Interesting persepctive on movie industry & downloads

[Worf101]

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.

I hear you man, I just posted the link to show what others think. I've no real horse in the race EXCEPT whatever solutions result in me getting some product from H-Wood that I'll actually go to the Theatres and see. Last movie I saw was "Inlgorious Basterds". Going to see the Keats movie "Bright Star" later this weekend. I'm old school, I pay (when I can which is just about always) for art. I'd pay the musician's personally if I could and kill the middle men.

I'm watching your debat with NFlier closely and with interest.

Da Worfster

[nightflier]

Worf, if I may borrow from your discussion:

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.

That's a pretty broad brush and extreme hyperbole. I guess you'd also like to ignore the overlap between the computer industry and Hollywood as well? Pixar ring a bell? Who developped DRM and copy protection? Studio execs? What about studio-sanctioned Hulu? Didn't you fill your NetFlix queue on a computer? This us vs. them mentally smacks of absolute and obscene ignorance, does nothing for our discussion, and shines a big bright spotlight on your own personal prejudices.

They predicted that the format war would destroy disc media, and open the door for downloading to take over. It didn't happen.

Yes a few writers have said something to that effect (I think), but that's not at all representative of every one in the industry. Total exaggeration.

The have belittled Blu-ray disc as being yesterdays technology, but they are unable to match the quality.

No they haven't - they championed it. And as for quality, anything that you can store on a BR disk is actually a compressed or trimmed down version of a much larger, much more impressive file on a hard drive somewhere. What you fail to see is that BR was developed by computer people and ready to go years ago, but it took Hollywood years more to come up with a protection scheme that they felt comfortable with. By that time the computer industry had moved on. If anything, it's Hollywood that held back progress and technology, again.

The contend that the distribution system is outmoded at the same time the internet is choking under P2P illegal downloading.

The internet isn't choking. Stop with that old line already. You sound like a broken record.

What they seem to ignore is that joe the public isn't watching a computer screen as a replacement for a television.

Yes he is. There is more demand for smaller screens than larger screens, and the demand is growing. Ever heard of a SmartPhone? I didn't think so, since it has the word "smart" in it...

They are not throwing their DVD and Blu-ray players away for a hard drive or a flash drive.

Yes they are. Do you read only what agrees with your own point of view? This statement is completely false.

They are not downsizing their flatpanel from 40-50" to 20-24"

Yes, they are, actually also down to 4-5".

They are not mentioning that ISP cannot offer the speeds they advertise because the internet does not have enough bandwidth.

This is more a problem at the local & residential level and only affects a percentage of people. The major branches of the Internet have very fat pipes that are actually quite open. You really don't understand the technology, do you?

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.

Another broad brush. You might also want to mention how much DVD sales account for that as opposed to BR sales. The fact is, quality is less important than quantity. That is why rentals are booming too: people want more movies and care a whole lot less about the latest fad spec than you would like to admit. Only on small forums like ours is that not the case, but that's not Joe Consumer, and that's who we're talking about.

They never mention the battle between the cable and telecoms, and the online video distributors over infrastructure issues.

I'll grant you this: the infrastructure issues aren't so simple to address. As I mentioned above, there are local issues that affect performance to a much greater extent, and that is primarily the responsibility of smaller cable/internet providers to solve. The current system is hampered by significant deregulation across this industry over the last decade and a half. Comparing this to a much faster structure, like the one in Japan, for example, we know that they are much more willing to apply open standards and policies from the national and supra-regional level on down than we are. This is why they have a better Internet infrastructure today. But if it can be done better elsewhere, then it can also be done here. Let's hope we are more open to learning from others on this issue.

There sole purpose is to push the buying public towards their computers and downloads, and away from disc based media.

Nonsense, because of the overlap, this statement is just FUD. Of course someone who makes hard drives will push for the sales of their own products, but in that same industry there are people working on copy-protection, Internet infrastructure advances, better computer chips, better laser pickups, better batteries, better video standard, the list goes on. To paint the whole industry as opposed to Hollywood is just more us vs. them fear-mongering. That thinking went out with the Cold War for most people, so get out of the cold and keep up will ya.

This has been going on for years, and nothing has changed much.

No it hasn't, and it's always changing.

They never point out the negatives on downloading, but point to negatives on disc buying.

Who the heck is "they"? I know plenty of critics in the computer industry who are critical of downloading. The difference about them (compared to you) is that they're not pointing fingers but rather trying to resolve these issues. The computer industry is extremely self-critical, they have to be, and that's a good thing.

The operate under the same ignorance that nighthief has.

You have us to thank for so many of the technologies you now take for granted, so maybe you should pipe down a bit. And If I share their knowledge, then I'm not ashamed of that at all, but you should be ashamed for such blatant and ignorant fear-mongering.

They have an agenda

,

To make better products, yes we've already established that. If only the Hollywood execs would have the same work ethic, then they wouldn't be so scared and short-sighted.

...it is to push the internet over physical media, and that is it

Considering they developed and continue to develop your physical media and the means to view them, that's a dubious observation.

They are doing their jobs, and I have no problem with it.

Oh yes you do, and it shows, big time. How's that side-gig at FoxNews going. Tell Hannity I still think he's a blowhard, next time you slap a$$es in the dressing room, OK?

____________________________

Pixel, if I may:

...
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"
computer 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.
...

Pixel brings up some very good points, and instead of just dismissing them with more insults, why don't you address them? They are from someone who does the opposite of what you're saying everybody is doing. Even if you don't think it's worth your precious time, you owe it to the rest of the readers of this discussion.

[GMichael]

Pixel brings up some very good points, .

Whoa..!?...

[nightflier]

GM, stop lurking and give us your 2 cents.

[GMichael]

GM, stop lurking and give us your 2 cents.

OK, but my 2 cents is that I don't know enough about either side to teach anyone here a thing about this subject. I can only give the opinion of one person.
I like bigger and better TV's. That's why I have 106" screen in one room and a 92" in the other. I'd much rather buy a BR disc and own it forever. I can play it any time I want, as often as I want. When I have company, I often will play a disc. The quality is fantastic.
But they cost too much, and I do see a new generation who want it fast and don't care if it's perfect. Even I was grateful that I could get yesterday's game on my computer instead of missing the first few hours.
I think there is room for both in the market. There will always be collectors. There will also, always be kids who can't wait and will watch a movie on a 4" LCD screen on their phone. Not me though. I want the big screen with the big sound.

As far as your argument with Sir T, you both have some good points. And you both present the information with your own little slant. That's what makes it fun to read. But to say that Pixy had a good point!? That's just ludicrous. (Sorry Pixy just fun'n' with ya at your expense. Go ahead, jab back)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

Who says the digital files offer less? According to those people who have downloaded and evaluated digital downloads, they are basically the same product, one on disc, the other as a digital file.

DVD=480p
Downloads=480p

DVD=Dolby Digital sound
Downloads=Dolby Digital and Stereo sound

DVD=CSS copy protection
Downloads=Fairplay, Microsoft playforsure and various others

DVD=$14.99
Download=$14.99

When you look at this from this angle, they are comparative products. Now if you are complaining about the fact the digital files can't be played on every computer because of DRM, this answer ought to be obvious to you. It stops proliferation, period. And let's face it, it can be stripped away, just like CSS is stripped away when a DVD is ripped. If you base your opinion strictly on file size, then again you lose the argument because the file size is determined by the compression values, and higher compression is needed to make the file downloadable in a reasonable amount of time. This is the price you pay for the convenience of not having to leave your house. If you are arguing that DVD has extras and the download does not, you are still on the losing side of an argument. DVD's with no extras can be found for $5-$10 bucks in a discount bin at a big box. But you still have to spend the money for gas, and the time as well. If you say it lacks packaging and should be cheaper, I argue you should pay a premium for the convenience of not having to leave your house to get the product. It seems to me you don't really have an argument.

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?

Cooling improvements, and green power alternatives both come at a price. Every time they make improvements to air conditioning systems, it increased the price of the hardware. Green power alternatives are still expensive because of lack of economic scale. These are tomorrow solutions, but we need one now. H.264 is probably the best compression you can have, but the computing power it takes to run it is not cheap, and without more bits to work with, it can only do so much in the quality area. If you only store 600 movies, then folks complain about the lack of choice. That is why most services offer 4,000+ films, and even that pales next to 100,000+ choices on DVD.

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.

Here is what I say. Invent it, and pitch it to the online distributors. I am pretty sure they will say it is a inefficient way of delivery, and it will not reduce costs, and you lose bandwidth controls with this approach. How would this compete with a product that I can just pop into a player, and in less than a minute have the movie playing? How would the system know that all of its pieces have arrived in the proper order, with all of the bits needed for playback? What happens if all of the pieces do not arrive? What kind of computer or black box resources would this require? Is this system already invented?

The problem I have with this is it is of no benefit RIGHT NOW. You are complaining about the prices RIGHT NOW, and this does nothing to bring them down RIGHT NOW. If there are solution out there, figure them out and pitch the idea to the online distributors. This is not a film studio issue at all.

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.

This is exactly what I thought you meant. However, I see no downloads anywhere with bloopers, different soundtrack options, foreign languages, previews or featurettes on them. It is just the movie and a basic stereo or DD track. Can you show me an example of a bundled download? Amazon does not have it. Itunes does not have it. Vudu does not have it. In perusing the various downloading services, I don't see bundling anywhere. What the hell are you talking about?

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.

Your first sentence is exactly why DRM exists. IP laws are different everywhere, and that is why DRM is used on content. I have read nowhere in the papers or online where collectively the middle class is asking for IP laws that are fairer to them. Are you channeling the masses again? IP laws protect IP's of everyone, not just big studios. Song writers want them, people who write white papers want them, anyone who creates an idea wants it. It protects ideas, inventions, and whole creations from being stolen without being paid for. I know no one that creates anything to be marketed that does not want their ideas or creations protected from theft. If you think only studios want IP laws, then you have lost your mind completely.

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?

NF, it wasn't just studios asking for IP laws from lawmakers, It was the entire creative community. The studios are not the only ones creating product for sale. Song writers wanted it, script writers wanted it, researchers wanted it, everyone who creates ideas and marketed products wanted it. It is BS to make this a studio only issue.

Now you say that calling me a Limousine liberal is not name calling but fact? Okay, here is a fact for you based on that logic. You are stupid, naive, dumb idiot, loud mouthed, little brain one dimensional thinker, and delusional fool. This is a fact, not name calling. Do you now see how stupid a statement that is?

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?

The answer to your first question is yes. And yes I stand by that answer based on this. If a CD uses copy protection, it is against the law to rip it to your hard drive unless you can do it without defeat the copy protection.

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

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

And before the DMCA you had WIPO in the United Nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_I...y_Organization

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeme...roperty_Rights

So you see clearly that the protection of IP didn't just start with the DMCA. Fair use laws in respect to the A/V community only covered time shift recording of television. There were no previsions for LD's, DVD and Bluray pre-recorded material, it only covered CD-ROM or tape applications used for recordings. What lawmaker read or didn't read, they voted on it, and it is law whether you like it or not. If it came after millions of movies where on hard drives, show me the movies you are talking about, and who stored them. Otherwise, this is just a claim by you.

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.

Whether you think fair use should apply to movies is irrelevant to the facts. It doesn't, and your complaints are not going to change a thing. I seriously doubt that lean times are going to change that much. It is rather obvious that creative entities all over the world want it, whether consumers like it or not. You can hope all you want, but computer manufacturers want it, software creators want it(especially Microsoft), the music and film communities all over the world want it, researchers all over the world want it, everyone world wide that creates something want it. Good luck with this one!

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.

Whether you used commercially available tools or not, the ripping of copy protected discs is against the law PERIOD! Legal ripping only applies to non commerical use unprotected DVD's only. So if you ripped a DVD with copy protection on it, you are a criminal whether you like the title or not. That is not inflammatory or false, it is a fact!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/11954...lourishes.html

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?

Oh this is rich here. So you use shame as an excuse for breaking the law? Wow, wow, WOW!!! No this does not go beyond our discussion. You want to dismiss it because this is the biggest theft of all, and the most illegally traded video content on the web. This is the firestorm that started the whole file sharing phenom off well before it hit Hollywood's product. It is the 8000lb gorrilla in the room, so of course you don't want to discuss it. I love how you attempt to spin this into something more personal than just a fact, but call the dog in, the trail is cold man. This is a prime example of the lengths that folks will go when they really want something, and cannot afford it. Shame is a flimsy excuse as to why you steal, but so is the its too expensive argument as well. The game of pick and choose must be your favorite game to play.

You can argue about CD sales and proliferation if you please. But as many papers are you can come up with the point to piracy as not being the issue, I can point to papers and research that points the opposite way. Napster was illegal, and in that form, it was closed down. The levels of file sharing before 2005 was meager. But amount of file sharing post 2005 has exploded, with music being second on the list of P2P activity. While ripping is legal in other countries, trading is not. If it is on P2P bit torrents, it is illegal.

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.

I am ignoring this fact, because it is just an opinion, and not a fact at all. Nobody is looking at this as small except you. The recording industry is not looking at it that way, the telecoms and cable companies are not looking at it that way. The former is losing money, and the latter's networks are clogged because of it. Downloads from Itunes and the various other online distributors are not the problem, it the P2P traffic which is between 40-80% of online traffic that's the problem. It does not affect you personally(or me either) which is why it is easily dismissed by you.

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.

Actually, no your story is not true at all. The fact is Jon Johansen did not do the crack himself, he got the information from another MoRe user on the Linux DVD community. He never said he invented the de-cyrption code, the Norwegian papers made that up just to make a big deal out of it. He said that MoRe (of which he was a member) created a code called DeCSS which defeated the copy protection measures. The code was actually decrypted by a german guy code named DOD or drink or die from Germany(who laws prevent the theft of IP including unique codes). DOD sent the code to another user in the community. What was intended, and what happen does not change the facts. It was posted on a site that can be accessed world wide, so these guys knew exactly what they were doing. This was not just an innocent act by a "poor" guy just wanting to watch a movie on his computer. This was a planned hack that was even admitted as such. So much for what you know Mr. Know it all.

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?

This is a stretch. So, if I am hungry, I have the right to steal food from my local grocery store right? My cause it noble, I was hungry had no money and need to eat to live right? Your whole diatribe is complete BS. If you don't like a law, you lobby to get it changed, you don't just break it as it suits your purpose. What you are spreading here are anarchist propaganda and theology. This country was not founded on that principle at all.

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.

You are right, I don't think DRM as it is being implemented now is working. However I do believe in DRM because it should not affect the average person at all. No, when this issue first came up, my recommendation was to not let our movies play on any computers at all. My personal opinion is that a DVD movie should only be played on a disc players, and not computers. When the DVD came onto the market, there were no DVD-Rom drives. I said that even when they came, the DVD for movies should not be compatible with that drive, and only blank DVD-ROM's should be. There should be a compatibility wall between what can be used as a recording medium and a pre-recorded medium. If you attempt to hack the player in an effort to get the video files from it, it should brick itself immediately. Well, my greedy superiors at the time saw all of these computers as more money, and now I am sure that they regret that decision. When the online distributors came knocking, I recommended that any encode sold should have DRM embedded in the video, and work much like HDMI works. In others words, a DRM handshake between the desktop device, and any other device in the chain. If the DRM is stripped away, then the handshake cannot take place, and the video will not play. I think there should be a wall between content intended for home use, and content available for computer and portable devices. The blending of the two (out of greed) has been a disaster for both concerns.

Your idea of distributing a free low quality full length copy is just not going to work. Once they have seen the whole movie, there is no reason to purchase the higher quality one. You have already seen the movie for free! I am personally open to other ideas, but this one is a none starter from my perspective as it offers nothing to the content providers big or small.

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.

I am afraid you'll have to ask digital theater managers this question, but I will offer my perspective on this. Most digital theaters are run by large corporations. They purchase equipment that covers their chain of theaters in their regions. Each individual theaters equipment costs currently add up to close to half a million dollar per install for the entire digital package. Regal theaters is the largest chain in this country, and it has 6388 screens in 39 states. They plan to convert all of their screens to digital. All one has to do is multiply a half million dollars by 6388. That figure would be $3,194,000,000.00. This is a $3 billion+ dollar investment by a single chain, a figure that no chain can swallow without raising revenue, or more precisely ticket prices. The studios have agreed to split the cost (they are the ones saving the most from this), so now they kick in $1.5billion, and the chain does $1.5 billion. Still, no chain can afford to spend $1.5 billion without raising ticket prices. Both sides have to raise revenue to cover the costs of this transition. So that digital file, while cheaper than film, is not that much cheaper at this point, because you are paying for an infrastructure upgrade on both sides of the coin. The studios have to create an infrastructure for mass distribution of the files(which is not there), and the exhibitors have to create the infrastructure for digital presentation for all their theaters.

I know you are going to dismiss this as you usually do, but you ask the question and I gave the you the answer.

Your diatribe on whether I am liberal, progressive, or conservative is not relevant to the issue at hand, so I am not going to address that. It's your OPINION, and worth absolutely nothing to me and I would venture to no one else. I just hope it made you feel better since badges and labels help you create your delusional opinions.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=nightflier]Worf, if I may borrow from your discussion:

That's a pretty broad brush and extreme hyperbole. I guess you'd also like to ignore the overlap between the computer industry and Hollywood as well? Pixar ring a bell? Who developped DRM and copy protection? Studio execs? What about studio-sanctioned Hulu? Didn't you fill your NetFlix queue on a computer? This us vs. them mentally smacks of absolute and obscene ignorance, does nothing for our discussion, and shines a big bright spotlight on your own personal prejudices.

This point is stupid. It is one thing to use a computer to order a netflix disc, its another to watch the movie on it. It is one thing to render a animation video, its another to watch the animation on the computer. It is a us versus them, it always has been. The film community see the computer industry as a hatchet job, wanting to lower the standard of presentation to fit their needs. The computer industry does not LOVE film, the film community does. The computer industry sees films as content, the film community looks at it as an art for exhibition. These are not my personal views, but views I have heard from too many DP's, producers, directors and a few actors as well.

NF, I am presenting facts, and not always my personal views.

Yes a few writers have said something to that effect (I think), but that's not at all representative of every one in the industry. Total exaggeration.

This is on par with the rest of the computer nerds. A few writers, BS. It is a tidal wave of writers, and it is industry wide you big fat liar. You have a tendency to play down one side (the computer industry) and play up the other side (the film industry), and it shows in your post blatantly.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=365

http://www.techradar.com/news/video/...-s-why--464705

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20...y-good-enough/

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42950/99/

http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2...lue-rays-dead/

Just a few folks huh. This is just a small sample of what I have been reading over the last two years. You NF are full of it big time.

No they haven't - they championed it. And as for quality, anything that you can store on a BR disk is actually a compressed or trimmed down version of a much larger, much more impressive file on a hard drive somewhere. What you fail to see is that BR was developed by computer people and ready to go years ago, but it took Hollywood years more to come up with a protection scheme that they felt comfortable with. By that time the computer industry had moved on. If anything, it's Hollywood that held back progress and technology, again.

BR was NOT developed by computer people. It was developed with the HELP of computer people. HD-DVD was Warner idea that Toshiba turned into a product. Blu-ray was a Sony's Entertainment arm idea based on Sony's proprietary storage system for the company as a whole. Get your facts straight here.

The internet isn't choking. Stop with that old line already. You sound like a broken record.

These guys say differently, so who is the liar your or them? I take you, as AT&T runs a system, you don't.

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

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle6169488.ece

Yes he is. There is more demand for smaller screens than larger screens, and the demand is growing. Ever heard of a SmartPhone? I didn't think so, since it has the word "smart" in it...

Where is your research to support this? Adams research did a study on this very issue, and they don't agree with your no research. SmartPHONE, not videophone. Of course there is a demand for a device you can use to call people, but there is no evidence that folks are using it as a replacement to the television. Maybe as an additional viewing device, but not a total replacement. You ever heard of stupid pills? I am sure you have since it is apparent you have O.D on them.

Yes they are. Do you read only what agrees with your own point of view? This statement is completely false.

Can you show me the pile of discarded players? Can you show me where a person has thrown away his working DVD or Bluray player, and replaced it with an Ipod or other viewing device? Dude, your eyes are getting more brown by the minute, and your nose as long as the distance between Paris and Los Angeles.

Yes, they are, actually also down to 4-5".

Where is the proof? I cannot find a shred of proof that a 4-5" display device is replacing 50" flatpanels as primary viewing devices. I wonder how a 4.5"screen will look in my hometheater next to my 130" screen. You are a clown NL The Television is the primary viewing device for movies, and a portable device is a seconday device according to Adams Research. Now Nighliar research may come to a different conclusion since it does not exist.

This is more a problem at the local & residential level and only affects a percentage of people. The major branches of the Internet have very fat pipes that are actually quite open. You really don't understand the technology, do you?

It does not matter where it is happening, it is happening and the average consumer is not interested in the details, they are looking at the end result. If there is a dam or clog in the system, nobody cares which pipe it is coming from, they just see the clog or slow down.

Another broad brush. You might also want to mention how much DVD sales account for that as opposed to BR sales. The fact is, quality is less important than quantity. That is why rentals are booming too: people want more movies and care a whole lot less about the latest fad spec than you would like to admit. Only on small forums like ours is that not the case, but that's not Joe Consumer, and that's who we're talking about.

This is not about disc sales versus disc sales, it is about disc sales versus downloads. Rentals of disc still outstrips the rental of downloads by a far far margin. NDP reports clearly show this, oh and by the way BR rentals and sales are booming, so somebody cares quality.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6670988.html

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6702671.html

I'll grant you this: the infrastructure issues aren't so simple to address. As I mentioned above, there are local issues that affect performance to a much greater extent, and that is primarily the responsibility of smaller cable/internet providers to solve. The current system is hampered by significant deregulation across this industry over the last decade and a half. Comparing this to a much faster structure, like the one in Japan, for example, we know that they are much more willing to apply open standards and policies from the national and supra-regional level on down than we are. This is why they have a better Internet infrastructure today. But if it can be done better elsewhere, then it can also be done here. Let's hope we are more open to learning from others on this issue.

Wow, your first acknowledgement even though I have brought this up several times. It is not simple, and when you combined it with a cost estimate of $130 billion dollars to fix the problem, it is a daunting task indeed. Analyst say this must be spent within the next three years, or there will be a noticeable traffic slowdown on the net. When the studios sat down with representatives from At&T, Comcast, Warner, Cox, and a host of other cable and telecom concerns, this is what they told us. They told us the investment capital is not there because of the credit crunch, and that regulatory issues were making upgrades complex and even more expensive than the estimates. I do not think there was a person there on the studio side that thought it was time to invest heavily in downloading after that news. Everyone has decided to take the go but slow route, and that is exactly what they are doing. This is the holdup and the very reason why the studios do not have a big footprint in downloading, not fear, not lack of understanding, and certainly not ignorance as you have said here.

Nonsense, because of the overlap, this statement is just FUD. Of course someone who makes hard drives will push for the sales of their own products, but in that same industry there are people working on copy-protection, Internet infrastructure advances, better computer chips, better laser pickups, better batteries, better video standard, the list goes on. To paint the whole industry as opposed to Hollywood is just more us vs. them fear-mongering. That thinking went out with the Cold War for most people, so get out of the cold and keep up will ya.

Let us get one thing straight here. There is a BIG difference, and I mean a BIG BIG difference between the Japanese and Asian region computer industry, and the American computer industry. Sony has managed to get the Japanese and Asian region computer industry to work with them on developing parts for their format, as did Warner with Toshiba. Apple used to be on the board of the BDA, and has refused to work with the Blu-ray format, and that got them kick off the board. Intel, Dell, HP have included Blu-ray drives in their products, but have offered no advances and own no patents on Blu-ray technology. All of the advances in laser pickups, head assemblies come from Asian region companies, not American companies. All of the encoding technology has come from Japanese companies, and the copy protection comes from Sony. Developments on disc technology have come from Japanese computer companies, not American. The Japanese companies have always had a symbiotic relationship with Hollywood, not the American computer companies which have always had a oppositional and/or indifferent relationship. Microsoft is the devil in the film industry, and so is Apple because of Steve Jobs. It was Microsoft's intention to divide and conquer the film industry by its support of HD-DVD, and that was especially noted when their interactive component was rejected by the BDA, and they switched support to HD DVD. Before they switched, the industry was ready to line up behind Blu-ray. Microsoft pushed Toshiba to release that format even though they knew it was an up hill battle that it would succeed.

No it hasn't, and it's always changing.

Yes it has, and it has been no different than it was when Microsoft pitch webtv, and it failed to get any support from Hollywood. Every since the introduction of Blu-ray and HD DVD, we have heard nothing but failure failure come to downloading from computer journalist and analyst. Seems that you don't know about the chatter coming from your own pals.

Who the heck is "they"? I know plenty of critics in the computer industry who are critical of downloading. The difference about them (compared to you) is that they're not pointing fingers but rather trying to resolve these issues. The computer industry is extremely self-critical, they have to be, and that's a good thing.

The may critisize their own, but they support it regardless. And this is especially so when the names Blu-ray come into the picture. Since I have made my point with the links above, there is no reason to belabor it.

You have us to thank for so many of the technologies you now take for granted, so maybe you should pipe down a bit. And If I share their knowledge, then I'm not ashamed of that at all, but you should be ashamed for such blatant and ignorant fear-mongering.

Please, don't act like the computer industry is one great big happy family. They are not, and I know this for a fact. We have the Japanese computer and Electronics industry to thank for the technologies I take for granted. Their business culture is vastly different than the American computer businesses. Here are some snippets from a book I have been reading on the subject.

Overall, although American industry has donated some valuable ideas to the Japanese computer industry, Japanese success has a lot to teach its American counterpart. Some of this success is accounted for by cultural differences: Japanese attention to quality, social stability, and well-thought out national industrial strategy, three elements not generally present in the American computer industry, have had great influence.

Companies with excellent process technology, capital-intensive components production, and flexible high-volume assembly will dominate the hardware value chain... The most profound advantages will go to companies that have access to patient capital, that maintain close links with component and equipment developers and that can afford huge, continuing expenditures for R&D and capital investment.... These facts play directly into the strategic and technical strengths of Japanese companies... In contrast, US industry has superior design skills, but it is largely fragmented, undercapitalized, and shortsighted. It has failed to develop the structures, strategies, and operational techniques necessary for commercial success in the markets created by its own innovations. As a result, Japan could dominate world hardware markets even though US companies, universities, and standards organizations still define the state of the art in computer science, systems architecture, innovative design, networking, software and digital communications -- even in semiconductor memories, a 10 billion dollar market the US has all but lost. (Forester)

I thank the Japanese, not the Americans this time. I guess I am not as isolationist nationalistic as you think I am
,

To make better products, yes we've already established that. If only the Hollywood execs would have the same work ethic, then they wouldn't be so scared and short-sighted.

No, the agenda is to move consumers away from disc to downloads, do play stupid stupid
Based on my post above, you American computer guys can't tell anyone in Hollywood about work ethics

Considering they developed and continue to develop your physical media and the means to view them, that's a dubious observation.

Actually both of those honors belong to the Japanese, not Americans. Don't try and ride their gravy train, the two are not the same, even if they do the same thing.

Oh yes you do, and it shows, big time. How's that side-gig at FoxNews going. Tell Hannity I still think he's a blowhard, next time you slap a$$es in the dressing room, OK?

You must be talking to yourself... and its very weird but I am sure pretty normal for you.

____________________________

Pixel, if I may:



Pixel brings up some very good points, and instead of just dismissing them with more insults, why don't you address them? They are from someone who does the opposite of what you're saying everybody is doing. Even if you don't think it's worth your precious time, you owe it to the rest of the readers of this discussion.

I don't think it is worth my time, it is rehash. Why don't you handle it thanks. I don't owe anyone anything, and I think that others would agree with me on that.

[pixelthis]

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.

You need to tell your parents to find you another JR high school.
You're not even getting any decent insults to pass along(oh, wait, I bet none of the other kids talk to you).
And yes my comments are profound, more importantly concise and to the point.
The only point you have (aside from the one on your head) is that tech is going to freeze
at 1992 486x levels just to suit you.
If your ego was any larger it would be the ninth planet

[pixelthis]

OK, but my 2 cents is that I don't know enough about either side to teach anyone here a thing about this subject. I can only give the opinion of one person.
I like bigger and better TV's. That's why I have 106" screen in one room and a 92" in the other. I'd much rather buy a BR disc and own it forever. I can play it any time I want, as often as I want. When I have company, I often will play a disc. The quality is fantastic.
But they cost too much, and I do see a new generation who want it fast and don't care if it's perfect. Even I was grateful that I could get yesterday's game on my computer instead of missing the first few hours.
I think there is room for both in the market. There will always be collectors. There will also, always be kids who can't wait and will watch a movie on a 4" LCD screen on their phone. Not me though. I want the big screen with the big sound.

As far as your argument with Sir T, you both have some good points. And you both present the information with your own little slant. That's what makes it fun to read. But to say that Pixy had a good point!? That's just ludicrous. (Sorry Pixy just fun'n' with ya at your expense. Go ahead, jab back)

Not knowing anything has never stopped old talky.
BTW there is a new projector that uses LEDS' instead of the usual lifespan-of-a-firefly lamps other projectors use, you might be interested.
Only 45,000 or so.
And poke fun all you want, I'm right so I can be big about it.

[GMichael]

Not knowing anything has never stopped old talky.
BTW there is a new projector that uses LEDS' instead of the usual lifespan-of-a-firefly lamps other projectors use, you might be interested.
Only 45,000 or so.
And poke fun all you want, I'm right so I can be big about it.

$45k for a projector huh? Sure. But first I have to pay $1500 to repair my 13 year old Honda Civic with 150k miles on it. After that I'll be all over the upgrade.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You need to tell your parents to find you another JR high school.
You're not even getting any decent insults to pass along(oh, wait, I bet none of the other kids talk to you).
And yes my comments are profound, more importantly concise and to the point.
The only point you have (aside from the one on your head) is that tech is going to freeze
at 1992 486x levels just to suit you.
If your ego was any larger it would be the ninth planet

Your comments are as profound as pee in a teaspoon. Go put your teeth in, put ice on that swollen prostrate, and drink your prune juice Pixie before you prematurely turn to oil.

GM, want some gas for the Civic?

[GMichael]

GM, want some gas for the Civic?

Only after it's fixed.

Even with it being as old as it is, it didn't qualify for the cash for clunkers deal. It gets 31 mpg.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Only after it's fixed.

Even with it being as old as it is, it didn't qualify for the cash for clunkers deal. It gets 31 mpg.

What year. My son has a 1994 Civic EX. Nice little bugger to drive and comfy for a small car. It got a little kick in it as well. He has 160,000 on his, and it runs like a charm. I asked him if he wanted a newer car, he said no if he has to part with his Civic. I think he is in love wit it.

[GMichael]

What year. My son has a 1994 Civic EX. Nice little bugger to drive and comfy for a small car. It got a little kick in it as well. He has 160,000 on his, and it runs like a charm. I asked him if he wanted a newer car, he said no if he has to part with his Civic. I think he is in love wit it.

Mine is a 97 EX. I was driving a 98 Acrua 3.0 CL till it hit 200k miles. It was having some issues and I wanted Wifey in a newer car anyhow. I took her Civic and sold my Acrua. She has the 2008 Honda CRV while I feel like I took a step back.
I never download while driving though.

[pixelthis]

Mine is a 97 EX. I was driving a 98 Acrua 3.0 CL till it hit 200k miles. It was having some issues and I wanted Wifey in a newer car anyhow. I took her Civic and sold my Acrua. She has the 2008 Honda CRV while I feel like I took a step back.
I never download while driving though.

200k miles? Just getting broken in good.

[pixelthis]

Your comments are as profound as pee in a teaspoon. Go put your teeth in, put ice on that swollen prostrate, and drink your prune juice Pixie before you prematurely turn to oil.

GM, want some gas for the Civic?

At least oil is worth something compared to what you turned into, you old fart.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

At least oil is worth something compared to what you turned into, you old fart.

I do not think anyone would characterize a person in his mid forties as an old fart. Now your age........they are lucky if they can still use the pot.

[pixelthis]

I do not think anyone would characterize a person in his mid forties as an old fart. Now your age........they are lucky if they can still use the pot.

BORN in the mid forties is more like it.

[nightflier]

First of all, you never differentiated between the Japanese and American computer industries. That only started after your argument fell apart (again). Fact is, you said that the computer industry was not involved with the development of BR, and I proved you wrong. Now you're cherry-picking about which computer guys fit your argument. You were wrong when you said they were not involved, and you can't admit it.

Digital files do offer less than downloads: there is no disk, no case. Is that not clear enough? They also don't offer the same freedom to play it anywhere on any device I may own. Just transferring it is an exercise in DRM frustration. So yes, it should cost less than a DVD.

Regarding green alternatives, at my company I can assure you that we're not increasing our server cooling and energy costs this year. As a matter of fact we're saving a whole lot more by using green solutions. They don't cost more, they cost less, that's the point. Just because you can throw a a few words of computer jargon in your post, doesn't mean you understand much about this.

As far as the compression / decompression on the fly technology I described, we are working on it. But you know as well as I do what it takes to develop, implement, test, and market product - that's not something that just happens overnight. You should also know that I can't say more about it at this stage. Geez for someone who claims to know so much about computer technology, IP, and content, you certainly don't show it. Stop asking me to divulge more about it - I won't.

Regarding the bundling criticism, I wasn't talking about downloads. I was saying that bundling occurs on disk, which is the cash cow of the studios: it lets them re-distribute catalog content over & over again with a smidgen of extra fluff for more profit from the same ol' bag of goods. But the studios can't do this with downloads, so that's why they are doing everything they can to kill it. After all, if a download is $14.99 with no fluff today, then they can't really re-release it in two years as a new edition, now can they? Bits is bits, as you know.

Regarding IP law, I never said that artists didn't want them. But you're still stuck on the idea that US IP law should rule the world. The fact is US IP law is too restrictive to allow for adequate innovation, improvement, and creation of new artistic content. This is reflected in the stagnation of our artistic communities. You said yourself that much of what's coming out of Hollywood isn't all that good, right? Is it any wonder the rest of the world doesn't want to have US IP law rule the Internet? And I'm not talking about just China, India, and Eastern Europe, here. This is the same anger that the rest of the Western world has with US IP law.

Regarding Fair Use, you said that "it only covered CD-ROM or tape applications used for recordings." What you fail to mention is that this point of view is opposed by a vast majority of the American public, and pretty much the rest of the world. Fair use was a very narrow judgment that is now pretty much obsolete and needs to be revised. You oppose breaking the law, and I do too, but you can't ignore the fact that it is the only thing that has received attention about the out-dated nature of Fair Use & the DMCA.

Sooner or later, the violation of such outdated laws will be so broadly ubiquitous, that something will have to change. We can only hope that the courts (still made up primarily of old, conservative, white men, BTW) are open-minded enough to make a judgment that no longer hampers innovation and the creation of new and engaging works of art. In the end, even the studios will have to bow down to accepting that the current model just won't hold. You can play that "we're-on-top-so-screw-you" fiddle all you want, but Rome is burning and we all know what happened to Nero: he didn't just commit suicide, he brought down the whole Julio-Claudian dynasty with him (I know you don't read much, so that's for your educational benefit).

Regarding porn, I had no idea that it represented the greatest amount of theft. I guess you educated me on that one, wow. Look, I don't know much about this, and obviously you have a whole lot more knowledge beating that, so if that rocks your jollies, and you want to turn this into a Lou Dobs sensationalist piece in the process, then I guess we're in for another long post about the effects of theft on the porn industry, too. I'm sure we're all dying for more tedium from you. You're the expert on this one - whoopee, you scored a point.

Regarding piracy compared to the growth of internet commerce, you'll stop at nothing to kill the obvious won't you? The fact is, your harping still ignores the fact that piracy is still just a small fraction in comparison to the growth of Internet commerce, and you've done a piss-poor job proving otherwise, despite pages of blabber. And I never dismissed piracy entirely, I'm just stating a fact. That's not opinion, it's fact, plain and simple. Your stats about the growth of P2P do nothing to diminish that; it's just another associated factoid that does not refute my point in any way. Sure, it's mildly interesting, like watching a slug pass, but doesn't do anything for the discussion. We're becoming familiar with those FoxNews tactics.

Regarding Jon Johansen, if he didn't actually write the code, then why throw the book at him? Should he still get life in prison for his "crime." Is he a terrorist, too? And let's not forget that the MPAA was still trying to apply US IP law to a crime that occurred outside the US - and you have absolutely no problem with that. This is because you are so angry (whatever that's all about, we're not interested in knowing), that you are completely blind to common sense. And as far as knowing what was in their heads, aren't you the one who claimed over and over again that you're not a mind reader, remember? Well you sure seem to know what's in this guy's head, half a world away, too. You're a hypocrite when it comes to international law, and you're a hypocrite in how you make your arguments.

By the way, the argument about stealing when someone is hungry has been made in courts abroad over and over again. Most of the time the courts showed leniency as a result - this is typically the strategy of a good defense. It is also the way that unjust laws are changed (Apartheid comes to mind; and how about corporal punishment in public schools, Slavery, the Declaration of Human Rights, to name a few more). But when it comes to US IP law, for some reason, that kind of understanding just doesn't make it into the American courtroom. Is it because here in the US we are so beholden to property, that we can't bring ourselves to show leniency and fairness? How civilized are we really? What would Jesus, Ghandi, or the Daila Lama, and other peace workers you like to parade when it suits your argument, what would they say to that?

Also, I wasn't advocating a complete absence of law and bring about chaos, as you so gleefully sensationalized the point. I'm only trying to say, what most middle-class Americans and the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world already know: US IP law is too strict. It is draconian to the point of stagnation and it doesn't even serve the best interests of the artists, only the money-grubbing CEOs who's x-mas bonuses this year will depend on the misery of the majority. You must feel like you're in great company, huh?

I really like your divulging of your ignorance when you said that you didn't want DVDs to play on computers at all. This is typical of someone who's completely clueless about tecnmology. What exactly is a "computer"? At what point does a player cease to be a component and becomes a computer? As much as you like drawing little boxes around things to understand them, this thinking simply can't apply to technology. This is exactly the kind of Luddite thinking that stagnates progress and technological innovation. It's a good thing your superiors didn't listen to you.

Regarding digital theaters and why digital downloads cost less for them, you spent an awful lot of time explaining nothing. You throw around big numbers and stats, you propel distantly related factoids to the forefront, and you yammer about cost sharing nonsense, but the fact still remains: the digital downloads cost less. Plain and simple: as a delivery mechanism, the downloaded file costs less from the studios out to the theaters. I don't disagree that there's costs setting up servers and receiving computers, but that's irrelevant if we're comparing this to online movie downloads for consumers: computers and servers are already there. Everyone who wants to download movies has a computer and the servers to distribute them are also on the Internet already - so those costs do not apply.

It all still boils down to the one thing you can't explain: why digital downloads should cost the same or more. They shouldn't. And as long as the studios insist on charging so much for them (and not doing anything to keep the middle men from adding more), the consumers are going to be looking elsewhere for content. They will download illegal content when they can, and watch more free content (ie, TV) than movies. In the end, this is all lost revenue for the movie studios.

So I ask you again: how bad does it have to hurt before you start to notice?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First of all, you never differentiated between the Japanese and American computer industries. That only started after your arguments fell apart (again). Fact is, you said that the computer industry was not involved with the development of BR, I proved you wrong, and now you're cherry-picking about which computer guys fit your argument. You were wrong when you said they were not involved, and you can't admit it.

There was never a reason for differentiation until you started trying to credit YOUR industry with every advance in movie formats. When I said the computer industry was not involved, I meant OUR computer industry for which you are part of.

Digital files do offer less than downloads: there is no disk, no case. Is that not clear enough. They also don't offer the same freedom to play it anywhere on any device I may own. Just transferring it is an exercise in DRM frustration. So yes, it should cost less than a DVD.

Until downloads build an economy of scale like the DVD has, it will always be more expensive regardless if it is just a file. Enconomies of scale is what drives prices down.

Regarding green alternatives, we're sure not increasing our server cooling and energy costs this year, as a matter of fact we're saving a whole lot more by using green solutions. They don't cost more, they cost less, that's the point. Just because you can throw a a few words of computer jargon in there, doesn't mean you understand much about this. Why don't you stay out of that you really know very little about.

What you do at your company is what happens at your company. You cannot translate that to all companies. At Disney, are costs are going up even using green alternatives. Our electricity costs have been going up every year for the last five years, even with more efficient cooling. We may use less power, but the cost of that less is getting higher.

As far as the compression / decompression on the fly technology I described, we are working on it. But you know as well as I do what it takes to develop, implement, test, and market product - that's not something that just happens overnight. You should also know that I can't say more about it at this stage. Geez for someone who claims to know so much about computer technology, you certainly don't show it. Stop yammering about it, because I'm not going to say more about it.

If it is not here, then it's irrelevant to the conversation. You are not talking about higher prices for tomorrow, you are talking today. If you want prices lower TODAY, then what is happening tomorrow means dog crap. Mention something off the shelf, or don't complain about today's pricing.

Never said I was a computer expert, but neither are you apparently

Regarding the bundling criticism, I wasn't talking about downloads. I was saying that bundling occurs on disk, which is the cash cow of the studios: it lets them re-distribute catalog content over & over again for even more profit. But the studios can't do this with downloads, so that's why they are doing everything they can to kill it. After all, if a download is $14.99 with no fluff today, then they can't really re-release it in two years as a new edition, now can they? Bits is bits, as you know.

I thought this conversation was regarding downloads. You seem to be all over the map with your critisizm. So you hate the extra content? Too bad, other folks love it, and that is why it is on the disc. Survey after survey has shown the buying public WANTS IT, and they want it by a long shot over those who don't.

With every film studio in Hollywood with content ready to download, you comments are lame, stupid, inaccurate, and does not fly with the facts. We at Disney are upping the ante on our support of digital downloads by creating an all digital award winning studio. We are also working on ways to make it an easier experience - it is called Keychest

http://www.videobusiness.com/article...dustryid=47211

Fox is doing the same thing.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article...dustryid=47214

Sony is working on a downloading service that works through the PS3. Universal/NBC already has an all digital facility that is working on film content for downloading. Let's not mention that they also have contracts with more than 20 or so downloading services, including Netflix and Amazon with between 4000-10000 movies available for downloading. By the way, that is more movies than Blu-ray currently has out. So much for killing downloading, which is one of the biggest lies you enjoy propogating.

Regarding IP law, I never said that artists didn't want them. But you're still stuck on the idea that US IP law should rule the world. The fact is US IP law is too restrictive to allow for adequate innovation, improvement, and creation of new artistic content. This is reflected in the stagnation of our artistic communities. Is it any wonder the rest of the world doesn't want to have US IP law rule the Internet? And I'm not talking about just China, India, and Eastern Europe, here. This is the same anger that the rest of the Western world has with US IP law.

If it is too restictive, its too damn bad. Your Senator voted in favor of it, and that is the way it is PERIOD. That is not a studio issue at all. If the law is restrictive, use your imagination to work within it, or work to get it eased. Good luck on that though. If I lived in China, I would want US laws burdening me. It is a matter of sovereignity, not restrictiviness. Same with India, they have their own laws. But when it comes to Hollywood content, if you don't follow our laws, then DRM the hell out of the movies.

Regarding Fair Use, you said that they only apply "it only covered CD-ROM or tape applications used for recordings." What you fail to mention is that this point of view is opposed by a vast majority of the American public, and pretty much the same elsewhere. Fair us is a very narrow judgement that is now pretty much obsolete and needs to be revised. You oppose breaking the law, and I do too, but that is the only thing that has received attention about the out-dated nature of Fair Use. Sooner or later, the violation of such outdated laws will be so broadly ubiquitous, that something will have to change. We can only hope that the courts (still made up primarily of old white men) are open-minded enough to make a judgment that no longer hampers innovation and the creation of new and engaging works of art. In the end, even the studios will have to bow down to accepting that the current model just won't hold. You can play that fiddle all you want, but Rome is burning and when Nero was overthrown and committed suicide, he also ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty in the process.

Its law buddy. If the American public wants it changed, it will be changed. They however will not be able to get around the rules regarding copy protection, so fair use will only go so far. Whether the studios will have to bow remains to be seen. It is not going to happen just because you say it will.

Regarding porn, I had no idea that it represented the greatest amount of theft. I guess you educated me on that one, perv. Look, I don't know much about this, and obviously who have a whole lot more knowledge beating that, so if that rocks your jollies, and you want to turn this into a Lou Dobs sensationalist piece in the process, then I guess we're in for another long post about the effects of theft on the porn industry, too. I'm sure we're all interested in more tedium from you. after all, you're the expert on this one - whack away, then.

If I am a perv, you must be a eunuch! Once again, because you do not have an answer, you make it personal. So much for the high road ride in the gutter Mr. Civility. Video is video, theft is theft.

Regarding piracy compared to the growth of internet commerce, you'll stop at nothing to kill the obvious won't you. The fact is, you're harping on piracy is still just a small fraction in comparison, and you've done a piss-poor job proving otherwise, despite pages of blabber. And I never dismissed piracy entirely, I'm just stating a fact. That's not opinion, it's fact, plain and simple. Your stats about the growth of P2P, does nothing to diminish that fact - it's just another associated factoid that does not refute my point in any way - it's mildly interesting, sure, but doesn't do anything for the discussion - but we're becoming familiar with those FoxNews tactics (unfortunately).

Just another dismissal of a point that does not fit your arguement. This is your habit.

Regarding Jon Johansen, if he didn't actually write the code, then why throw the book at him? Should he still get life in prison for his "crime." And let's not forget, that the MPAA was still trying to apply US IP law to a crime that occurred outside the US, and you have no problem with that. This is because you are so angry (whatever that's all about, we're not interested in knowing), that you are completely blinded from common sense. And as far as knowing what was in their heads, aren't you the one who claimed over and over again that you're not a mind reader, remember? Well you sure seem to know what's in this guy's head, half a world away, too. You're a hypocrite when it comes to international law, and you're a hypocrite in how you make your arguments.

You can tell I am angry over the net. You are an idiot NL, just a plain idiot. The dude opened his big mouth while the others kept theirs shut. That is why he got the blame. Since I read an article about the whole debacle and Johansen admission, the information came from the horses mouth horses a$$

By the way, the argument about stealing when someone is hungry has been made in courts abroad, and over and over again, the courts showed leniency as a result - this is almost always the strategy of a good defense lawyer. It is also the way that unjust laws are changed (Apartheid comes to mind, & how about corporal punishment in public schools? Slavery? Declaration of Human Rights? there's a really long list here...). But when it comes to US IP law, for some reason, that kind of understanding just doesn't make it into the courtroom. Is it because we here in the US are so beholden to property, that we can't bring ourselves to show leniency?

Please, go steal some food and see if you can use this to get you out of jail. I am not interested in your anti US law diatribes. If you don't like what is going on here, go back to where you came from, or work to change the law. Complaining about the law on this forum is useless, and just shows your are a winer and not a worker.

I wasn't advocating a complete absence of law and chaos, as you so gleefully sensationalized the point. I'm only trying to say, what most middle-class Americans and the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world already know: US IP law is too strict. It is draconian to the point of stagnation and it doesn't even serve the best interests of the artists, only the money-grubbing CEOs who's x-mas bonuses depend on the misery of the majority. You must feel like you're in great company, huh?

It seems like the middle class is fighting to live rather than worrying about US IP laws. You are over-reaching and overstating your point pointed head. You are one person in the middle class, not everyone. Other people have other priorities, and they don't need you to be their mouthpiece

I really like your divulging of your prejudices, when you said that you didn't want DVDs to play on computers at all. This is typical of someone who's completely clueless about computers. What exactly is a "computer" At what point does a player cease to be a component and becomes a computer? As much as you like drawing little boxes around things to understand them, this thinking simply can't apply to technology. What kind of Luddite thinking is that? This is exactly the kind of thinking that stagnates progress and technological innovation - it is why your industry is in the muck that it now finds itself. It's a good thing your superiors didn't listen to you.

My definition of a computer is a keyboard, mouse, monitor, and hard drive. It has a sticker on it that says Dell, Apple, HP,etc. A PS3 is a computer if we are going to get technical, but I don't use Word or Excel on it, as it is not supported. You shouldn't play stupid, just be normal.....oh well that still makes you stupid.

Seems to me your industry is in a muck as well. Microsoft revenue is down 18%.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/23/m...ll-beats-expe/

The computer industry ranks third of all industries in layoffs. As a matter of fact, the computer industry shedded 186,000 job last year, and is in line to surpass that this year. So it seems like your industry is in the same muck as ours, and most business around the country. Dell business was down 16% last year, and they are doing worse this year. Three computer companies in Silicon Valley just annouced major layoffs this morning. You guys are doing worse than we are.

Regarding digital theaters and why digital downloads cost less for them, you spent an awful lot of time explaining nothing. You throw around big numbers and stats, you propell distantly related factoids to the forefront, and you yammer about cost sharing nonsense, but the fact still remains, the digital downloads cost less. Plain and simple: as a delivery mechanism, the downloaded file costs less from the studios out to the theaters. I don't disagree that there's costs setting up servers and receiving computers, but if we're comparing this to online movie downloads for consumers, that's all already there. Everyone who wants to download movies has a computer and the servers are also there already.

I said you would blow this off, and thanks for making my point. Downloads have to reach the economy of scale before prices go down. That is the way it is, so don't blame the film industry, blame Americas viewing habits.

It all still boils down to the one thing you still can't explain away: why digital downloads should cost the same or more. They shouldn't. And as long as the studios insist on charging so much for them (and not doing anything to keep the middle men from adding more), the consumers are going to be looking elsewhere for content. They will download illegal content when they can, and watch more free content (ie, TV) than movies. In the end, this is all lost revenue for the movie studios.

So I ask you again: how bad does it have to hurt before you start to notice?

This is for the last time ignorant fool. The studios do not set the pricing structure for online distribution. It is the online distributor that does that. Anti trust laws prevent the studios from setting prices. Since the public has shown no signs giving up movies, whether at the theaters or on disc, you are blowing out a bunch of hot air wind bag.

The fact that you keep repeating this like a broken record shows your profound ignorance of the film industry, and the online distribution industry as well.

[nightflier]

There was never a reason for differentiation until you started trying to credit YOUR industry with every advance in movie formats. When I said the computer industry was not involved, I meant OUR computer industry for which you are part of.

What a load of bunk. You didn't say anything about the Japanese computer industry. You got caught making up crap, and you can't live with it. Fact: you said the computer industry (without country qualifiers) was against Hollywood, and I demonstrated that was false. Now you're cherry-picking which computer industry you were (supposedly) talking about after it's all said & done. You got caught in an exaggerated lie and you can't handle it. You're a hypocrite.

And for your information, I work for a Japanese-owned company. Isn't that ironic?

Until downloads build an economy of scale like the DVD has, it will always be more expensive regardless if it is just a file. Enconomies of scale is what drives prices down.

In the mean-time, your industry is playing whack-a-mole with pirates. Here's hint: the moles always come back up.

What you do at your company is what happens at your company. You cannot translate that to all companies. At Disney, are costs are going up even using green alternatives. Our electricity costs have been going up every year for the last five years, even with more efficient cooling. We may use less power, but the cost of that less is getting higher.

Well it's true across this industry. It's only the studios, like yours apparently, that can't seem to save money. No wonder you guys are laying people off left & right and even coming after the precious health benefits of their own CEOs. So I ask again, how much does it have to hurt before you start caring?

Never said I was a computer expert, but neither are you apparently

Compared to you, even my pet rock is and expert.

I thought this conversation was regarding downloads. You seem to be all over the map with your critisizm.

Don't mix it up. You knew very well I was talking about the fluff on the disks. And whether people want it or not, it still makes for a pretty poor excuse to re-release old content over & over. People keep buying it because it's repackaged in a different way, something that just doesn't fly with downloads. And the studios just can't accept that.

So you hate the extra content? Too bad, other folks love it, and that is why it is on the disc. Survey after survey has shown the buying public WANTS IT, and they want it by a long shot over those who don't.

Well if they do, why not offer that as an extra cost item on downloads? I bet they won't love it that much, then.

We at Disney are upping the ante on our support of digital downloads by creating an all digital award winning studio.

All that and you still can't figure out how to cool a server room, bring down the price of digital downloads, run a business without firing half your employees, or get yourselves out of your profit-rut? Yeah, you guys are doing a bang-up job. Maybe it's because they keep expensive numb-skulls like you around.

Fox is doing the same thing.

Yeah, we know how much you love them. Do you have to slather every post with it?

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]By the way, that is more movies than Blu-ray currently has out. So much for killing downloading, which is one of the biggest lies you enjoy propogating.[/QOUTE]

And it's still a dismal failure. Wonder why? Is it because you're charging too much for them? Hmmmm.

It's amazing how you just keep re-enforcing my points. I ought to thank you for that, but I simply can't get over the stench you leave behind...

If it is too restictive, its too damn bad.

You know, that's the kind of arrogance with which Hummer drivers tear up the streets around here, too. And now the brand's owned by a Chinese company. There's some writing on that wall you should probably pay attention to.

Its law buddy. If the American public wants it changed, it will be changed.

Funny coming from someone who spent so much fatalistic time explaining how hard it is to change laws in this country.

They however will not be able to get around the rules regarding copy protection, so fair use will only go so far. Whether the studios will have to bow remains to be seen. It is not going to happen just because you say it will.

I'm not saying they will, I'm saying they already are. You're the only one still talking about eating filet mignon, when everyone else sees plainly enough it's crow.

If I am a perv, you must be a eunuch!

Huh? What do eunuchs have to do with this? Typical nonsense. Once again, because you do not have an answer, you make it personal. So much for the high road ride in the gutter Mr. Civility.

Just another dismissal of a point that does not fit your arguement. This is your habit.

No the fact that the growth of Internet commerce dwarfs piracy is fact. Just another dismissal of a point that does not fit your argument. This is your habit. And you can't address it either. Hypocrite.

The dude opened his big mouth while the others kept theirs shut. That is why he got the blame.

Yeah, OK. Is that your legal opinion? How about the fact you keep trying to dismiss on this: that the MPAA tried to apply US IP law where it had no jurisdiction. Why don't you answer the darned question?

I am not interested in your anti US law diatribes. If you don't like what is going on here, go back to where you came from, or work to change the law.

I was born here, you immigrant-bashing hypocrite. Why don't you act a little more civilized? And I am working to change the law here, and my first task is to dispel the nonsense you spurt around here.

Complaining about the law on this forum is useless, and just shows your are a winer and not a worker.

You're the one who's so hell-bent on discussing law (even though you know little to nothing about it). Hypocrite.

It seems like the middle class is fighting to live rather than worrying about US IP laws.

Every little bit counts. If the studios are ripping them off, then that pisses them off.

And you don't know if I'm middle class or not, so shut up with that.

My definition of a computer is a keyboard, mouse, monitor, and hard drive. It has a sticker on it that says Dell, Apple, HP,etc. A PS3 is a computer if we are going to get technical, but I don't use Word or Excel on it, as it is not supported.

PS3 is half way between? Exactly what isn't a computer? Your argument is vacuous and pointless and you know it.

Seems to me your industry is in a muck as well. Microsoft revenue is down 18%

I don't work for MS. And I'm doing OK, thank you.

The computer industry ranks third of all industries in layoffs.

But they're making money now, again, and leading this economic recovery, unlike your industry. Can't you Luddites for once keep up?

I said you would blow this off, and thanks for making my point. Downloads have to reach the economy of scale before prices go down. That is the way it is, so don't blame the film industry, blame Americas viewing habits.

No, you're the one who's blowing off my points. You still have made no case why downloads should cost the same or more. You know they should cost less, but you can't accept that, because it will affect your expensive habits a tad. Grow up already.

This is for the last time ignorant fool. The studios do not set the pricing structure for online distribution. It is the online distributor that does that. Anti trust laws prevent the studios from setting prices. Since the public has shown no signs giving up movies, whether at the theaters or on disc, you are blowing out a bunch of hot air wind bag.

All very convenient how you still can't explain why chick flicks cost the same as action flicks to the consumer. Explain that, will you.

The fact that you keep ignoring this like a broken record shows your profound ignorance of the film industry and computer industry, and especially the online distribution industry.

Funny, how you keep making my point. Do you even remember what you're supposed to be trying to tell us?

[Woochifer]

Oh dear, I go underground for a few weeks and I see that this topic has been rehashed yet again.

From my vantage point, the whole downloading angle gets a lotta hype, yet hasn't proven that it can generate much in the way of revenue. The DEG report that came out this week indicated that digital distribution revenues increased by 20% the first half of this year, and now makes up about 10% of the home entertainment revenue. Meanwhile, optical media sales are off by about 13% (yet still command the lion's share of the market). Several of the usual litany of anti-BD bloggers and self-annointed tech experts cited this as evidence that downloading has come of age and is ready to confine optical media and Blu-ray in particular to the dustbin of history, despite the continued dominance of optical media in terms of actual revenues.

What they ignore is that digital distribution also includes pay-per-view, cable and satellite on-demand services, and whole slew of other distribution channels -- many of which PREDATE the DVD format. I recall an old report indicating that pay-per-view and on-demand already made up 10 to 15% of the home entertainment revenues back in the late-90s/early-2000s. If this is true, then basically the situation with digital distribution is no different right now than it was BEFORE the DVD format took off.

To me, that's not very impressive considering all of the hype that downloading and online media get.

Also, the tech press seems intent on pitching this as a battle between Blu-ray and digital distribution, and claim that Blu-ray is somehow losing despite the fact that its revenue growth this year has been 4X GREATER than the growth for digital distribution. But, these battle lines are fallacious to begin with.

If you want to do a fair comparison, then you either need to compare Blu-ray versus HD digital distribution, or compare digital distribution against ALL optical media. Either way, when framing it as more of an apples-to-apples comparison, digital distribution comes up way short.

Just today, I found an article indicating that News Corp is not happy with the revenue returns that Hulu is generating. While the site has become one of the more heavily trafficked video hosting sites on the web, it has not been an especially profitable venture (YouTube actually loses money hand over fist, despite the huge volume of hits it attracts). The partnership that owns the site (including NBC Universal, Fox/News Corp, and others) has already been in discussions with cable and satellite companies to make certain content available only to subscribers. Today's article indicates that News Corp also wants to explore other subscription options for the site.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/153856

Despite the growth of online video, Ball State University's extensive study of video viewing habits from earlier this year found that actual viewing time for online video still constitutes less than 1% of overall TV and video viewing time. The study found that the average participant had 5 hours of daily TV viewing time, but less than 10 minutes of daily online video viewing time. Results shouldn't be surprising considering that 40% of U.S. households still don't have broadband access, and broadband penetration has basically leveled off.

http://www.researchexcellence.com/vcmstudy.php

All in all, I think that the sales decline for the DVD format in particular is nothing more than what typically happens when a consumer format matures. The DVD could initially rely on attracting sales from both new releases and long-awaited catalog titles. Now, 13 years after the DVD format's debut, nearly all of the desired catalog titles have already been released (some multiple times). That leaves new releases to drive the market, and it's inevitable that sales will decline as a result.

Blu-ray's not going to pick up the slack because frankly most movies are not worth purchasing multiple times. It's naive to assume that DVD collectors will replace their entire collection with Blu-rays. I see Blu-ray as the successor to the DVD, but that process will happen gradually, and it won't generate the huge uptake that accompanied the DVD. The DVD completely transformed the home video market, yet it still took the DVD format more than six years before it supplanted VHS, and the Blu-ray format is now only three years old. Blu-ray does not have to transform the market because the DVD format already did that.

The downloading market will continue to grow, but there are many market obstacles that need to be overcome before digital distribution will ever become the majority format. (Consider that even a "dead" format like the CD still commanded 65% of the overall music sales during the first half of THIS YEAR) The lack of broadband adoption and inadequate bandwidth on most existing broadband subscriptions is just the beginning.

You have the fact that most people spend only a limited amount of time watching video on computers. You have the fact that over 90% of TV viewing is still done on TVs, and most people do not watch TV sitting upright at a desk or with a device sitting on their lap. You have the fact that most TVs are not networked, consumers are not interested in connecting yet another set-top box to their TV, and they're generally technically challenged or disinterested in bringing a network connection to their TV/home theater.

These factors all point to a much more gradual uptake with online video, until you get more unified standards and/or a killer app comes out that the market can coalesce around. That time has not arrived. In the meantime, Blu-ray is poised to begin its accelerated adoption phase. If past is prologue, the DVD format did not truly move into mainstream acceptance until its fourth and fifth years, and that's the beginning of where Blu-ray is right now.

[Mr Peabody]

Actually, to my surprise I have been seeing articles that show Blu-ray is growing faster than DVD did. Is that due to economy or solely the PS3 or a combination of things, I'm not sure. Like I say, I was surprised. Maybe it's a more tech savvy consumer, or younger consumer, or the timing of HDTV.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Oh dear, I go underground for a few weeks and I see that this topic has been rehashed yet again.

From my vantage point, the whole downloading angle gets a lotta hype, yet hasn't proven that it can generate much in the way of revenue. The DEG report that came out this week indicated that digital distribution revenues increased by 20% the first half of this year, and now makes up about 10% of the home entertainment revenue. Meanwhile, optical media sales are off by about 13% (yet still command the lion's share of the market). Several of the usual litany of anti-BD bloggers and self-annointed tech experts cited this as evidence that downloading has come of age and is ready to confine optical media and Blu-ray in particular to the dustbin of history, despite the continued dominance of optical media in terms of actual revenues.

What they ignore is that digital distribution also includes pay-per-view, cable and satellite on-demand services, and whole slew of other distribution channels -- many of which PREDATE the DVD format. I recall an old report indicating that pay-per-view and on-demand already made up 10 to 15% of the home entertainment revenues back in the late-90s/early-2000s. If this is true, then basically the situation with digital distribution is no different right now than it was BEFORE the DVD format took off.

To me, that's not very impressive considering all of the hype that downloading and online media get.

Also, the tech press seems intent on pitching this as a battle between Blu-ray and digital distribution, and claim that Blu-ray is somehow losing despite the fact that its revenue growth this year has been 4X GREATER than the growth for digital distribution. But, these battle lines are fallacious to begin with.

If you want to do a fair comparison, then you either need to compare Blu-ray versus HD digital distribution, or compare digital distribution against ALL optical media. Either way, when framing it as more of an apples-to-apples comparison, digital distribution comes up way short.

Just today, I found an article indicating that News Corp is not happy with the revenue returns that Hulu is generating. While the site has become one of the more heavily trafficked video hosting sites on the web, it has not been an especially profitable venture (YouTube actually loses money hand over fist, despite the huge volume of hits it attracts). The partnership that owns the site (including NBC Universal, Fox/News Corp, and others) has already been in discussions with cable and satellite companies to make certain content available only to subscribers. Today's article indicates that News Corp also wants to explore other subscription options for the site.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/153856

Despite the growth of online video, Ball State University's extensive study of video viewing habits from earlier this year found that actual viewing time for online video still constitutes less than 1% of overall TV and video viewing time. The study found that the average participant had 5 hours of daily TV viewing time, but less than 10 minutes of daily online video viewing time. Results shouldn't be surprising considering that 40% of U.S. households still don't have broadband access, and broadband penetration has basically leveled off.

http://www.researchexcellence.com/vcmstudy.php

All in all, I think that the sales decline for the DVD format in particular is nothing more than what typically happens when a consumer format matures. The DVD could initially rely on attracting sales from both new releases and long-awaited catalog titles. Now, 13 years after the DVD format's debut, nearly all of the desired catalog titles have already been released (some multiple times). That leaves new releases to drive the market, and it's inevitable that sales will decline as a result.

Blu-ray's not going to pick up the slack because frankly most movies are not worth purchasing multiple times. It's naive to assume that DVD collectors will replace their entire collection with Blu-rays. I see Blu-ray as the successor to the DVD, but that process will happen gradually, and it won't generate the huge uptake that accompanied the DVD. The DVD completely transformed the home video market, yet it still took the DVD format more than six years before it supplanted VHS, and the Blu-ray format is now only three years old. Blu-ray does not have to transform the market because the DVD format already did that.

The downloading market will continue to grow, but there are many market obstacles that need to be overcome before digital distribution will ever become the majority format. (Consider that even a "dead" format like the CD still commanded 65% of the overall music sales during the first half of THIS YEAR) The lack of broadband adoption and inadequate bandwidth on most existing broadband subscriptions is just the beginning.

You have the fact that most people spend only a limited amount of time watching video on computers. You have the fact that over 90% of TV viewing is still done on TVs, and most people do not watch TV sitting upright at a desk or with a device sitting on their lap. You have the fact that most TVs are not networked, consumers are not interested in connecting yet another set-top box to their TV, and they're generally technically challenged or disinterested in bringing a network connection to their TV/home theater.

These factors all point to a much more gradual uptake with online video, until you get more unified standards and/or a killer app comes out that the market can coalesce around. That time has not arrived. In the meantime, Blu-ray is poised to begin its accelerated adoption phase. If past is prologue, the DVD format did not truly move into mainstream acceptance until its fourth and fifth years, and that's the beginning of where Blu-ray is right now.

Thanks for this Wooch. Glad to see you back! I was going to answer nightliar's comments, but you summed it up perfectly.

Now, how much ya wanna bet NF is going to dismiss everything you have stated because he seems to have a row with the studios. Everything is the studio fault. He has studio pimples, and the only thing that is going to clear that up is a healthy dose of an basic business education, and an introduction to basic economy and market driven economics courses. Without that....well, he is stuck with the unsightly studio pimples.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What a load of bunk. You didn't say anything about the Japanese computer industry. You got caught making up crap, and you can't live with it. Fact: you said the computer industry (without country qualifiers) was against Hollywood, and I demonstrated that was false. Now you're cherry-picking which computer industry you were (supposedly) talking about after it's all said & done. You got caught in an exaggerated lie and you can't handle it. You're a hypocrite.

And for your information, I work for a Japanese-owned company. Isn't that ironic?



In the mean-time, your industry is playing whack-a-mole with pirates. Here's hint: the moles always come back up.



Well it's true across this industry. It's only the studios, like yours apparently, that can't seem to save money. No wonder you guys are laying people off left & right and even coming after the precious health benefits of their own CEOs. So I ask again, how much does it have to hurt before you start caring?



Compared to you, even my pet rock is and expert.



Don't mix it up. You knew very well I was talking about the fluff on the disks. And whether people want it or not, it still makes for a pretty poor excuse to re-release old content over & over. People keep buying it because it's repackaged in a different way, something that just doesn't fly with downloads. And the studios just can't accept that.



Well if they do, why not offer that as an extra cost item on downloads? I bet they won't love it that much, then.



All that and you still can't figure out how to cool a server room, bring down the price of digital downloads, run a business without firing half your employees, or get yourselves out of your profit-rut? Yeah, you guys are doing a bang-up job. Maybe it's because they keep expensive numb-skulls like you around.



Yeah, we know how much you love them. Do you have to slather every post with it?



And it's still a dismal failure. Wonder why? Is it because you're charging too much for them? Hmmmm.

It's amazing how you just keep re-enforcing my points. I ought to thank you for that, but I simply can't get over the stench you leave behind...



You know, that's the kind of arrogance with which Hummer drivers tear up the streets around here, too. And now the brand's owned by a Chinese company. There's some writing on that wall you should probably pay attention to.



Funny coming from someone who spent so much fatalistic time explaining how hard it is to change laws in this country.



I'm not saying they will, I'm saying they already are. You're the only one still talking about eating filet mignon, when everyone else sees plainly enough it's crow.



Huh? What do eunuchs have to do with this? Typical nonsense. Once again, because you do not have an answer, you make it personal. So much for the high road ride in the gutter Mr. Civility.



No the fact that the growth of Internet commerce dwarfs piracy is fact. Just another dismissal of a point that does not fit your argument. This is your habit. And you can't address it either. Hypocrite.



Yeah, OK. Is that your legal opinion? How about the fact you keep trying to dismiss on this: that the MPAA tried to apply US IP law where it had no jurisdiction. Why don't you answer the darned question?



I was born here, you immigrant-bashing hypocrite. Why don't you act a little more civilized? And I am working to change the law here, and my first task is to dispel the nonsense you spurt around here.



You're the one who's so hell-bent on discussing law (even though you know little to nothing about it). Hypocrite.



Every little bit counts. If the studios are ripping them off, then that pisses them off.

And you don't know if I'm middle class or not, so shut up with that.



PS3 is half way between? Exactly what isn't a computer? Your argument is vacuous and pointless and you know it.



I don't work for MS. And I'm doing OK, thank you.



But they're making money now, again, and leading this economic recovery, unlike your industry. Can't you Luddites for once keep up?



No, you're the one who's blowing off my points. You still have made no case why downloads should cost the same or more. You know they should cost less, but you can't accept that, because it will affect your expensive habits a tad. Grow up already.



All very convenient how you still can't explain why chick flicks cost the same as action flicks to the consumer. Explain that, will you.

The fact that you keep ignoring this like a broken record shows your profound ignorance of the film industry and computer industry, and especially the online distribution industry.

Funny, how you keep making my point. Do you even remember what you're supposed to be trying to tell us?

Nighidiot,

You can go on with all of your b!tching, moaning, and complaining if you want to, but it not the studios fault here, its your profound ignorance of basic business principles. There is a reality here that you cannot seem to grasp. If it was just the cost of the download that is keeping downloading from growing can you explain this. When the first VHS machine hit the market they were expensive. It sold well enough even with a high price tag that it allowed manufacturers to make a profit to support R&D, simplifying the design, lower production costs, and pass the savings onto the customer. What was the main ingredient here? Consumer demand. They wanted that product no matter what the cost, and that drove enough sales for the economy of scale to kick in. When you first wanted to rent pre-recorded movies on VHS tape, the daily cost of rental was pretty expensive. However the rental market grew very quickly, competition popped up, and that drove the cost of rentals downward. What was the ingredient for the lower prices? Demand. My next example lines up with digital downloads pretty damn well.

The laserdisc entered the market. It was better at presenting movies than VHS, and extra content was provided as well. When the first players hit the market, their prices were sky high for both the hardware and the disc. For a videophile, this was the ultimate in hometheater presentation, but for the average person, it had no value to them. You could not record on it, and you had to flip the discs five or six times during the movie to get through it. It was bulky and difficult to store, and lacked the conveniences of VHS, and could not be found everywhere. The demand was not there, so prices for both hardware and software remained high. It remained a niche product throughout its entire life, because there was no mass market demand for the product. This is where downloads are right now, no demand, higher prices.

The DVD hits the market with player prices above $1,000, and disc prices at almost $50. However enough DVD players were sold that allowed a profit to be spent on R&D to simplify the design, make it easier to manufacture in large quantities, then pass the savings to the consumer. The players sold like hotcakes, prices came down big time, and now 600 million players later, you can get one for less than $50. What is the ingredient for lower prices? Demand. Disc prices were $50 bucks at the start. Enough discs were sold that disc stamping capacity had to increase which brought in more competition in that area. This goes for compression and authoring as well. As the economy of scale kicked in, it drove prices at all levels of disc production downward, which drove down the sale cost as well. Almost thirteen years and billions of discs later, you can find DVD's in bargain basement bins at big boxes(say that five times real fast) for $5. What drove prices down? Demand, competition, and format maturity. .

Blu-ray players hit the market with prices above $1,000. As more manufacturers got in the game, and demand for the players increased, the prices have dropped significantly. What drove prices downward? Demand and competition. This goes for disc prices as well, as the demand grew, and more competition among disc stampers, compressionist, and authors grew, the price of manufacture fell as did the sale prices. Demand, demand, DEMAND is what drives prices down. Consumers have proven time and time that no matter what the cost of the product, they would pay for it if the interest was there. Ipods are another example, and the beat goes on.

Right now there is no mass demand for movies distributed online. It is still a very small market. As the market grows and demand increases, the price of the download goes down. However while the market is still fractured with no unified pricing structure, no single codec for playback, and no single way for playback(too many incompatible boxes or a computer is involved), there is no economy of scale to drive down prices. What you cannot seem to grasp is disc media is familiar to EVERYONE. The reason that Blu-ray is growing is because of that familiarity. The average consumer is not familiar with downloads. A child can operate a DVD player, but they cannot initiate a download. When the downloading experience becomes as ubiquitous as the DVD format, it will take off like a rocket. Until then, you need to stop pointing fingers, and blaming the studio revenue issues on their lack of support of downloads, because with 4000+ movies available to downloading services, lack of content is not the issue. You cannot kill what you feeding, and I have cited too many examples of the studio pushing into to download distribution. It is go, but go slow until the infrastructure at all levels is there.

As far as chick flicks at the theaters, well, theaters charge an general admission, not a product valued admission. If you charged based on the value of the content, who would decide that? Who can establish a successful business model when the cost of the product would change from movie to movie. How do you budget yourself when you don't control when the content comes, and how much to charge for it. How do you manage a business with 6388 screens all showing different movies, in 39 different states, with different economic conditions in each?. Theaters are not are not stand alone operations, they are managed by large chains with multiple theaters in multiple states. There is a level of financial expectation when a single market driven pricing structure is in place. Things are more manageable with one pricing structure rather than many.

I have nicely and intelligently tried to explain things to you, but you seem to be more in a blaming and blasting mode, than a learning one. There is nothing you have said here that has not been repeated time and time again by fan boys in the computer press. Downloading is the wave of the future, but that future is not here yet. Just like everything else that came before it, it has to go through the process. No amount of b!tching and moaning is going to change that. No amount of personal onslaughts and opinions on character are going to change that. You can call me every name in the book, and make all the personal valuation on my personality that you choose, but it is not going to change reality, the facts, or the way folks do business.

The best I can do for you is offer you a hanky to cry into, a diaper to control the crapping you are doing, and a band aid and aspirin to control the pain your are feeling. I would also recommend at trip to school to learn basic market driven economics, because obviously you do not have a clue to what that is. Crying about IP laws are not going to change them. DRM is here to stay in some fashion as long as thieves want something for nothing. Your comments on the financial health of the studios is shortsighted and agenda driven. In this economic climate all business are hurting including those within the computer industry. Desktops are not selling, and laptops and netbooks prices are being eroded due to competition. Microsoft's earning where down 18%, and the computer industry was third in overall layoffs. Microsoft is banking on the success of ONE product, and if it does not do well, their income will slide some more. Dells sales were off 16% last year and flat this year The fact is, the computer industry in this country has not contributed a single thing outside their market as the Japanese computer industry has. So what you and your pals need to do is stop worrying about what the film industry is doing, and worry about what is going on in our own backyard.