there.

Well, yes, because they are wayyyy too expensive for what the consumer gets. And there's a very good reason for that: nobody other than consumers want to see downloads succeed. The studios don't, the packaging folks don't, the distribution folks don't, and even the B&M retailers don't. Is it any wonder they aren't doing well?

NF, you are big on hyperbole and shallow on fact. If the studios wanted to kill off downloads as you say, then why feed it content? If I wanted something dead, I kill its food supply. Most of these online video distributors have between 4000-6000 titles available for rent or sale. It does not sound like the film industry wants these guys dead to me - if they did, they wouldn't have even one title to distribute online. You theory in this particular instance is schizo to me.

You're making my point and you simply won't address it. Why should they cost the same if the product purchased is not the same? The consumer isn't that dumb.

I am not making your point. A download has its own associated costs, and infrastructure to support. It may be a different cost than traditional delivery systems, but it has its own built in overhead. Do you really believe that a digital file costs nothing to store? Your compartmentalized thinking is killing you here.

Huh? The reason they're not selling is because it doesn't include fluff? Absolute nonsense. It's because it's too expensive for what it is - simple economics. And I have no idea what you mean by "what people's past habits." What are you blabbering about?

It figures you don't know what past habits are, I knew you weren't that smart. A past habit is what you have always done. In this case, people have purchased physical media. Something you hold in your hand, and put on your shelves. A disc (no matter what format) is a tactile sensation that people enjoy having, much like a book. They have no such experience or relationship with a digital file. Case in point; I love my new Kindle, and it is the second one I have owned. Book lovers detest the Kindle, because there is not smell, or unique touch. There is no connection to it, it is just zero's and ones. They would never embrace a kindle unless every book on the planet was burned.

My point exactly. So why should it cost the same?

Its called a lack of critical mass. The lack of scale. You need the economy of scale to reach efficiencies, and downloading movies as a sell through hasn't even come close.

If they have a site, if they are already selling, then why are they trying so hard to hobble their own product by exorbitant and fixed bundle-pricing? Because they are afraid and confused. They only trust in their bundling price-model, and they can't seem to get beyond that. Kind of sad and pathetic really. Kind of like that old miser searching for the glasses sitting on his own nose.

Why do you keep mentioning bundling in referencing downloads when there is no bundling? Do you know what bundling is? Even discs come unbundled, so this idea that the film industry is married to bundling is ignorant. Have you ever heard of superbit? No extras, just the movie itself. Have you ever seen the bargain bin at big boxes? Full of movie only discs on sale for five bucks. No extras, no bundling, no fancy packaging. You are a broken record because you have limited knowledge.

Again, you're making my case: you and your studio exec friends are afraid of the Internet. Rather than admitting that US law is not appropriate or fair, and working to equalize things a bit, you continue to think that US law ought to be the law of the Internet world-wide. Simply put: you are not being good Netizens, in fact, you're the opposite of one.

This is a new low in ignorance and spin for even your fool. We don't analyze law, and determine its fairness. And I certainly don't think that US law should trump international or any individual countries law. You seem to mix up being AWARE and being afraid. Maybe its the one dimensional thinking that has got you so tripped up. When your business is world wide, it is much easier to do business when the laws on IP are uniform. Do you realize that often times a movie released on disc here in the states is often still in movie theaters in Australia and New Zealand? No, perhaps you don't. A local business has the advantage of uniform laws that govern its IP. A world wide business has no such luxury. Each country you do business in has a different law when it comes to IP. That is not something to fear, but it is something to be aware of.

IP laws in the US are way out of whack with the rest of the world and really only serve ridiculous protectionist mercantilism. Rather than continuing to think that your way is the only way, why don't you try and change your business model to compete against your competition from abroad, rather than trying to live on an island that only benefits the absolute upper crust. For a progressive, you surely are one odd bird.

Once again, it is not the job of a film studio to decide the fairness of law, that is an activist or attorney's job. If you have a gripe with US law, take it to the folks that created it. Your problem continues to be a problem of confusion. You don't seemed to know where to take your issues, so you take it out on the biggest entity. In other words, you are taking your ignorance out on the studios. And your last sentence is priceless. Just who is our competition from abroad may I ask?

Spoken like a true imperialist. Everyone in the world should follow Hollywood's IP laws. Isn't there a small vestige of doubt in your mind about what you've just stated?

Funny, I don't see any film studio trying to usurp or conquer any other countries government. More hyperbole perhaps? No, everyone should respect all IP, whether its Hollywood's, Bollywood's, or Nigerwood's. I do not believe you have a right to steal somebody else's IP, no matter where you live. You seem to think that stealing is absolutely okay. Maybe you should be named night thief instead. So you believe chaos spurs technological development? I don't.

Hardly.

Your uneducated opinion. Which makes it easy to throw away.

Oh, so you are a movie studio exec! Well now we know what we're dealing with. But don't come back here and claim you're impartial or can somehow see both sides. You're a corporatist, plain and simple. A limousine liberal, in other words.

Chewing up both sides of the stick again huh? Wasn't it you who peed in his pants and crapped in his diaper about name calling? Can't take it, but you sure know how to dish it out. I would call that cowardly and totally passive/aggressive. Being an executive in the film industry is not a crime last time I checked. But I am not a robot either stupid. I know how to analyze both sides of anything, and come to an impartial conclusion. Unlike you, I am not that rigid. So, you can call all of the names you choose, paste all of the labels you desire, but I am not moved by that. It does not affect me one bit. You have defended your turf, I have mine. That is all there is too it.

I prefer my Lexus Hybrid SUV to a limo by the way.

Sir Terrence the Terrible, I've worked with progressives, I known many progressives, some progressives are my friends. Terrence, you're no progressive.

oooooooooooo, so original. What did it take, about an hour for this to pop into your head. Here is one. NF, I have seen liars, ignoramuses, idiots, and stupid people. You fit all of this.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Cnet has been looking at the same dilemma faced by H-Wood. Their predictions aren't much better.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10...dStoriesArea.1

Hey, I don't download content, save a song or two, usually way out of print. I stopped my son from doing it too after he got a virus at a p2p site on his mum's puter. He may do it at school but I ain't supporting it. I've no love for the record company's may they rot in hell but H-Wood is another matter, their product costs way too much to do it yourself in the basement. Can't be done. Somebody brighter than I better find a way out of this mess though.

Da Worfster

Worf,
For as long as I can remember the computer industry has been predicting the downfall of the film industry because it has not embraced the internet. They predicted that the format war would destroy disc media, and open the door for downloading to take over. It didn't happen. The have belittled Blu-ray disc as being yesterdays technology, but they are unable to match the quality. The contend that the distribution system is outmoded at the same time the internet is choking under P2P illegal downloading. What they seem to ignore is that joe the public isn't watching a computer screen as a replacement for a television. They are not throwing their DVD and Blu-ray players away for a hard drive or a flash drive. They are not downsizing their flatpanel from 40-50" to 20-24" They are not mentioning that ISP cannot offer the speeds they advertise because the internet does not have enough bandwidth. The do mention that download movie rentals and music purchases are growing, but they don't mention that it is still a fraction of disc sales on both. They never mention the battle between the cable and telecoms, and the online video distributors over infrastructure issues. There sole purpose is to push the buying public towards their computers and downloads, and away from disc based media. This has been going on for years, and nothing has changed much. They never point out the negatives on downloading, but point to negatives on disc buying. It is not balanced at all. The operate under the same ignorance that nighthief has. They have an agenda, and it is to push the internet over physical media, and that is it. They are doing their jobs, and I have no problem with it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...full-length low-quality downloads. I know it sounds awfully unapetizing to all the Hollywood fatcats, but as this article points out, nothing else has worked. Like so many employers are telling their employees facing pay-cuts: at least you still have a job.

The fact is that most of the illegal content is low-quality already, not high-quality, so if that became available for free, then that would kill most of the illegal downloading, plain and simple. The sites would be flooded with legal, but low-quality full-length content, and the illegal content will just seem like too much trouble. If there's one thing I do know about hackers, crackers, and gray-market programmers, they always look for the path of least resistence - after all, that's what they know best: find the easiest way to an end. So if it's just too much trouble and gets lost in the jungle of legal content, then they'll find other projects to work on (not that I'm altogether comfortable with the thought of that either, but at least it gets Hollywood out of their crosshairs).

If the studios absolutely need to make some money on this, they can toss in an intermission or two with commercials - as long as there's not too many of them, this will still work. Consumers just want convenience and choice a whole lot more than free content. It's ironic that even in an economic downturn, people are so preoccupied that convenience still trumps free - just like the bear-market safe-stocks like McDonalds. And let's remember that for convenience, consumers will even pay subscription fees if they have to, as long as it's substantially less than what the individual content costs - Netflix has already shown that this can work.

Alternatively, the industry can re-consider fair use and the assessing of small fees to ISPs, hard drives, and players, like they did with cassettes, way back in the day. Their reluctance to look at such solutions is all centered on their pathetic desire to hold onto the wide profit-margins that were once completely under their control. Unfortunately that time is over, but they just don't want to see the writing on that wall. It's kind of pathetic, really.

So yes, outrageous Will Smith type contracts, Batman-like production costs, hyper-expensive CGI budgets, and fat-cat CEO payouts are becoming scarcer. I'm not a Hollywood insider, but I've read and heard enough to know that times are changing for the studios and all the people in that industry. In this economy, everyone has to pay the piper sooner or later.

Ironically, I've got a brand new BR player on the way, and I'm just not that excited about it as I thought I would be. I almost regret the purchase. I was a lot more into my last swap-meet score of Jazz LPs than anything movie-related. And I've been reading quite a few books of late. I guess for some of us, there is more to entertainment than just Hollywood. ...And it's all legal!

Interesting. All of these comments can be said about big business as a whole. Our entire economy has changed. Folks are getting paid less, and they want to pay less for what they purchase. Understandable. However, Wall street, the banking industry, manufacturing, every business across the spectrum is faced with the fact that freewill spending and easy credit times are over.

While people outside the industry see one thing, those inside see another. The studios are already cutting production costs. They have been for years outsourcing whatever they could to cut costs. Actors are getting paid less per movie. Releases are already being cut, especially major big budget releases. Job redundancies are already being trimmed. Most studios are shedding non profitable business that relate to the industry. Some studios are ahead of the curve,and some behind. But the reality is, ALL businesses in America are doing the same thing, not just the film industry.

I know a few studio executives that are scared out of their minds. However, they are from the old guard of movie executive, not the trend setters I see where I work. My employer has always been a trend setter in the industry, not a late comer. This is why I think your broad brushing of the entire industry is misleading. The industry is not one body, but made of many separate bodies. Some parts grow, mature, and re-invent. Others stay stuck and eventually die. Some studios operate under a different model than others. Where I work, we see the internet as another distribution system for our content, just like Blu-ray disc is. It is easy to paint all studios with the same brush, because it is easy, and you don't have to think critically. The reality is, some studios are innovators, and others are followers. They all however do not march at the same pace.

[pixelthis]

Worf,
For as long as I can remember the computer industry has been predicting the downfall of the film industry because it has not embraced the internet. They predicted that the format war would destroy disc media, and open the door for downloading to take over. It didn't happen. The have belittled Blu-ray disc as being yesterdays technology, but they are unable to match the quality. The contend that the distribution system is outmoded at the same time the internet is choking under P2P illegal downloading. What they seem to ignore is that joe the public isn't watching a computer screen as a replacement for a television. They are not throwing their DVD and Blu-ray players away for a hard drive or a flash drive. They are not downsizing their flatpanel from 40-50" to 20-24" They are not mentioning that ISP cannot offer the speeds they advertise because the internet does not have enough bandwidth. The do mention that download movie rentals and music purchases are growing, but they don't mention that it is still a fraction of disc sales on both. They never mention the battle between the cable and telecoms, and the online video distributors over infrastructure issues. There sole purpose is to push the buying public towards their computers and downloads, and away from disc based media. This has been going on for years, and nothing has changed much. They never point out the negatives on downloading, but point to negatives on disc buying. It is not balanced at all. The operate under the same ignorance that nighthief has. They have an agenda, and it is to push the internet over physical media, and that is it. They are doing their jobs, and I have no problem with it.

To quote Bugs bunny...
WHAT A MAROON.
i AM NOT "DOWNSIZING" my main display from 42" to 24", since when is that a requirement to watch downloads?
YOU may not be smart enough to hook a computer up to a large display but thankfully theres quite a few that are.
The display I am using now is a 42" Vizio, great for regular HT and downloads,
both streaming through stuff like vuze , Hulu, etc.
YOU still think that the "net" is 7 minute downloads over youtube using a 20"
omputer screen to watch cats play, while people are increasingly watching TV for hours
over various services for (heres that word you hate) FREE.
I am starting to think you are in the industry, and people are telling you what you want to hear.
People are getting rid of cable so they can watch it free online, COMCAST is offering their entire lineup in certain areas .
The world is changing regardless of weather you like it or not..
As for quality, yeah, thats what the downloaders of cheap MP3 were looking for while DVDAUDIO and SACD
TANKED
were looking for, truth is most only care about "good enough".
Most web content is at least as good as NTSC, sometimes better.
YOU still think net downloads are 30 second AVI files of chipmonks dancing .
GET A CLUE TALKY

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

To quote Bugs bunny...
WHAT A MAROON.
i AM NOT "DOWNSIZING" my main display from 42" to 24", since when is that a requirement to watch downloads?
YOU may not be smart enough to hook a computer up to a large display but thankfully theres quite a few that are.
The display I am using now is a 42" Vizio, great for regular HT and downloads,
both streaming through stuff like vuze , Hulu, etc.
YOU still think that the "net" is 7 minute downloads over youtube using a 20"
omputer screen to watch cats play, while people are increasingly watching TV for hours
over various services for (heres that word you hate) FREE.
I am starting to think you are in the industry, and people are telling you what you want to hear.
People are getting rid of cable so they can watch it free online, COMCAST is offering their entire lineup in certain areas .
The world is changing regardless of weather you like it or not..
As for quality, yeah, thats what the downloaders of cheap MP3 were looking for while DVDAUDIO and SACD
TANKED
were looking for, truth is most only care about "good enough".
Most web content is at least as good as NTSC, sometimes better.
YOU still think net downloads are 30 second AVI files of chipmonks dancing .
GET A CLUE TALKY

Oh great, profound comments from the village idiot. Great addition to the discussion Pix. You were probably the smartest person in your class of 42 IQ and less.

[nightflier]

I'm not going to go point for point or to answer all your insults again. It's pointless. So let's focus on the questions I asked, and also that the original article asked.

1. Online movie downloads should not cost as much as DVDs

Whatever explanations you may have, the consumer doesn't care about that. To him, the value of a download is not that of the DVD. The digital file offers less and includes greater restrictions than the disk, hence it should cost less. Currently, it doesn't and so that's why it doesn't sell as well. And as long as DVDs are such a golden-egg-laying goose, no one, not from the studios all the way to the retailer, cares to change this. The problem with this model is that the goose is reaching menopause.

2. The box office price for chick flicks should not be the same as action flicks

Again, lots of explanations. It doesn't matter who's padding the price of the chick flicks, the fact is consumers are paying the same price for the different goods. If we're comparing that to streamed or downloaded content, the consumers won't have it. This is because online, they can shop and compare for the best price - online they have a choice. So it doesn't matter what the underlying reason is, the consumer considers this a rip-off. $16 for a ticket may not seem like a lot to studio execs like yourself, but to the average family with 3 kids, this is just not a good value for entertainment anymore in this economy.

3. The cost of storing downloads is not prohibitive

Cooling improvements, green power alternatives, better compression options, and technological advances are all making this less of a burden. And your vacuous and unbearably lengthy diatribes about comparing individual songs to movie files doesn't wash. This is because you're comparing two entirely different beasts: there is no reason why a site storing 6000 music files should be compared to one storing 6000 movies. Why not store only 600 movies? You have to start somewhere, and it there's money to be made doing it, someone will start there. Those movie files aren't being sold at 99c a movie, so what's the point of this argument, except fear-mongering?

4. Compression is more of an option than you're willing to consider

In all your fear mongering, you've gotten your needle stuck on compression for streaming and missing my point entirely. I was talking about compression to send the file, which would then be decompressed on the receiving end before viewing could occur. Hence the file is not viewable during transit, and encryption can be added to further security. If we also divide up the larger file into more manageable chapters (say four per movie), then this process could be completed behind the scenes and with much lower wait times because the first chapter could be viewable while the others are still downloading and decompressing. There are other solutions out there, you just don't want to take them seriously because they don't help your fear-mongering.

5. Bundling is the problem

Since you're having such a hard time understanding it, let me explain it again. By bundling, I mean the different sound track options, foreign languages, previews, bloopers, featurettes, and all the other fluff. I'm not suggesting that they should be eliminated for everyone, I'm only saying they should be an additional downloadable and additional-cost option. On disk, these are not an option (yes I know that at Wallmart and perhaps elsewhere there are a few titles that are, but that's the exception, not the rule, so let's no muddy the waters with extreme examples). The point is that the pirate sites rip this out already to minimize download times, so that's what millions of people are already familiar with. If the studios want to compete, they need to do the same.

Because the studios use fluff to charge more, re-release catalog titles, and double or triple sales of already released movies, that's a nothing more than a bundling tactic to increase profits. Now I know that distributors, retailers and others in the chain also add fluff, but who does this matters little to the consumer. Once he's online, he doesn't care who adds the fluff, he expects to buy what he wants with just the amount of fluff he wants, because online his choices to select this are much greater. This is completely different from a B&M retailer where the choices in fluff are very small. The studios and all those who add their own fluff, just don't seem to get this.

6. Piracy is not the same in the US as it is elsewhere.

Duh. But you you continue to use examples from both as it suits your argument. The fact is that laws for IP are different elsewhere. What you consider criminal is only so in your little corner of the world. The problem with this isolationist thinking is that Americans aren't as free with their money as they were when these laws were devised to maximize profits. Now that middle-class Americans are getting the short end of the stick, they are also asking for IP laws that are fairer to them. The place they find this is abroad and the way they get there is online. The studios still think they can continue to rely on protectionist laws that are outdated and not in tune with the rest of the world or the present.

Let's stop with the whole fantasy that the studios don't make the laws. Their money influences the lawmakers and courts, so stop trying to fly that kite in the absence of wind. It doesn't fly and goes against what you've stated in other discussions about how the lawmakers are bought & sold. Funny how you claim saint-hood when it's your own cream-of-the-crop job that's under scrutiny. Yes, you are a limousine liberal, and that's not name-calling, it's fact, as you like to say, huh?

7. The difference between CDs and DVDs is not just copy-protection

I mean do I really have to go into this? So the reason I can rip a CD to my hard drive and not a movie is because the latter is protected by law? Are you sure you want to stand by that? What about copy-protected CDs? And What about movies that are not? But more importantly, fair-use applied to movies until the DMCA, remember? So this piece of bogus legislation (that by the way, not a single congressperson who voted for it read, mind you), came after millions of movies were already on hard drives, right? So are those illegal now, too? Aren't you just splitting hairs for effect?

Fair use should apply to movies as well. If you have any doubt about it, just look at what the rest of the world thinks about it. And yes, and that includes Bollywood, Chinawood, and Nollywood (not "Nigerwood" you dummy! ). It's only in the US that the DMCA pushes so hard that it's choking the life out of the industry. We can hope that these leaner times will finally knock some sense in the studios.

By the way, I do have movies on my hard drive, but as far as I can tell, this was done legally. I used commercially available tools when necessary and downloaded them from authorized sites in other cases. I don't violate copyrights and don't condone doing so. I understand why others do it, but in my job function it would be unethical for me to do the same. You calling me a criminal, is both false and inflammatory, but I suppose this is to be expected from you.

9. Including porn distracts from this discussion.

Look, I don't know what your obsession is with porn, because you sure like to bring it up, but my point stands. Because it involves an element of shame. especially here in the US, there are other factors that drive people to use it illegally. This goes beyond our discussion and is really just an incendiary tactic to make more of this than it is - really, this is the kind of sensationalism that FoxNews relies on for ratings and wasn't mentioned by the original article at all. Now if you need to go beat that topic some more to get your jollies off, please spare us the tedium will you?

10. There is no evidence that CD sales were negatively impacted by illegal downloads

It's just an urban myth, and you know it. You said that "CD sales where going strong until the year 2005" so what do you think people were downloading before that? (don't you say porn, you perv). Napster was around way before that and then it was Limewire, eDonkey, and a host of others. The fact is that there were a number of surveys and even academic research projects that pointed out that there was no correlation, and you know this as well as I do. We could also argue that in 2006, is when the midle class really started to feel the pinch of Bush's economic policies. Maybe they had a much bigger impact on the drop in CD sales. In any case, your examples can easily be refuted, and you know it.

11. Leveraged against the growth of sales over the internet, piracy is actually quite small.

I'm not denying that it's a problem, but it's still quite small in comparison. You know this and yet you still are intent on ignoring that fact.

12. Cracking the DVD code was not illegal.

See this is where you betray your capitalist and protectionist self. It was not illegal because he did it in the Netherlands. At that time, it was not illegal in that country. But the MPAA still wanted US law to apply there. They even tried to get the poor shmuck extradited, for Pete's sake. I mean let's see this for what it is, there were people here who wanted to lynch him, several people called for the death penalty and life in prison. And all he wanted to do was watch DVDs on his computer. By the way, he uploaded the code to a small FTP site focussed on Linux programming, and certainly did not intend for his code (which is quite short, by the way, just a few pages), to be distributed around the world or on any other platform. He was a Linux die-hard, and had no intention on releasing code for Windows or Mac users. You know for someone who claims to abide by international law, you sure don''t practice what you preach.

13. If the law is unjust, it should be resisted.

Now I'm not interested at all in cracking, but I understand why others do it. There are a lot of hackers who have very noble intentions, and aren't criminals by any stretch. Now, if a law is unjust, it should be resisted - isn't that what this country was founded on? Isn't that why women can not vote? Isn't that why slavery was abolished? Isn't that why we had Nuremberg trials. If you remember, the law in Nazi Germany was pretty clear - military personnel were expected to follow orders under penalty of death, yet Nuremberg said that they were supposed to disobey the orders. This is now also part of international law, the declaration of human rights (to which the US is signatory), and thus also part of our own federal law. So while IP law may not be as life-and-death serious, it is still something that should be resisted if unjust by the same reasoning. Because US IP law, especially the DMCA, is protectionist and exists to the detriment of consumers anywhere else around the world, it should also be resisted. There was a time when that thinking was sacrosanct in our own country too, then corporatists like yourself started meddling in it.

And if some people circumvent law, it is because that is their chosen avenue for resistance, just like abolitionists chose to form an underground railroad. Without this type of resistance, there is no change in unjust laws. I may not have the courage to do this, but I certainly believe that those who do take this on, have very good and justifiable reasons for doing so. And as far as these people being just a small or insignificant group, I'll quote Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

14. Copy protection doesn't work

It's interesting how you extol the virtues of copy protection in one paragraph, and then complain that pirates are rampant on the wild west web and cracking movies left and right. DRM and all other copy protection schemes are like the Great Wall of China - they don't keep unwanted miscreants out. No it doesn't work, and your fear mongering about the internet shows that you don't believe it's working either. So what do you propose? I at least have offered some suggestions, and so has Andrew Robinson. At this point in the game, it's time for the studios to stop hoping that their finger in the dike is going to stop the flood. They (and you) are so focused on plugging that one small hole that you're forgetting that you're already waist deep in water.

Maybe it's time to listen to some of us who actually know a thing or two about the internet.

15. If the studios can charge less for digital files to theaters, then there is no reason digital files for downloads shouldn't cost less either.

You wasted two paragraphs on yapping about storage costs, and you never addressed this simple question. The studios charge less for digital files to theaters, so why should this discount not apply to consumers? If they are passing on this discount to digital theaters who then download the files to their own theater's server, then why can't this costs savings be applied to a larger scale server that sells the file to consumers. You can yammer all you want about incidentals, but you haven't answered that basic question.

16. You are most certainly not a progressive.

Look, you can make all the claims you want elsewhere, but your posts betray your protectionist and corporatist tendencies over & over. You even quote Fox News with some sensationalist nonsense about the internet coming to a halt. For you info, the internet is elastic, it was originally designed to stay up even in case of a nuclear war, remember? If you actually understood the technology, you wouldn't be so fearful and ignorant about what to do next. And that kind of close-minded ignorant thinking is why you really are a closet-conservative through and through. Just admit it already.