Music Industry Compared to Movie Industry

Get Off Me! by inertia187 · 2003-09-14 10:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

They're nickel-and-dime-ing the consumer to death, and no one will do anything about it. What, do they think we're made of money? The surcharges and the "Artist" tax for all CDR related equipment has to stop. When will people take notice? (fp)

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.

Re:Get Off Me! by weave · 2003-09-14 11:08 · Score: 2, Redundant

In Canada it seems to work quite well.

Does that mean people in Canada can download all they want without fear, since they've already paid the royalties?
Re:Get Off Me! by Zan+Zu+from+Eridu · 2003-09-14 11:30 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't know about Canada, but in the Netherlands you're allowed to download as much as you like; you may not redistribute the stuff you download to 3rd parties. There is a tax on DVDs and CDs, but we already had video and compact cassettes taxed. To Dutch law, downloading is not much different from recording radio or tv broadcasts.
Re:Get Off Me! by TC+(WC) · 2003-09-14 12:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yeah, it's almost definitely legal for the downloader. It isn't particularly legal for the distributer, probably, however. You're allowed to make personal copies of an audio recording. There are no provisions in the act limiting the source that one copies from. There are limitations with what your intent for the copy is. Intent to distribute, and intent to transmit via telecommunications are not allowed. So, downloading music and then not sharing it out is probably legal, while sharing it is not.

If you take a look at the Copyright Act (don't actually remember the full name... it's got copyright in there somewhere) it's article 80, IIRC.
Re:Get Off Me! by JPrice · 2003-09-14 15:14 · Score: 2, Informative

The relevant link is here.

The important bit is that it is legal to make a copy for personal use, but it is not legal to make a copy for the purposes of distribution (whether or not it's for money) or for "communicating to the public by telecommunication" (which could be argued to include P2P systems).

DVDs by dzym · 2003-09-14 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't buy CDs at all, yet I regularly go out and spend $20 each (or more) on DVDs nearly every week.

Simply put, in my sole estimation, DVDs are worth my money--music CDs aren't.

Re:DVDs by Nogami_Saeko · 2003-09-14 10:56 · Score: 3, Funny

Well said.

This article was brilliant.

If only the music industry was smart enough to listen to it. However I imagine that they'll be closing their eyes and ears hoping that suing the people they wish were customers will make all the bad times go away.

Poor bastards...

N.

--
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Re:DVDs by ichimunki · 2003-09-14 11:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Great. So it sounds like you're actively funding the other half of the anti-consumer crusade. Last theater movie I went to (Seabiscuit) they had an anti-piracy blurb at the beginning of the film. MPAA are also the people going after Jon Johansen and the other DeCSS folks. So Hollywood knows how to price DVDs... this is not as great as it sounds. The profits on movies are front-loaded at the box office, so the residuals from DVD sales are largely gravy (although admittedly they are spending a lot more on films, hoping to make it up on home releases... and the DVD does have additional material you won't see in theaters).

--
I do not have a signature
Re:DVDs by ScrewMaster · 2003-09-14 11:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes. Part of it is the investment made in producing the product. For example, how much does it take to produce a typical audio CD? $50,000? $100,000? $250,000?

Contrast that to a major motion picture which might have cost the studio a hundred million dollars or more to create, and I can buy a copy of that production for the price of a music CD. That, to me, is not a bad value. Sure, I dislike the encryption and region coding, and frankly the DMCA is almost enough to keep me from buying DVDs at all, but really there are some damned good movies out there nowadays. Honestly, I don't mind paying $17 or so for a copy of The Hulk or Spiderman or any of the other major motion pictures in recent years. And, I find that there have been thousands of releases of older films that I can buy at Walgreen's for three bucks.

On the other hand, the music industry may or may not be in financial trouble (hard to say, they lie so often.) If they are, I can tell you this: it has nothing to do with anything they say it does. Rather, their problems are a direct result of providing a poor quality product for too much money. This translates to not being a good value for the customer, and is a typical outcome whenever monopolies are involved. What has happened is that the customer base has been exposed to alternatives (all the way from "free" music from online applications to purchased music created by independent (non-RIAA aligned) musicians) and has begin (slowly, to be sure) to wake up to what a rotten value the major music studios actually deliver.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:DVDs by CrowScape · 2003-09-14 11:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Let's see; The movie industry is giving me movies in a format that I have confidence in that they won't degrade any time soon at an affordable (sometimes dirt cheap) price with loads of extra material that wasn't in the theaters (a good percent of which is actually worth my time to enjoy). All of the discs can play on devices from my four year old DVD-ROM drive to the latest progressive scan player from Panasonic without a hitch. Yeah, that sure fits the definition of anti-consumer.

Also, you're underestimating the revenue DVDs bring in. It gets more and more significant each passing year and many movies that flopped at the box office have nearly redeemed themselves on DVD.

As for the anti-priacy ads, I thought those were supposed to be for comic relief! And here I was rudely chuckling with many of my fellow movie goers...

--
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Re:DVDs by guardian-ct · 2003-09-14 11:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, yes, the MPAA did go after Jon Johansen (and some others). However, they seem to have either stopped, or greatly reduced, the number of enforcement actions taken against their own customers. The RIAA is ramping up the pressure on people who buy CDs.

I think the MPAA lost (and won) a few battles in court, and decided it wasn't worth alienating many potential customers for every battle they might have won.

In theory, the MPAA could have taken the draconian measure of making all DVD players obsolete as soon as DeCSS was released. "To keep DVD prices low, future DVDs will not be playable on current equipment" could have been the press release. But they were smarter than that.

Maybe the higher margins in the movie industry allow them to pay for a smarter industry group?
Re:DVDs by bobbis.u · 2003-09-14 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

As others have pointed out, it is not as simple a comparison as that. You generally devote all your attention to watching a DVD for 2 hours. With music, as you said yourself, you listen at work, in the car, etc - i.e. whilst doing something else. I almost never just sit and listen to a CD whilst doing nothing else - somehow that almost seems like wasting time.
Also, with a DVD, the cost is often "shared" in that you will watch it with other people. I find a lot of the fun of watching a movie is in discussing it afterwards. With a CD you are a lot more likely to listen to it on your own (almost certainly if you like Justin Timberlake).
I'm not sure if I have really made a point here, but those are just some thoughts I had.
Re:DVDs by FCKGW · 2003-09-14 12:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

Encryption and region coding sure fit the definition of anti-consumer, as are their lobbyists that are trying to make things like NAT and VPN illegal.

--
It's an operating system, not a religion.
Re:DVDs by t · 2003-09-14 12:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

You do realize that HD TVs cost thousands don't you? That they are also not mainstream? This means that the people who buy this tech are much much more knowledgeable than your average consumer with an old TV and a $100 DVD player. And btw, who exactly is "they"? Is that some kind of "if we make it they will buy it" logic? Good luck.
btw, investing buku millions in a movie and then just "waiting us out" costs them more interest then I'll ever make in a legit job, i.e., ain't gonna happen. And really that's the fundamental difference between the movie and music industries. The movie industries have to pay real cash up-front (not promises of future funds), whereas the music industry claims that it costs them millions to find a hit band. That's why one is forced to bow to their consumers and the other shits on its consumers.
Re:DVDs by t · 2003-09-14 13:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Television broadcasters offering it is one thing, making consumers upgrade is entirely different. Also how many channels is that? One? Do you know that in olden times many people never dumped their black&white TVs until they finally broke. The FCC plans say that analog broadcasts cannot be dropped until there is around an 85% conversion of the consumers to HD TVs. In other words, not for a very long time.
Re:DVDs by kryonD · 2003-09-14 14:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, the article is not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's take your average Summer Blockbuster. Average pricetag with good actors and good special affects and some reasonable marketing seems to be around the $100M mark. But that was just the cost of making the movie. Now we need to make it into a DVD.

Lets add another $20M for:
* The cost of converting 35mm Kodak into digital form.
* Editing time to get a seperate made for TV "Full Screen" version.
* Paying spanish and french voice artists to do some dubbing.
* More editing and remastering time for the "Making Of" mini-feature.
* Interview time with important cast members.
* Various royalties associated with having DVD player software come bundled with the disk so you can just pop it into your computer and watch it.

Now that you have this $120M master disk, how many copies do you make? How much money are you going to invest in packaging and additional goodies to make the DVD more tempting? How much do blank DVD's run in uber-bulk quantities? How much does the distribution chain cost to get the DVD from your warehouse to the self of the local Wall-Mart in Bum-F*ck, Idaho? If sales are slow, how much is your warehouse space costing per day because you made too many copies?

According to IRS.gov, there are approximately 130M individual income tax filings. Let's make a conservative estimate that 10M of these are teenagers or newly married couples who chose to file seperately, but live in the same household. That gives us 120M households who may want to purchase your $120M masterpeice. Let's say it's really popular and 10% of these people decide they need their own copy. 12M copies at $10 a pop would barely cover the cost of making it and you still haven't covered the packaging, storage and distribution costs....plus you want to make a little money in profit because your a well adjusted capitalist like the rest of us. $20 a copy should make this work, but then there's the little issue of your last movie that sucked and lost $70M. Then there's the reality that it's a fat chance that 1 in 10 people would purchase a movie for $20 that they can easily rent for $2.

The reason why DVD's can afford to exist on a $10 to $20 price range is because 12M people already went to a theater and shelled out $10 to see it on the big screen and most of these costs have already been covered. The music equivilant would be a live concert which you just can't do on that scale.

I'll be the first to say that the RIAA needs to find a new way of doing business, but I'll also be the first to admit that it's not as simple as most folks would think.

In the case, the article was trying to compare apples to oranges.

--
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
Re:DVDs by iocat · 2003-09-14 15:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

You've vastly overestimated the costs to make a DVD from a movie. Many movies *only* make money once the DVD/video sales are factored in. I believe the original Austin Powers movie was a mediocre success at the box office, but so huge on DVD/video that it spawned an entire (unfortunate) franchise. Movies make about 50% of their profit from overseas and video $$. So the DVD isn't just gravy, it's an integral part of the business structure. As for cost of goods, in the quantities they manufacture, COG for a top of the line DVD is probably well under $2.

--
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Re:DVDs by WindyWonka · 2003-09-14 15:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Did anyone read today's NY Times piece slamming Hollywood for their "it's not us, it's them" attitude on movie downloads really being an 'inside job'?

In their new study, AT&T Labs researchers found the following:

"We developed a data set of 312 popular movies and located one or more samples of 183 of these movies on file sharing networks, for a total of 285 movie samples. 77% of these samples appear to have been leaked by industry insiders."

Gee, big surprise.
Re:DVDs by letxa2000 · 2003-09-14 15:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Obviously the music and movie industry are different. I'll also agree that DVDs can be competitive because they've already made quite a bit of money (hopefully) at the box office.
However, you need to realize that the customer doesn't care. The question is "I have $20 to spend... What should I spend it on? Chicago DVD with the music for $15.98 or just the music for $13.66?" A heck of a lot of people are going to go for the DVD.
It's not our problem that the RIAA has a broken business model. In fact, that's exactly the problem. That's why they are suing their customers instead of selling to them. They're trying to defend a broken business model. It's unsustainable.
They have to compete for a customer's limited entertainment budget. That budget may be split over seeing movies in the theater, buying DVDs, going on a vacation to Cancun... and maybe buying CDs. Their most direct competition is DVDs and in that area they are NOT competitive.
All they can do is lower their prices DRAMATICALLY and hope that's enough. I'm not talking $10... $10 for a music CD or $15.98 for the same music on a DVD is still a hard sell. I'm talking drop the price down to $3 - $4.99. And even there it's a crapshoot as to whether or not they'll make it. Music is free now because they've overpriced their product and driven tens of millions of customers to get their music for free online. The cat is out of the bag and it's going to be hard to put it back in--even if they lower the price of a CD to $5, a price which might have prevented the original exodus to P2P music sharing, it might be too late for that to bring people back.
Re:DVDs by s.fontinalis · 2003-09-14 18:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Musics *used* to have large audiences paying cash that would pay to see live performances. Surprise, surprise, when tickets to a concert with a bigname band started to top $50 the overall size of that market has slipped a bit. They don't exactly offer concert season passes, do they?
Re:DVDs by Ogerman · 2003-09-14 18:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

For example, how much does it take to produce a typical audio CD? $50,000? $100,000? $250,000?

$50,000 is enough to build your own professional-grade home recording studio. For $100,000 you can build a dedicated, acoustically optimized extension to your house. For $250,000 you can have multiple studio rooms to rent out. And this is all assuming you don't know anyone who's already done this. Cost to produce a quality audio album is almost negligible today.

Contrast that to a major motion picture which might have cost the studio a hundred million dollars or more to create, and I can buy a copy of that production for the price of a music CD. That, to me, is not a bad value.

It sounds like a good value until you start to investigate where that hundred million dollars actually went. First consider $5-15 million for every big-name actor(ess) and/or director(s). (sometimes more!) Then consider all the bogus production costs like extravagant cast parties and pampering. Then consider that many movie studios burn money simply because they can. With the kind of profit margins in the movie industry, efficient spending tends to go out the window. So when you pear it all down, how much should it really cost to produce a decent flick? Certainly not more than $5 million for anything that's not an epic or special-effects showcase. Probably $1-2 million or even less if you're careful. And do ticket prices reflect production costs at all? Nope. How about DVD prices? Nope. (Unless it's a budget movie that totally flops too and ends up in the $5 junk bin) So, in the end, movies certainly cost more than music albums to produce, but need nowhere near as much as typically budgeted. And regardless, any good movie makes several times its production costs while still in the theaters. So home DVD sales are just the extra gravy. More specifically, Hollywood would still be extremely lucrative if movie copyrights expired in a couple months after they left the theater. Wow.. imagine that.. a flourishing public domain: what the copyright compromise was originally intended to create.

Sure, I dislike the encryption and region coding, and frankly the DMCA is almost enough to keep me from buying DVDs at all, but really there are some damned good movies out there nowadays.

DMCA should be enough to keep you from buying DVD's and not supporting the bastards that have so helped to corrupt our legal system. But let me give you a few more good reasons: 1.) DVD video resolution sucks. 720x368 is not enough to do a 2.35:1-aspect movie justice. DVD's will soon be obsolete because of this and the move to true HDTV formats. 2.) DVD audio is also notably weak. 448kbps is simply not enough to do 5 full-range (and one low-band) channels at a time in "CD quality". Sure, with really intense optimization, you can make it work by directing the bitrate to the channels that need it most, but there are still tradeoffs in sonically dense scenes. Many encodings seem to simply neglect the rear channels except for a few whiz-bang effect sequences. 3.) Watching the same movies over and over is a terrible waste of life. (yeah, that's subjective, but I still think it's a valid reason. :-)

Honestly, I don't mind paying $17 or so for a copy of The Hulk or Spiderman or any of the other major motion pictures in recent years.

I've noticed that most people who collect movies don't actually watch them that often. How many $1.59 rentals would that $17 buy? Refer also reason #3.

ps.) Just for fun, check out the insane production costs for various popular movies on IMDB.org and then compare the even more bogus grosses. Then compare some quality "small budget" films like Memento and Greek Wedding. It is truly a wonder that the independent film industry has not taken off more than it has already.
Re:DVDs by zerocool^ · 2003-09-14 20:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Interesting point.

Kevin Smith (silent bob himself) has said that, with the advent of DVD's, it changes the way that he films. Previously, he used to cut the scene when the actor started ad-libbing or embellishing (aflack is notorious, appearantly). Now, he just lets them rant and rave as long as they want, and then he cleans it up in post, and throws the cuts on the DVD.

So, directors are thinking about DVD's even as they are filming.

~Will

--
sig?

Animatrix example by Txiasaeia · 2003-09-14 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Here in Canada, the Animatrix DVD was about $25. For $30, you could get the DVD as well as the CD soundtrack. This makes *sense*; I don't own a single soundtrack in my CD collection of which I don't also own the DVD.

On the other hand, not everybody (*gasp*, I know!) has a DVD player, and moreover I'm not even sure how easy it is to rip music from a DVD. Never mind the fact that it's probably evil...

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

Re:Animatrix example by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · 2003-09-14 11:39 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm not even sure how easy it is to rip music from a DVD.
This is something I've thought about as well, because I own quite a few music video DVDs ( The Cure, Run DMC etc ) and would like to be able to listen to them on the bus, etc, without lugging a laptop around. I'm not sure whether I should feel obligated to buy another copy of the albums in question...

To answer your technical query, if you have access to a supported platform, mplayer has a ao ( audio out ) driver for dumping wave data to a file. Team this up with playing selected chapters from the command line, and It's quite easy to use if not absolutely painless. As far as I know this is the only way to get the original theme from Buckaroo Banzai on CD. >:-(

I should get off my ass and craft a GUI for this: ( cue people to post their already existing GUI's below... ).

YLFI

--
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.

Yeah but downloading movies still not easy by mozumder · 2003-09-14 10:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Even if CD's were priced at $3, it would be much easier to download them instead of buying them.

Re:Yeah but downloading movies still not easy by jarda · 2003-09-14 10:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem with CDs is that you usually pay for one song you want to and 15 others you're not interested in. With movie DVD, you just pay for what you want.

--
"Two beers or not two beers. That's the question." -- Shakesbeer
Re:Yeah but downloading movies still not easy by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-09-14 11:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

The problem with CDs is that you usually pay for one song you want to and 15 others you're not interested in. With movie DVD, you just pay for what you want.

Maybe, but there's still a common misconception that CDs are dramatically overpriced because of this.

If a CD which costs $15 has 15 tracks, 5 of which are good, 5 of which are average, and 5 of which are bad, then it's inappropriate to say that the songs are worth $1 each. Maybe the good songs are worth $2, the average songs are worth $1, and the bad songs are worth nothing.

On the other hand, if you claim to like bands that produce CDs with only 1 good song, then my conclusion is that you obviously have bad taste in music.

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:Yeah but downloading movies still not easy by Coryoth · 2003-09-14 15:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Which poses an interesting question - why are there so few complete albums anymore? There are plenty of classic concept albums, from Sgt. Pepper, to the Wall, through to The Downward Spiral. There have been a lot of albums that were a single entity - sure they were broken into seperate tracks, but they needed to be listened to as a whole.

Do people have a sufficiently short attention soan that this concept is unappealing?

Jedidiah

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts

Basic Comparison by aeinome · 2003-09-14 10:49 · Score: 3, Funny

RIAA: Evil group of people with no morals, who are currently hated by 99% of /. MPAA: Not the RIAA. I think that says something.

--
When you don't have a leg to stand on, don't even get up.

Re:Basic Comparison by selderrr · 2003-09-14 10:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

MPAA: Not the RIAA
that's nonsense. Wait until the day we have gigabit ethernet in every home and we can copy an entire DVD in
They've just have less enemies cause there's less easy ways to steal/copy. That's all.

--
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Re:Basic Comparison by ergo98 · 2003-09-14 10:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

How absurd to see the MPAA cast as the "good guy" on here: Wasn't this the same MPAA that was cast as Satan-in-the-flesh when the whole DeCSS fiasco took place? Indeed, the only reason why the MPAA isn't more on the Slashdot hippocrisy-hitlist is due to bandwidth constraints making it a tad onerous to download DVDs (and compressing a 9GB movie down to a CD or two makes for a vast quality difference, quite unlike CD rips where a CD rip that's perceived as the same quality is an easy download). Soon enough, as bandwidth increases, these same jokers will be yipping about how the movie business model is broken, and they should put out movies for free and make money on toys, or some such moral justification.
Re:Basic Comparison by ScrewMaster · 2003-09-14 11:07 · Score: 4, Informative

No, the MPAA is just as bad as the RIAA, and the only thing keeping them from an RIAA-style attack on the customer base is that current broadband technology doesn't permit easy sharing of movies. Remember that the MPAA was implicitly complicit in purchasing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act from Congress. I hear they got it for a song.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Basic Comparison by ScrewMaster · 2003-09-14 11:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're mostly right, and I sure don't like the MPAA, but they do make a much heavier investment in producing each new DVD. Movies cost a lot more to make than music.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Basic Comparison by eddy · 2003-09-14 11:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

The difference is that at the end of a movie you can see a 100-person+ credit scroll buy. You understand that all these people earn a good living doing what they do, you calculate all the time used and all that expensive equipment, and in your head you reach the conclusion that a DVD is worth about as much as you pay for it (sure, many would prefer a lower price)

CDs on the other hand. There's the band/artist, and producer(s). Then what? Once upon a time a studio might have been a true hi-tech wonder. Nowadays people know what can be produced with a "home studio". The same PR/administration is needed for the Movie, so no difference there. So we have something that takes less man-hours to produce, but is almost as expensive... and so, a CD doesn't feel like good value.

And I truly don't think that "but you listen to the CD more than you watch the movie!" is a valid argument -- or at least that it's very overrated. It doesn't matter, because you don't price many other articles by how much you use them! The TV? Nope. The computer? Nope. Computer Games? Not really. My new sofa? Not really.

The RIAA and cohorts gotta understand that we want to pay for the produciton, not some percieved virtual entertainment value. If we all accepted their virtual value of this goods, then copyright infringment wouldn't be as rampant, no? I like CDs. I buy CDs... seldom, and only if they're from non RIAA labels and without and copy-prevention mechanisms.

Until RIAA and the labels can explain where all that money goes...

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

I never buy DVD's by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-14 10:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Why waste your money when you can watch it for free on broadcast TV a few years later?

Re:I never buy DVD's by ScrewMaster · 2003-09-14 11:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

A few years? You mean a few months. It used to take years for theater films to be released to the mass market, but now studios actually make most of the income from video rentals and sales. And before it comes out there it shows up on satellite or cable. No problem. But I still like the relatively high quality I get from the disc when compared to cable or satellite (although the gap is narrowing.)

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

So what? by Pope · 2003-09-14 10:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously. A DVD might have 3 hours of content on it while a CD might have 1 hour of content, but I can bet you 99.9% of the time, the CD is going to be listened to way more than the movie is watched, and therefore is the better value.

I can't watch a movie walking down the street or on my commute to and from work (or at work for that matter), but I can sure listen to music. These arguments are pretty stupid, IMO.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Re:So what? by notque · 2003-09-14 11:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously. A DVD might have 3 hours of content on it while a CD might have 1 hour of content, but I can bet you 99.9% of the time, the CD is going to be listened to way more than the movie is watched, and therefore is the better value.

I can't watch a movie walking down the street or on my commute to and from work (or at work for that matter), but I can sure listen to music. These arguments are pretty stupid, IMO.

Because when I'm about with a group of friends, I say, Hey... Wanna listen to my cd collection? .... Half the time music is something to listen to en route to actually doing something. Music is not in itself usually an activity. A DVD, or movies in general are much more entertaining.

Also, music takes less money to make than a movie. I.E. I will pay more for a movie.

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:So what? by stubear · 2003-09-14 11:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Also, music takes less money to make than a movie. I.E. I will pay more for a movie."

Albums might cost less to produce but movies rake in far more at the box office than most albums do and the return on movies is much quicker. Consider that even a crappy movie will sell in the millions of tickets at the box office where as a CD will be lucky to sell more than a million copies. Most are lucky to sell more than 500,000 copies and even more still will see no more than 250,000 sold.
Re:So what? by ShinGouki · 2003-09-14 12:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Also, music takes less money to make than a movie. I.E. I will pay more for a movie.

true, however movies have a MUCH MUCH higher ROI than music cds do. a movie has two major revenue streams: theater release, dvd/vhs release. a music cd has just one (artists touring doesn't necessarily provide revenue to the record company, at least it shouldn't if you have a decent lawyer working on your record contract)

now, for the major difference in the revenue streams. the cd and dvd are basically a wash, both cost about the same or thereabouts. the movie gets shown multiple times per day in thousands of theaters across the country and can remain in theaters for anywhere between 6 months to a year depending on its popularity. a touring band normally plays an average of one show every two days for about three months (some bands do more, some less, it depends on how grueling the tour is you've set up for yourself).

now, take the average quadruple-platinum cd which would sell over 4 million copies and would constitute a blockbuster of a cd release. this nets the record company something in the area of 48 million bux (assuming $12 per cd). now take a blockbuster hit movie, it'll clear 48 million bux on the first weekend after release and will continue to hoover in the money until it doubles or triples that figure, probably more. THEN The dvd comes out.

summary: yes, cds are far cheaper to make than movies (unless you're metallica and yer spending 4 million dollars on making a cd, for some odd reason). cds also make FAR FAR less money than movies do. the entire point of the article is to show how the movie industry made fairly good business decisions and managed to not completely alienate every single one of its customers, unlike the recording industry.

--
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.

And Also... by Erick+the+Red · 2003-09-14 10:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

The artists who make movies get paid reasonable sums of money for their work.

I still go to see movies. I no longer buy CDs from major labels.

--

DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

ok

One thing wrong in the article by d3faultus3r · 2003-09-14 10:54 · Score: 5, Funny

one decent justin timberlake song
uh huh right and I'll find that along with element 118, cold fusion and bigfoot, and non-buggy M$ products.

--
read my blog
musings on politics and technol

Exactly.... by doormat · 2003-09-14 10:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've been saying this for a while! Why buy a CD for $13-15 when you can get a DVD for 15-20. DVDs have way more entertainment value than a CD. With DVD players in cars to occupy your passangers, music CDs realm of entertainment is also being displaced. Somethings you cant watch a DVD to but you could listen to a CD (work for example). Like its been said, bring CD prices to $9.99 and its a far better value.

--
The Doormat

If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.

Nonsense by Stargoat · 2003-09-14 10:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

The industry has placed a large tariff on new CDs. That is, you are not paying for the music, you are paying for: worthless artists who don't create art, executives, CDs that don't have anything special in them as vinyl used to have, and the RIAA. If anything, Congress should be looking into the music industry for collusion.

Buy CDs used. They're a more reasonably price, even if still over priced.

--
Hoist Number One and Number Six.

Re:Nonsense by SKPhoton · 2003-09-14 13:08 · Score: 2, Funny

Remember: when you pirate MP3s..
Re:Nonsense by uncoveror · 2003-09-14 13:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, used CDs are good. The RIAA and affiliated labels get nothing from them, as royalties were paid the first time. This is called the first sale principle. When the original owner bought the CD, it became his or her personal property to resel. As no new copy was made, copyright was not involved in the transaction. The RIAA, and pretentious entertainers like Garth Brooks want to abolish the first sale principle, and grab ill-gotten booty from used CD sales. To hell with them! Other than used ones, don't buy CDs.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Re:Nonsense by kudos200 · 2003-09-14 16:13 · Score: 3, Flamebait

While I doubt this will get read by anyone, since the article was posted a while ago, I'll say it anyways:

I was just thinking about the argument you guys make: buy used cd's; the RIAA gets nothing, you're happy etc. but I just realized that there's definitely a flaw to that logic.

Every time you buy a used CD, you are voting with your wallet. You're telling the used CD store that yes, people want used CD's. They will pay more for them than the store has to pay to get them. It's profitable to buy and sell used CD's.

By buying the CD, you are sending that message. Now, think about what would happen if you didn't buy that used CD. It'd sit on the shelf for a while. The store would think to itself: maybe it's not a good idea to keep doing this used CD thing. So it would stop buying them.

Then, the people who sell the CD's to the store (who are, incidentally, also the people who buy cd's new) would not be able to do so anymore. As a result, they'd be less inclined to buy new cd's.

By purchasing used CD's, you help keep the CD market alive. Not a huge effect by yourself, but everyone together makes a difference.

Anyways, I haven't thought this through all the way; it just came to me now. I may have made a couple mistakes myself. But it seems that buying used CD's may not be as harmless as everyone makes it out to be.
Re:Nonsense by Illbay · 2003-09-14 23:25 · Score: 2, Informative

...you are paying for: worthless artists who don't create art...
Of course, you as a taxpayer are being forced to do this every time the National Endowment for the Arts mails out another check to an elephant-dung "sculptor," urine-stain "painter" or scatologically-inclined "author."
At least you can REFUSE to purchase the CDs.

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Too little, too late by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-14 10:58 · Score: 2

The article's ending is wrong. The big five record labels have pissed everyone off.

Buy from unsigned artists. Buy from independent labels which are not members of the RIAA. It isn't good enough for the RIAA to lose. Their competition has to do well.

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.

What are you talking about? by notque · 2003-09-14 10:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Even if CD's were priced at $3, it would be much easier to download them instead of buying them.

To be quite honest, I would rather have cds of my entire music collection. When I purchase cds, I listen to them much more intently, I hear music the way it was intended in an album sense.

I have no idea what songs I have are on what album. I couldn't name you 1/4th my collection on a good day, but I can name you almost every cd I own.

When I burn a cd, it just doesn't feel the same.

If you priced cds at 5 bucks a pop, I would never download another song (aside from learning about a band to subsequently buy.)

I walk into a music store, and I WANT to buy thier music. I do. I refuse to because of the prices (except for punk/emo/techno comps that are reasonably priced.)

I can purchase a video game with the latest graphics, or two cds.

It has EVERYTHING to do about the money, and not about the ease. I hate walking into music stores because I want to buy their albums.

I really do.

--
http://use.perl.org

Re:What are you talking about? by JFMulder · 2003-09-14 11:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Now, if you'd just be so kind as telling me the CD's you've downloaded, erase them from your hard drive, throw away your burned CDs and give me a written confession that you won't do it again and I'll forget about what you just said. ;)
Re:What are you talking about? by mozumder · 2003-09-14 12:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

I find it actually easier to deal with MP3's versus my large CD collection.

My CD's tend to sit in a shelf or in a large book somewhere, and I tend to only keep about 50 or so CD's from my library in use over the course of a month or so. Mostly recent stuff. The rest of my CD's never get used. Too difficult/pain-in-the-ass to hunt through my CD's to find a song or album I want to hear.

I then started the process of recording CD's onto my hard drive. I now find myself listening to a lot more of my older stuff with a lot more variety. The MP3 players are great at catalogueing the music.

It's just much easier to use MP3 files when you have hundreds or thousands of CDs. My actual CD's are now sitting in storage somewhere in the basement.

Sure I suppose music could still be sold on physical CDs, but for me they're going to be recorded onto the computer anyways.

Overlooked point by big_fish · 2003-09-14 10:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Although I agree with the author on most topics. Heck, my household doesn't buy music anymore on principle, but we still buy DVDs. The price point is right.

Buy one factor is not considered. A CD of music is more readily conveted to mp3s and shared over the internet than a DVD. The shear size of a movie (800-1600+ MB) make them more resistant to on-line sharing than music (for the moment).

I do have to applaud the movie industry for trying to make the DVD format more attractive with special content: the making of, choice of widescreen or scaled, alternate endings, etc.

If they further lowered their prices, people would buy more dvds as a matter of convenience. Everyone likes a nice box and cover art instead of two cdrs and a handwriten index card in the case where someone downloaded a movie.

The article has a nice junxtaposition bewteen the music and movie industry.

From the World of Stuart by Henry+V+.009 · 2003-09-14 10:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am reminded of a quote on video game piracy that I once read:

The mainstream consumer has made it absolutely plain time and time again that the price he or she will pay for standard new-release items of leisure software, be they books, movies, pop albums, graphic novels, concert tickets or absolutely anything else, is 15 [pounds], give or take a couple of quid.

http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/dh69/w os/world/ctw/piracy.htm

The problem is psychological. People simply do not compare the prices of CDs and DVDs. It is not how we think. In America, everything is $15 instead. Exchange rates do not matter--it is the number that is significant.

P.S. Why does slashdot strip the pound symbol?

Why I buy DVDs but not CDs by BenFranske · 2003-09-14 11:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the past year I've bought over 52 DVDs that works out to at least one a week. In that same time period I bought exactly NO CDs. Why is this? The DVDs are a much better value, many cast as little as $10, few are more than $19, they typically include making of featurettes, director's commentary, music videos, actor interviews, a good story PLUS the movie itself.

I would say that I love listening to music, but at the prices CDs are going for I find that my money is MUCH better spent on DVDs. For the same or less than the price of a CD I can buy a movie with all sorts of extras. The DVD has audio on it and a picture, the CD just has audio and no extras, why should it cost the same? The answer is it shouldn't.

I also have a lot of problems with the way the RIAA is trying to keep hold of their antiquated distribution methods and huge markups. Why should I support thier lawsuits with my money? Granted, the MPAA has not been the best player all along wither (they fought the introduction of the VCR for example) of course they have learned their lesson as the sales of movies in VHS form have made them a bundle of money. The RIAA refuses to see the future of music, not even doing a good job of promoting legal online distribution methods or interested in lowering prices.

I'll continue to add to my DVD collection, but until prices are MUCH more reasonable for a CD (say under $5 for ANY title I'm interested in) I won't be buying very many, if any. If the price and distribution method are right I think the record companies can get people to buy music again. Of course, this assumes the music is worth listening to, but that's another story.

So Much Music is So Bad by webword · 2003-09-14 11:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Today I decided to try to find some music. I visited no less than 5 different stores. I listened to maybe 35-40 different albums using the in-store headphones (yuck!) but I was less than impressed. Album after album sucked, with at best 2 good songs per album.

While I'm complaining here, I have to say that I really don't like the extra material on CDs, and I really can't stand CDExtra. The material slows down my computer, makes it crash some times, and generally is pretty lame. It often autoruns too, which drives me crazy. In short, I am inclined to avoid the new-and-improved CDs even if I think I'll like the band. How do you feel about this?

Earlier today, I was thinking (contemplating really) about how I buy music on eBay or used on Amazon or trade on Trodo. I decided that I like that approach much better than buying from a store. eBay is at least 1/2 price off and often you can even get new CDs for a low price. On Amazon, you can often get a music preview, so there is no advantage to visiting a brick and mortar (do people still say that?) music store. And, to top it all off, I can find music I like faster on the web. I can find recommended music, related music in the right genres, and more. It is easier and cheaper. So, can anyone explain wny I should actually visit a store? (My only answer is instant gratification -- I can buy and listen immediately.)

--
How to Download YouTube Videos

Quality by Ligur · 2003-09-14 11:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is ofcourse totally subjective but, it seems to me the general quality of music has decreased with time while movies have improved.
I feel contempt when I watch MTV while I actually pay attention to movie trailers.
I feel used by ("new") musicians while moviemakers entertain me.

--
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

Re:Quality by The-Bus · 2003-09-14 11:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, the general quality of entertainers (notice I did not say "musicians" or "artists") on MTV (a channel you watch) has decreased.

STOP COMPLAINING! Who cares what MTV has to offer!

Artists on MTV / ClearChannel radio might constitute the majority of music industry sales but it's only because of people like you perpetuating these idiots. DON'T BUY CRAP MUSIC. That's the best way for music to improve.

I've spent plenty of money on Radiohead, Coldplay, Kronos Quarter, Placebo, John Coltrane, DJ Shadow, Turin Brakes, Goldfrapp, Money Mark, Yo La Tengo, Spiritualized, Royksopp, MC Paul Barman, and countless others. Why? Because I haven't allowed myself to be marketed to by the major labels or Viacom's television network or magazines, and I pick up stuff based on what I like, not what I am told to like.

Now, this might be a revolutionary way of thinking, but I'm sick and tired of people complaining they don't like artists that are being marketed to them. Go get yourself some taste in music and free will and discover artists on your own and stop complaining about the newest Creed album.

--
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Re:Quality by dirk · 2003-09-14 13:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is ofcourse totally subjective but, it seems to me the general quality of music has decreased with time while movies have improved.
I feel contempt when I watch MTV while I actually pay attention to movie trailers.
I feel used by ("new") musicians while moviemakers entertain me.

This would be you aging and losing touch with the younger generation. If you ask anyone, at any point in history, they will tell you that things were better "before". Music in the 70s was not all great. Neither was music in the 60s or 80s. It was mostly crap whatever time you want to look at. The difference is that as time goes by, the horrible crap fades and the truly great stuff stays. Look at the top songs of any year and you will see the biggest load of crap that you are thankful you don't remember (top song of :1970-Close to You by The Carpenters, 1975-Mandy by Barry Manilow, 1979-Hot Stuff by Donna Summer, 1984-What's Love got to Do with It by Tina Turner). Music hasn't gotten worse, you've gotten older.

--

"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"

cost efficiency by c4ffeine · 2003-09-14 11:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

I say that buying the DVD is definietly worth it. You'll probably only watch the movie a couple times, but you'll listen to the music a lot. Last time I checked, Blockbuster charged about $3-4 per rental. The DVD costs $5 more than the CD. So, if you buy the DVD and only watch the movie twice, it's still cheaper than buying the CD and renting the movie twice... correct me if i'm wrong, plz

--
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin

Most Insightful Comment. Ever. by Merlynnus · 2003-09-14 11:04 · Score: 5, Informative

This is the most insightful comment the mainstream press has had on the whole music industry situation:

Most of all, spend less on lawyers and more on creative thinkers. You can't subpoena success.

The more people that say this, the greater chance the music industry will start paying attention to their customers' wants again.

They're owned by the same companies! by techmuse · 2003-09-14 11:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most record companies are owned by a company that also owns a movie studio. Warner music / Warner Bros. / AOL Time Warner. Sony Pictures / Sony music. Universal music / Universal (studios) / Vivendi Universal. They even tie in CD releases to movie releases and book releases. They're competing against themselves.

Also plain old quality by YllabianBitPipe · 2003-09-14 11:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can name several films in the past two or three years alone that I consider classic films, that I would watch over and over and are well worth the 20 bucks tops to get on DVD: Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Pixar movies, etc.

Out of all the music released in the past three years, I honestly cannot name a single CD I can say the same for. Seriously. The music these days is pure chewing gum. Single songs, maybe. A big maybe. But whole albums? None.

I don't think I'm alone in recognizing this total pure crap ola level of quality in the music biz.

Music vs Movies by Basehart · 2003-09-14 11:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I remember buying a VHS of Pink Floyd's The Wall so I could record the songs to an audio cassette for my Walkman because the double CD was just too expensive. I couldn't figure it out at the time but a few years later the band I was in decided to get out of a deal with an Indie label (Beggars Banquet) and onto a major. Within weeks of dealing with major label A&R, PR, Marketing and assorted assistants I realized the music industry was a lost cause. It really wasn't about making great, innovative music (as I used to believe) but merely about making as much cash as possible. OK, call me naive but I was a musician who really likes music and thought, just maybe, that the industry was geared to help me make more great music. Nope. We made several demo reels, paid for by several majors (each one costing thousands to make) and on every occasion had to listen to some clueless A&R rep tell us the sound was "wrong". After several months of this we decided to call it a day. No more music from me or my band (The Bolshoi). That was the mid 80's and the slope has been getting slippier for the music industry ever since. And, yes, I wish we'd just stayed with that little old indie!!

Remember, if the MPAA had had its way... by kaltkalt · 2003-09-14 11:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

We wouldn't have had VCR's at all, and there would be no movie rental/purchase industry today. They were legally forced into allowing this industry to develop, which today they earn 60% of their revenue from. If they had had their way, the only way you could see a movie would be in the theater or on TV (and you couldn't record it as you'd have no VCR).

The music industry can follow suit. Embrace file sharing, don't try to stop casual non-commercial copying, and sell CD's for $3.99 each. They'd make a fortune.

The problem in both situations is that, when confronted with technology that seems potentially threatening, suing it until it goes away seems less risky and more economical than embracing it and trying to develop a new business model around its existence. Fortunately for both us and the MPAA, they lost. Now they make a fortune in the video industry. Unfortunately for both us and the RIAA, they have not yet lost (better lobbying) and are suing themselves into oblivion, while hurting end-consumers as well. Especially the 12 year old ones.

--

Stupid people make stupid things profitable.

Re:Remember, if the MPAA had had its way... by kaltkalt · 2003-09-14 12:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

They wouldn't be losing money at that price. Some people would have to make less money per CD, but sometimes less is more.

Here is an approx. current price breakup:
$ 2.00 Record-label profit + Executive salaries
$ 1.40 New artist development
$ 1.15 Distribution
$ 1.10 Manufacturing (CD + artwork + jewel case)
$ .85 "Other"
$ .80 Performer royalties
$ .65 Songwriter royalties
$ .65 Advertising and promotion
$ .35 Producer
$ .30 Recording costs
$ .25 Music videos
$ .20 Managers and lawyers
$ .10 Artist pensions

That's a total cost of just under $10. If they cut those prices in half, they would sell more than double what they're currently selling right now. Probably quadruple.

Now, let's just do this:
$1.00 to the artist, including songwriter fees and pensions
$1.50 to the record label (including salaries, legal expenses, managers)
$1.00 for costs (including shipping, packaging, marketing)
$0.50 for new artist development, recording costs, music videos.

That's $4 per cd. The retail store (best buy, amazon, whatever) can charge a small surcharge over that, say 50 cents. So, $4.50 total cost (less tax) per album. With a $5 bill you could buy a CD, and since sales will skyrocket, not only will the industry not lose money, but they'll actually make more of it.

Of course, this would mean the industry saying "we fucked up."

--

Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Re:Remember, if the MPAA had had its way... by kaltkalt · 2003-09-14 13:50 · Score: 2, Informative

This is not a breakdown of the cost it takes to make a CD, it is where the money goes from the purchase of each CD. The price now is not the minimum price they could sell CDs at; it is the price the industry has long conspired to charge the consumer. They could charge less, still cover their costs, and make more.

--

Stupid people make stupid things profitable.

Yes BUT by brunes69 · 2003-09-14 11:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

The point is that the DVD COMES with the soundtrack on it (obviously, Chicago is a musical, the whole movie *is* the soundtrack). And because it's all just digital an dyou bought the DVD you can LEGALLY record the soundtrack right off the DVD for your listening pleasure with any decent Hi-Fi setup.

So little added value on music CDs by KiwiEngineer · 2003-09-14 11:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

What bugs me is that on a typical music CD, even very recent releases, there is no track titling put on the disc to identify track names.

It would cost nothing to put on there, would be of (some) value to people with more recent CD players. As it stands the copied CDs where I put track titling on them are of more use as I don't have to find the jewel box to see what the track title is, as most burning software is intelligent enough to look it up and put it there.

If we can't get basic value added items on our music discs, what hope is there of competing with DVDs where there is more "bonus features" (subtitles, translations, extra scenes)? (rhetorical)

--
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

regarding the canadian blank cd levy... by Frymaster · 2003-09-14 11:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

the following is ripped off from the copyright faq:

To paraphrase the introduction to an early Copyright Board ruling:

On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.

It does not matter whether you own the original sound recording (on any medium), you can legally make a copy for your own private use.

To emphasize this point, endnote 4 of an early Copyright Board ruling says:

Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else.

Note that the Copyright Act ONLY allows for copies to be made of "sound recordings of musical works". Nonmusical works, such as audio books or books-on-tape are NOT covered.

The wording of the Copyright Act gives rise to some very odd situations. In the 6 examples below, "commercial CD" means a commercially pressed CD that you would normally buy at a retail store.

If someone steals a commercial CD, steals a blank CD-R, and then copies the commercial CD onto the CD-R, they are a thief, but they have not infringed copyright.
You can legally lend a commercial CD to a friend, give him a blank CD-R, let him use your computer, and help him burn the CD-R which he can keep for his own private use.
You can legally copy a commercial CD , keep the copy, and give your friend the original.
You cannot legally make the copy yourself and give your friend the copy.
Your friends Alice and Benoit really like the new commercial CD you just purchased. Alice borrows it and makes a copy for her own use. She then passes the commercial CD on to Benoit, who makes a copy for his own use. Benoit gives the commercial CD back to you. This is all perfectly legal.
However, if Alice had copied the commercial CD, given it back to you, and passed her copy on to Benoit to make a copy for his own use, then copyright would have "probably" been infringed. There is some doubt here because Alice's original intent is important. In the strictest terms, her copy was no longer just for her private use. Pretty strange considering that the end result of examples 5 and 6 are exactly the same!

--

2 1337 4 u!

Re:regarding the canadian blank cd levy... by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · 2003-09-14 11:32 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't suppose anyone out there could persuade the Canadian government to annex Australia, could they?

-- YLFI

--
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
Re:regarding the canadian blank cd levy... by TheLoneDanger · 2003-09-14 11:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Do you, for one, welcome your new Canadian overlords?

--

"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
Re:regarding the canadian blank cd levy... by Neop2Lemus · 2003-09-14 11:50 · Score: 2, Funny

I, as one of your new Overlords, welcome you, my new subjects

--
Needle Nardle Noo
Re:regarding the canadian blank cd levy... by Dashing+Leech · 2003-09-14 16:07 · Score: 4, Funny

The Canadians have a military?
Yes, but their primary role for some time has been peace-keeping.
Whoops, sorry. Forgot about the language barrier. For you Americans:
peace ['pEs] noun. 1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom , 2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions, 3 : harmony in personal relations, 4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, 5 -- used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
Re:regarding the canadian blank cd levy... by Dashing+Leech · 2003-09-15 05:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Doesn't sound like any of the things our (America's) enemies stand for
That's a circular argument. You've already defined them as enemies. Many of America's "friends" are worse than their enemies, an America rarely attacks to "free" people. If you recall, the justification for Iraq was (quite possibly non-existant) WMDs. Saddam is not even close to the worst leader in the world as far as attrocities. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's about "freeing" them. How many countries that America has attacked has welcomed them with open arms and thanked the U.S. for "freeing" them?
You are a true child of propaganda.

Nothing new for the movie studios... by mpthompson · 2003-09-14 11:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Over the last 80 years the movie studios have had their business models dramatically disrupted on numerous occasions. In the 40's the movie studios lost anti-trust suits which forced them out of the exhibition business leaving them only control over movie production and distribution. Revenue and profits plummeted within the span of a single year and started the end of the "studio system" of stamping out movies on a weekly basis. Additional jarring changes came in the 50's with the advent of television, the rise of independent studios and actor/producers in the 60's, purchases by multinational conglomerates in the 70's, and then the introduction of the VCR in the 80's. While it is natural to resist change to the status quo, the movie studios have repeatedly demonstrated an amazing adaptability to change when left no other recourse. Learning to cope with disruptive change may be one reason the industry has been able to turn movie video/DVD sales into greater revenue than the actual exhibition of movies.

Only time will tell if the recording industry can demonstrate similar adaptability to challenges of their traditional business model or go the way of the Dodo.

Josie and the Pussycats better example... by rklrkl · 2003-09-14 11:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Have a look at this (and be prepared to be staggered at the prices that UK retailers think they can get away with):

Josie and the Pussycats DVD: 17.99 pounds ($29)

Josie and the Pussycats soundtrack CD: 19.99 pounds ($32)

Same retailer, same movie, two pounds ($3) less for the DVD than the soundtrack CD ! It's ironic really, because the movie is only OK, but the soundtrack is utterly fantastic - I have it on auto-repeat at the moment...

Re:Josie and the Pussycats better example... by fdiskne1 · 2003-09-14 11:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

And the most ironic thing about this post is that Josie and the Pussycats movie is all about super-mega-corps brainwashing the public into thinking they need to buy into the latest pop music fads.

--
But why is the rum gone?
Re:Josie and the Pussycats better example... by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-09-14 12:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Anyone who shops online at HMV.co.uk is crazy. Try Play.com or CD-WOW.com if you're a UK consumer shopping online.

CD-WOW concentrates on more popular music (not just mainstream) and doesn't have either item but Play.com has your Josie and the Pussycats CD at 9.99 pounds and the DVD at 6.99 pounds. So why you'd ever pay over twice as much for either item is beyond me.

Seriously, only an idiot would shop at HMV UK's online store. With a few exceptions, its prices are set to match those in its stores, so people who want to know how much a CD, DVD or whatever will cost can browse the site before they head to their local HMV.

Pointing out that HMV.co.uk is expensive is as revolutionary as saying "the sky is blue" or "it's cold in the North Pole". Similarly, using it as a comparison shopping example ("hey, look at how expensive everything is here in Britain!") is equally stupid, as you've picked an expensive retailer to start with, failed to point out that VAT (sales tax) of 17.5% is included in those prices, etc.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Music vs. Movies by Esion+Modnar · 2003-09-14 11:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

When I buy a DVD, I might watch it one or two times, but I am certainly not going to watch it again, and again, and again...

A music CD, on the other hand, I could easily listen to the music on it hundreds of times, if the songs are good.

So even for the same price, music vs. DVD, the music gives me more entertainment value. However, I am refraining from buying either, partly due to economic reasons, and partly due to the fact that I hate the RIAA and the MPAA.

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

The article has it correct... by ksheka · 2003-09-14 11:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

I buy DVDs instead of going to the theater. Why? Because it's cheaper to buy it than take someone with me to the theater. Also, I like lending a "find" to a friend and borrowing something from someone else. Do I watch them over again. Yes, but maybe one old movie a month.

I buy a DVD about once a month, and like building up my collection. Not too much overlap with my VHS collection, because a lot of my DVDs are of movies that have come out in the last 10 years. I like the extras, especially when the extra scenes are inserted into the movie, like in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

On the other hand, I rarely listen to the Top40 music stuff in the last couple years. My station is almost stuck on the classic rock and light rock stations.

I completed my classic rock CD collection about 3-4 years ago, and haven't bought a music CD in the last 2 years -- more out of disgust against the RIAA. Haven't borrowed a CD from anyone in a couple years. And now that I ripped all my CDs to my PC, I prefer listening to my own mixes of favorites rather than a store-bought.

Not sure if the RIAA wan't my business anymore. Not sure if I care.

--
alias uptime="echo '5:33pm up 22342352324 days, 6:28, 2124315623 users, load average: 2432.40, 12312.31, 123123.19'"

Re:CDs and DVDs wouldn't be so expensive.. by siddhartha03 · 2003-09-14 11:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just stating that it's a circular argument doesn't do anything.

High prices didn't lead to people downloading music. The pure convenience of being able to download songs en masse online couppled with fairly high prices brought many people to download music. Which in turn lead to higher prices. Which lead to more pirating again because of its ease.

But you forgot to point out that people do it because it's more convenient. It's not just about high prices. It's about how people do what's easier.

--
Sock puppets stole my sig.

I love... by Fatllama · 2003-09-14 11:45 · Score: 2, Funny

... how near the end of the article, this jackass writes

Even the blank CD formats are mired in confusing infighting over CD-R and CD-RW.

Yeah, cause clearly DVDs currently have no problem of the sort cough and the difference between read-only and read/write takes a mind of staggering genius to understand. Fluff.

Not a fair comparison by jshindl · 2003-09-14 11:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

On the surface it sounds wrong that CD's and DVD's differ in price but only a few dollars. But understand DVD sales, while important, aren't the ONLY source of revenue for movie makers. Each movie makes money by selling tickets in theaters, selling ads before (and sometimes during) movies, product tie-ins, etc. So that CD, which should cost $30, only ends up costing $15 because it's subsidized by all of the other ways Movie makers make money.

Music writers & singers have no such options. There is no advertsiing capability on a Justin Timberlake CD. There are no Justin Timberlake action figures.

The price of CDs at $15 is not a mis-step, it's the reality of the costs and lack of other ways to make money off of CDs.

Re:Not a fair comparison by Ath · 2003-09-14 19:40 · Score: 2, Informative

You're right, it's not a fair comparison...but your analysis is incorrect.

First, the vast majority of films lose money during their theatrical release.

Second, most movies don't have any tie-ins so there is no revenue stream there.

DVD sales (and home video sales in general) saved the entire movie industry and allowed it to move to the current huge budgeted movies that are produced (you decide if that's a good thing). The movie industry did not go into this model peacefully. Under Jack Valenti's leadership, they did everything they could to stop it but alas, it ended up saving them and took them to new heights of profitability.

The movie industry business model changed despite the resistance of the industry. The music industry business model will change despite the resistance of the industry. Once the music industry finds a workable model to earn money in the current world, they will be fine. The longer they insist on the old model, the more they will see their industry continue to erode.

By "music industry" I only mean the RIAA members who insist on their control of distribution.

The fact is, even taking inflation into consideration, the cost of CDs is extremely high. Comparing it to other forms of entertainment and it is REALLY high. That's why you see video game and DVD sales increasing. They are better value propositions.

If the music industry cannot make their product more valuable, then the laws of economics require the industry to die. Too bad. So sad.
Re:Not a fair comparison by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-09-14 22:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

How many movies get 'McDonalds Happy Meal Toy' status or Action Figure status. I know lots of people talk about merchandising, but it's probably And some movies don't shift merchandise because their subject matter doesn't suit it or they have a more adult audience. The Reservoir Dogs lunch box with bonus ear, anyone?
Re:Not a fair comparison by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-09-14 23:07 · Score: 2, Informative

Additional profit centres for music/musicians:-
Touring
Ringtones (more profitable than singles)
T-shirts
Radio play
Sheet music
Advertising/Sponsorship (how much is Justin Timberlake getting from McDonalds).
Fan clubs
Concert videos/DVDs
Rights for songs being used in Movies
There's also a lot of movies that have little merchandising. I don't recall The Sixth Sense having any merchandise except maybe the soundtrack.

Re:DVDs should be $3.00 by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-09-14 11:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the movie was any good it would have made a reasonable profit in theatres and the DVD should be able to be released at $3.00 a copy 18 months later. Anything else is a rip off. At least CDs have a production cost to recoup. DVDs have recouped by the time they are released.

You obviously have no idea about how much of the pie is taken up by the retailer, distributor, manufacturing, etc.

Typically, 25-40 percent of the price you'll pay in store goes to the retailer. So, on a $20 DVD that's $5-$8, which pays the rent, the wages, the electricity bills, covers shoplifting losses, etc. Turn that $5-$8 into $.75-$1.20 and watch stores go bankrupt in weeks. That's assuming that you could make and distribute a DVD title (whilst covering the cost of DVD extras, advertising, royalties, etc) for around $2 to acheive your mythical $3 price point.

Frankly, even large scale DVD pirates (who obviously don't have to worry about half the costs the original publishers have to deal with) would struggle to make any money selling DVDs at $3.

Time for you to come back from never-never land and learn that there's more to making and selling a DVD than you realise.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

No, no, you got it backwards... by Kjella · 2003-09-14 11:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Remember that the MPAA was implicitly complicit in purchasing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act from Congress. I hear they got it for a song.

They brought in Celin "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaai will alwaaaaaaaaaaaaaais luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuv juuuuuuuuuuuu" Dion and got it for not singing a song. (Pardons to any fans out there. You have my sympathies ;))

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Love this article selection by shirai · 2003-09-14 12:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have to say, I love this article selection for SlashDot. In a sea of articles that complain but offer no solutions, this article clearly shows a path to financial success. In other words, instead of poo-pooing the music industry for all their mistakes, this gives some pretty interesting evidence that taking another route leads to profit.

Believe me, as a business owner (and a techie who feels both sides of the equation), complaining alone gets a lot less of my attention than something with a solution.

--
Sunny

Be my Friend

DVDs arent cheap in other parts of the world by ziaz · 2003-09-14 12:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

DVD's in Japan typically come out months later than in the USA and cost about 2x as much. As for wanting to copy DVD's etc, if a DVD is really packed with content it just isn't worth the time. It's not as easy or fast to copy DVD's as it is to copy CDs. It takes 4 hours+ to rip a DVD plus DVD costs. Why do it if you can get commercial dvd's, save time and get pretty packaging for $15 bucks. Also XVID, DIVX are not the same as MPEG2 in quality.

Argh! Why must you be so sheep like? by The-Bus · 2003-09-14 12:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

OK, I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing people complain about how there is "no good music" that has been released in the past couple of years. This is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard. When you say "no good music has been released in the past couple of years" you really mean "the music that is marketed to me by my local ClearChannel radio station and my Viacom Cable TV music networks is not satisfying me" -- that's like saying "the era of good sports cars is over" and using only Kias as a point of reference.

So, for your information, I am going to list brilliant albums of the past ten years (even half-brilliant ones), and categorize them by genre. Please try one of these out -- you're not guaranteed to love each one, but I do. If you hate all of these, then you don't have good taste in music to begin with... :-)

Rock/Alternative/Folk/etc

Badly Drawn Boy - The Hour of Bewilderbeast
a-ha - Minor Earth Major Sky
Grandaddy - The Sophtware Slump
Radiohead - OK Computer
Beck - Sea Change
Beck - Mutations
Clinic - Internal Wrangler
Coldplay - A Rush of Blood to the Head
Elliot Smith - XO
Yo La Tengo - And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside Out
The Hives - Veni Vidi Vicious
The Flaming Lips - The Soft Bulletin
The Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
Hey Mercedes - Every Night Fireworks
Brand New - Deja Entendu
At The Drive In - Relationship of Command
Hot Water Music - No Division
Sting - Brand New Day
Counting Crows - Hard Candy
Ben Folds - Rockin The Suburbs
Ben Folds Five - Whatever and Ever Amen
Thrice - Illusion of Safety
John Mayer - Room For Squares

Jazz/Blues/Classical/etc

Don Byron - A Fine Line: Arias and Lieder
Soulive - Turn It Out
Kronos Quartet - Nuevo
Clint Mansell and Kronos Quartet - Requiem for a Dream OST
Christian McBride - Vertical Vision
Pat Martino - Live at Yoshi's
Pat Metheny - Speaking of Now
Greyboy Allstars - A Town Called Earth
Tan Dun - Hero OST

Electronic/Techno/Ambient

Air - Moon Safari
DJ Shadow - The Private Press
DJ Shadow - Endtroducing...
Goldfrapp - Felt Mountain
Royksopp - Melody A.M.
Crystal Method - Vegas
Sigur Ros - Agaetis Byrjun
UNKLE - Psyence Fiction
Turin Brakes - The Optimist

Hip-Hop/Rap/R&B/Urban

Breakestra - Live Mix Part I & II
D'Angelo - Voodoo
Greyboy - Mastered the Art
Mos Def and Talib Kweli - Black Star
The Roots - Things Fall Apart
Quannum - Solesides Greatest Bumps
The Coup - Steal This
Cannibal Ox - The Cold Vein
Deltron 3030 - Deltron 3030
Mr. Lif - I Phantom
RZA - Ghost Dog OST
Jurassic 5 - EP

Again, you're not guaranteed to love each and every single on these -- but it's a good start. More info on any of these: AMG: All Music Guide

--

Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

RIAA IP argument is a red herring. by tjstork · 2003-09-14 12:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Having RIAA and the music industry trying to prevent people from copying music digitally is like trying to have a law that keeps people from using tractors on a farm to save the plowmans' job.

Technology has advanced where we do not need a recording industry to capture and distribute music, any more than we need to have farmers plowing fields by hand.

The DMCA should be argued against as the act of corporate welfare that it is.

Goodyear didn't get gov't breaks against the onslaught of radial tires which lasted longer. Horse and buggy makers didn't get breaks against car engine makers. Propeller plane makers didn't get breaks against the Jet engine makers. Neither too should the recording industry get breaks against the new computing industry.

Imposing artificial restrictions and charges in the music world completely goes against the grain of technological progress and truly free markets.

--
This is my sig.

Business survival of the fittest by mabu · 2003-09-14 12:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

I chalk this up to an even more basic concept. You don't need to compare music to movies... it's even more simple than that:

The market changes. You either embrace these changes or you die.

The problem is our global economy (due mainly to legislation like the 1996 Telcom Act) has ended up with less competition and larger players, and when they can't quickly adapt to meet the needs of the new marketplace, they try to scare (RIAA), Mislead (AT&T) or coerce (Network Solutions) consumers into continuing to do business with them.

We saw Microsoft try to do the same thing when they initially ignored the Internet, but eventually MS had to embrace this new medium. History is full of new market dynamics that the established entities claim is unfair and will put them out of business (mail, telephone, radio, television, VCR, CDR, fax, modems, cellular, satellite, cable, digital photography, etc.) It's a never ending cycle.

Some companies try to legislate the maintaining of the status quo, like the RIAA is doing now, but it will never work, just like SCO can't stop the open source community by suing IBM. These are the companies that don't want to adapt and lose their spot at the feeding trough and have to start over. Unfortunately that's the nature of things. You adapt or you die. Organizations like the RIAA and SCO are either unable, or unwilling to fairly compete using the new market dynamics, so they resort to feeble bullying tactics that don't work.

Brilliant Idea # 1023 by YllabianBitPipe · 2003-09-14 12:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe if CDs were more like DVDs more people would buy them. For example:

Slap some extra tracks, out-takes, alternate versions, remixes on the cd.

Stick some multimedia content on 'em: music videos, band interviews, behind the scenes making of, tour videos, live video.

Stick some "trailers" as the first track of every cd: some sample songs from other artists on the same label with releases coming out soon.

I don't think any of this content would jack up the price to make a cd in the least.

Re:Brilliant Idea # 1023 by forkboy · 2003-09-14 12:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think this is where the recording industry is slowly heading. There are already standards for DVD-audio. I'm sure once portable DVD player tech becomes a lot less expensive and is integrated into Walkman-like devices, you'll start seeing albums get released with a ton of extras. As it stands now, there isn't a whole lot of room for extra material on a compact disc.

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Re:Brilliant Idea # 1023 by shadow_slicer · 2003-09-14 13:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Can you imagine having a CD like that?
You set it to repeat and get annoyed every time the CD goes to the beginning by some stupid advertisement for artists that you probably don't even like.
This isn't as much as a problem for movies, because how often do you set a movie to repeat? (Am I the only one that gets outraged that there are advertisements on a DVD that I *PAID* for? )

As far as multimedia content, I don't buy DVDs for "multimedia content", I buy them for the movie. Putting more extra stuff on them won't make be buy the cd, especially if I don't like the songs on the CD. It's really just extra junk that you might look at once, but doesn't really add any value.

Music and Movies are entirely different media, what works for one may not work for the other.

And finally:
Brilliant Idea # 1024: Lower cd prices and produce something worth buying.

The reasons are technological by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2003-09-14 12:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's look at the basics, and everything else becomes clear:

A redbook CD is about 650 megs (usually less) of uncompressed audio. With audio compression techniques, (MP3, Ogg etc.) the CD becomes about 100megs (at a compression rate that doesn't *completely* mangle the music.) and each track comes out to about 5 megs or so. A CDR can be had for much less than a dollar. The last CDRs I bought were FREE after discounts and rebates.

So, to copy the Original CDR at "full quality" Redbook audio costs nearly nothing and when compressed to MP3, eats 100 megs on my drive.

DVDs are already compressed, and if the movie is over 2 hours, they are often VERY compressed. The DVD eats (usually) about 4.2 GIGs of space on my drive.

Now, until very recently hard drives weren;'t all that cheap. The first one I could afford of consequence was in 1994 when I bought a 1 gig drive for $580 and I got a damn good deal on it. DVDs didn't exist, but even if they did, my computer didn't have a large enough drive to store a movie, unless I wanted to experience it at 180x240 at 15ips and compressed beyond all human imagining. Also, the computers were so slow, that to rip that much data would have taken....a reeeally long time, given I was running a 48 mHz machine...

So, music was the first to get digitised due to its file size. the rest follows, really.

When the $400 desktop computer I pick up at best buy has a 4 terabyte drive, and processes data in the multiteraflop range, and has 7.1 audio built right in, and the video card has a gigabyte of VRAM, Hollywood will be making the same kinds of noises that the RIAA are right now.

Compressed audio sounds lousy, but no more lousy than DVDs presently look. Once the file size for DVDs relative to the hard drives and CPU speeds isn't such a big deal, people will cheerfully rip DVDs and burn them for their friends, and their will be precious little Hollywood can do about it.

When will the bandwidth to my house via (whatever succeeds DSL / cable modems) in 10 years be? No idea, but I kind of doubt that it will be able to move movies around with the rate of speed I can move a title of MP3 / Ogg choonz.

therefore, the bandwidth for trading movies over the internet at a reasonable quality will lag far enough behind that Hollywood won't give a rats ass about it for quite a while.

However, as we all know, the bandwidth for trading music, even entire CD Titles, has been around for quite a while, and hence, the RIAA get their knickers in a twist.

Therefore: Hollywood comes off looking better than the RIAA, because they know that I might have 1000 CDs of music on my 120 gig drive at a quality not very different from the original, but there is no way I'lll have a 1000 movies on my 120 gig drive at the same relative level of quality. Consequently, they toss out DVD movie titles for not that much more money than the MSRP CD title prices...

Now, when I have a 60 terabyte drive in my machine loaded to the gunnels with movies, and the bandwidth is there and affordable for me to P2P a full length MPEG2 movie in 7.1 audio in less than a half hour, and I'm just sitting back and burning DVDRs for friends and fambly, Hollywood WILL hunt my ass down, just like the RIAA hunted down the Kazaalings.

RS

--
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.

Additonally about movie soundtracks by Sycraft-fu · 2003-09-14 12:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

They've already been paid as a part of the movie. IF the music is orignal, the composers and preformers were paid directly as part of the deal with the studio as a work for hire. If it is preexisting music, royalties were paid, often millions of dollars for a 30 second clip if the song is popular.

This would of course beg the question as to why a movie soundtrack would be so expensive, given that it was already paid for in the context of the movie. This gives rise to another intersting question: The music industry wants to pretend like when you buy music, you are buying a liscence to listen to it, not the actual good itself. In that case, do you have a right to the movie soundtrack through owning the movie (of which the soundtrack is a part)?

May be it has to do with a business model? by Sleeper · 2003-09-14 12:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Really. I think the main problem that these people (record labels and such) just don't care about music at all. A decade or so ago the recording industry transmformed itself into "industry of the cool" but because the music is what a lot of regular people still care about the record companies are having problems right now.

I think it all happened in the beginning of 90's with rap invading a mainstream and an unexpected breaktrhough from Seatle. It all was raw, real and it was for sure cool. However gangsta rap was really difficult to package in the beginning while Seatle bands just did not want to sell out on the industry terms. So the recording industry took a lesson and started to manufacture all that stuff. And we all eded up with a lot of overproduced shit performed by people we do not care about.

I think recording industry have been hearing for whom the bell tolls (for them that is) for quite some time. You could see that on those so called "music channels" all the way through the 90s. When they constantly were trying to get in bed with fashion industry, movie industry etc. They just forgot about the music in the process.

Instead they are trying to fuel the public's interest by all that other shit such as rivalaries between rap artists, who is screwing with whom, extreme sports, lame models that cannot put to words together without spraining their brain and so on.

Lately they started to produce really wierd shit. Such as punk band that never went on tour but got a major record label (Good Charlotte) or a "garage band" that went straight on MTV awards (White Stripes, I mean they are pretty good, but nothing special. Really).

Of course all that "manufacturing of cool" requires a huge overhead. So music becomes even more fogotten.

As for movie industry. They are the same greedy bastards as RIAA. The only thing that they do differently is ... let me see... They still make and sell movies...

--
- Back off man. I am a scientist

It's all about those CD factories... by Fear+the+Clam · 2003-09-14 12:53 · Score: 5, Funny

CDs first came out around when I started college in 1984. You could only buy them new, and they cost at least $13. All of the news articles claimed that the high price (about twice an album cost) was because there were only a few factories in the world making the things, but the price would go down soon. I bought an average of one CD a week.

In 1989, the prices still hadn't come down, but I started seeing widespread sales of used CDs. I bought everything used. Aside from a new CD I bought in 1999, the labels haven't seen a penny direct from me since 1989.

In 1999, the prices of CDs still hadn't caught down, but I started downloading music, making MP3s, ripping my friends CDs, and doing direct hard-drive exchanges of MP3s.

It's 2003 -- 19 years since I started college -- and the price of CDs is about the same as it ever was. Two months ago, I finally bought a CD burner of my own -- a 52X -- so I can make my own CDs. I got it for ten dollars after the rebate.

If they can't get those damned facories built by now to significantly lower the price of CDs, they deserve to go out of business.

Re:It's all about those CD factories... by The_Sock · 2003-09-15 02:09 · Score: 2, Funny

What a wonderful scale for measuring costs. Thank you. All my future purchases shall be weighted in number of beers I could afford for the equal amount. I'm currently looking at a 52" widescreen TV, but now that I realize that it's 2232 beers for said TV, I have to wonder if it's worth it.

I figure 18-24 beers (LaBatt Blue, $32.25 per 24) is a good night, I would be getting anywhere between 93 and 124 nights of drunken bliss. We won't even bother looking at the 8 or 10 beer nights where it's just a casual boozing, which would inflate the numbers a bit.

Now if we break it down into hours, a good saucing lasts from about 8pm to 6am, so that's 10 hours of entertainment per saucing. That's anywhere between 930 to 1240 hours of good clean entertainment.

Would I get that much from the TV? Hard to say. Lately I watch about 5 to 10 hours of TV a week, and kick on the PSX (Can't beat the price of games... thanks Bit Torrent) for about 10 hours a week. Hockey season is about to star, so that's a couple hours more TV per week. tack on an additional 9 hours through the winter, and round it up to an even 20. so 30 hours per week. I'm being very generous here to try to rationalize my future purchase. 41.3 weeks. A Bit under 1 year to get the same amount of entertainment for the TV.

I figure the 2232 beers would last me, with a healthy 2 - 3 boozings per week, 37.2 to 49.6 weeks. I'll stretch that also over to one year, because some weeks I'll booze only once, some 4 or 5 times.

Here my liver is screaming "Buy the TV! For the love of God buy the TV!"

After that beer is gone, the TV really cashes in. Because I don't have to spend more money to keep watching TV and playing video games.

OK, it's settled. I'm getting a 46" widescreen and 31 cases of beer and watching hockey and boozing.

Ahhh.. Compromise.

--
For a good time call www.sawkie.com

Canada by wing03 · 2003-09-14 13:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html

From chatting with friends, the gist is that it's illegal to upload music to a public ftp server but it's perfectly legal to have file sharing turned on in your computer.

It's also perfectly legal to download.

Comparing the value of DVDs and CDs by hayden · 2003-09-14 14:24 · Score: 2, Informative

A lot of people here are comparing the amount of time spent watching a DVD to the amount of time spent listening to a CD and concluding that CD are still good value because you listen to it more.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

This is monopolistic pricing clean and simple. They are charging what you are willing to pay rather than basing the cost to you on their costs plus profit. Considering that a movie costs 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more to make than a CD and the actual medium costs about the same, CDs should be a lot cheaper. If there was any real competition between the record labels prices would drop dramatically but they're all in on this together so you pay through your noise for something that should be very cheap.

--
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.

They're the same except for the hair by sacrilicious · 2003-09-14 14:59 · Score: 2, Funny

That was Whitney Houston ;-)

Whitney Dione, Celine Houston, who can tell them apart? And the Backstreet Boys vs NSync... is NSync the band where the tough one wears the bandana, or is it that sensitive angsty one? Personally I spend my money on cds from the pop amalgem sensation Boy George Michael Jackson Browne Vs Board Of Education, he rocks!

--
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.

Re:What's the URL? by JPrice · 2003-09-14 15:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's not quite that cut-and-dried, unfortunately.

The article leaves out mention of subsection 2 of the relevant section.

Subsection 2 states that copying is not allowed if it is for the purposes of: (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental; (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade; (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

It seems to me that it would not be hard to make a legal argument that P2P file sharing is prohibited by either section (b) or (c).

Speaking of piracy... by lpret · 2003-09-14 17:31 · Score: 4, Funny

The theatre I go to has a picture out front of a pirate and talks about no pirates allowed. So a friend and I (while inebriated) dressed up as pirates and tried to get in. While using every pirate phrase we could ("Ahoy there bonnie lass, give us some tickets for the 9 o'clock showing or you'll not live to see another day") we got our way in and were able to see a movie! We asked a guy why pirates weren't allowed, that we felt it was disciminatory, and the guy just shook his head and said "No, the other kind of pirate." I still have no idea what he means by that.

--
This is my digital signature. 10011011001

superficial research by alizard · 2003-09-14 19:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anyone who knows about the history of the DMCA knows that the RIAA and MPAA are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The DMCA was a result of joint effort. So is the arguably worse Broadcast Protection Discussion Group proposals.

Through a combination of intelligent design, lucky accident and the good sense to follow the consumer's lead, movie companies settled on the VHS video format for 25 years before gently introducing a DVD alternative.

Try lucky accident. Jack Valenti of the MPAA is the guy who said that home taping would kill the movie industry when he was trying to get Congress to stop it. If they'd had their way, there would have been no VHS.

The main difference between the MPAA and RIAA is that the MPAA companies had sense enough to pick a lower price point and add extra content over and above the movie.

Why is the MPAA fighting alongside the RIAA to kill filesharing?

P2P pirating of movies simply isn't economically significant. The bandwidth to the home just isn't there yet and isn't going to be as ubiquitous as the TV for years and years.

So what's the problem?

Same as the RIAA, it's about control. When those broadband pipes to the home are in place, it'll be possible for the next Steven Spielberg to make a movie on his desktop with capabilities better than the best high-end Hollywood has to offer now, rendering and special effects courtesy of a closet full of PCs loaded with high-end programmable video cards... and consumers will be able to download it.

Where is Hollywood in this picture?

For them, that's the problem.

So they're willing to go along with the RIAA on proposals that'll turn the Net into a controlled domain where the only audio/video entertainment content available for public distribution will be "blessed" by Hollywood.

Why is the RIAA out there all by itself suing 12 year olds?

It seems that the RIAA is being the "bad guy" to the MPAA "good guy", and this makes no sense. Gangs of scumbuckets don't make sacrifies for each other unless there's benefit in store for them.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:watch it again, and again by Technician · 2003-09-14 21:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't have kids do you? I have a couple grandkids. I've lost count of how many times I've watched Monsters Inc. Too bad stuff on TV has gotton so bad that it's almost never on. most of it is not suitable for kids except some stuff on PBS and FOX. I remember when all broadcast TV was suitable for all ages. (except the cig adverts.)

--
The truth shall set you free!

Talk Like a Pirate Day coming up. by autiger · 2003-09-15 00:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Oddly enough, this Friday, September 19, is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Sounds like you and your friend should be celebrating.

Slashdot Mirror

Music Industry Compared to Movie Industry

110 of 553 comments (clear)