Slashdot Mirror
Attack of the $1 DVDs
fm6 writes "The NY Times has an interesting piece on DVDs that sell for one or two bucks. Not all of them are crap -- apparently a lot of good movies never got copyrighted properly. But there's no silent movies ('not mass market'), or movies that aren't 'family friendly.' Here's what I find really interesting: none of the DVD companies mentioned in the article sell online -- it's all through discount bins in supermarkets and drug stores."
Yet, I believe you'd find half of Slashdot gripe, and ask for the bittorent...
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Well, at $1 per DVD, it beats even free downloading in terms of time and space costs... plus, you get a free DVD to have a backup on. I have been noticing a lot of relatively cheap DVDs ($4-5 range) lately actually. Perhaps part of a parallel-running strategy against ripping?
see a Text Widget
none of the DVD companies mentioned in the article sell online -- it's all though discount bins
There's a simple reason for this. Most people will think, "Gee, I'd like to buy that for $1 online but I won't pay $2 for shipping and handling on something that only costs $1"
To sell online they need to bump the price up to $3 online to subsidize the shipping and nominally charge 50 cents to ship.
But there's no silent movies ("not mass market"), or movies that aren't "family friendly".
Playback of silent movies on a DVD player needs a soundtrack. All sound recordings published from the invention of the phonograph until February 15, 1972, are restricted under state law copyright until December 31, 2067 (second source), and a bargain-basement DVD distributor such as DigiView doesn't have the resources to do its own dub job.
It's so True! Bruce Li could kick some serious ass! And Bruce J Lee? He was a MACHINE. Then there's Bruce Lei, that guy knew his way around a pair of nunchucks I tell you.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Slashdot is a bastion of cheapness cowering in a cloak of principle.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Okay, show of hands...
/starts/)
who thinks movies from 60 years ago should still have copyright protection?
I see.. the frozen hand of Walt Disney..
anyone else?
(please note I would be in favor of laws which change when the term of copyright
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I picked up a handfull of cartoons for my grandson and a handful of old B movies for myself at the local grocery store for a $1 each.
They sold out quickly. I hope they will get some more in and some new titles.
A $1 is a bargin and really what most of them are really worth.
When I was a kid, the ticket at the theater was about $1.50, that was in the 60's...
I've recently seen mention that the ticket to see a new movie is around $9.00 BS on that!
The only movies that have come out in the past 30+ years that were actually worth the trouble and expense to go and see were the LOTR movies and those didn't come out of Hollyweird, which explains why they were of good quality and good content.
No matter though, all the theaters in this area have gone out of business anyway. The nearest one is a 35 mile drive. With $9 to get in, $5 for a heatlamp special and $4 for a cup of ice with a splash of soda water, I can tell you this, I will never again go to a movie theater. Oh yeah, and of course there's the gas to drive there. At $2.5+ a gallon, I only drive when it's a life and death emergency..
IF, and that's a BIG IF, a decent movie ever comes out, I just wait for it to hit DVD and buy it then. I would rather spend $14-16 on it and have it to do with as I please than to spend $40+ to see it once in a room full of crying babies, kids acting up, people chatting on cell phones, etc...
Hollywood needs to get real. With the raping they keep putting on people at the ticket booth it's little wonder people pirate the movies. If they would cut the salaries of the fat cats at the top of the food chain in half and the self-important actors and actresses, that would be a step in the right direction.
But for now, $1 is more than a fair price..
Public domain? Not really, most $1 DVDs I've seen are very-very-cheap horror movies or action movies with "fake" movie stars (for example some guy who looks like Stallone even if you know he's not the real one). Most of these movies have just failed to be shown in the theaters due to a story 10 times more boring than the usual "Arnold".
:)
The funny thing is that today, in those discount bins, I've found the movie 1984! I was looking forward to seeing if the adaptation from the book was good
Sometimes folks poke fun at the NYTimes because, on technology, they sometimes seem so far behind the times it's snickerable (not quite laughable).
I think this article is such an example. Extremely low-cost movies in grocery stores and bargain bins have been around for YEARS. Perhaps the only difference today -- and I think we can quibble on what 'today' means -- is that instead of Betty Boop on VHS, she's on a DVD.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
And the rest of us geniuses pay about $14 more to NOT have this?! Man, I bet these DVDs don't even have that annoying FBI warning since some of them are in the public domain. These cheap DVDs already have the top 2 out of 3 items on my wish list for DVDs. Now, they just need to have a good movie to go along with the DVD. ;-)
EvilCON - Made Famous by
- Popeye Cartoons (there is a series of four discs, very good qulaity
- Santa Claus vs. the Martians (a true classic!)
- Off the wall and calssic horror movies - Bela Lugosi meets the Brooklyn Gorilla and other obvious 60s/70s schlock
- classics like Road to Bali and the Inspector General
- Some Little Rascals Episodes
- Three stooges cartoons (I haven't had the guts to grab those, they are pretty lame)
Everytime I see such a display I find it worth my tme."Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
The real secret to cheap dvds is pawn shops. I've gotten most of the "classic" disney movies on dvd from a local pawn shop slowly over the past year - never paid more than $8 for one of 'em.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I don't think I'm cheap. But I'm lazy.
So give me a torrent over any physical media any time.
Torrent also saves me the hassle of ripping the damn thing to my mediabox.
So, is that bad, am I hurting anyone?
You made it sound as if that's a bad thing.
Uh, copyright is automatic.
Uh, copyright is automatic now. You used to have to register. Not only that, you had to put copyright notices on your stuff, and renew your copyright after a number of years if you wanted it to remain copyrighted. Some things are in the public domain by virtue of neglecting to put (c) on the title card.
Furthermore, stuff created for the government is (or at least was) automatically in the public domain.
-- This void intentionally left null.
The majority of these titles are available at http://www.archive.org/details/feature_films . Additionally I've been distributing the MPEG2 format via Bittorrent at http://torrents.pdmdb.org/
I'm not really sure if this issue has ever been decided regarding video, but it's quite possible that the MPEG-2 stream could be claimed as copyrighted. When Penguin Books goes through, say, Great Expectations, and does layout, changes punctuation to match the American rules, etc. their version is copyrighted.
Not necessarily. From Copyright Office circular 14, with my emphasis:
How was the quality of the 1984 DVD?
Parent, I wholeheartedly agree.
/. knows the kinds of things I'm talking about (like just queuing up multiple episodes, easy skipping, etc). Generally, I'm actually quite unimpressed with the lack of user-friendlyness of DVDs and whatnot; for CDs, it's just albums, but for DVDs I expect something less arcane. Oh, it's great for the average consumer, yada yada, but I've (yes, often illegally) seen it done in ways so much simpler for my needs (and since I have enough access to computers with s-video out, no advantage to having it on DVD players for me) I therefore can't quite abide by non-ripping ways.
Honestly, it's not like I don't own movies, music, etc . . . actually, I own a LOT. But I always rip the ones I have, if I haven't already downloaded them (and thus bought them because I liked them so much, and wanted to actually own them, for principle or posterity or 'cause they were on some crazy $1.50 sale or etc) simply because it's sooo much more convenient.
Comparing TV series saved on CD to DVD, if I'm watching on my computer, it's much easier to just pop in the disc and double-click on the episode, instead of having to actually navigate menus, wait while there's time delays, and so forth. And proper rips, I can just switch at a moments notice between normal audio and, say, a commentary track, so if I'm listening to the directors talking, and then I go "oh, yeah, I want to just re-watch that scene in normal right now" I can actually do that in seconds instead of the convoluted process in DVDs.
It's the difference that comes with having a format that's the raw media (relatively speaking) instead of it tucked away inside of virtual packaging. These points could go on and on, but I'm sure anyone reading
And so, yeah, for these movies it just makes sense for them, what with being in public domain and all, to be so easily available for download and distribution as rips.
Hey, even if the industry complains "free movies cut into our profit!", well them, you'll just have to make things that are new and interesting enough that people will want to buy the new ones even while they can get the classics for free. Hah, now that might make you get off your asses and do something worthwhile, now you have to compete with your own past!
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
I've seen quite a few classics, from both film and TV, in these one-buck-DVD bargain bins. A few that I recall off the top of my head:
--Jungle Book, starring Sabu
--episodes from the original Superman TV series
--various Sherlock Holmes films (with Basil Rathbone)
Some were in standard DVD cases with nice labels, some in cheap cello and cardboard. But for a buck, who cares?
And I think the guy quoted in the article is wrong about silent movies -- the same audience that is interested in the above are also interested in silents, especially serials.
Even if I had broadband, and even when the file is free and legal, I certainly couldn't be bothered to locate, download, and burn a film that I could buy for a buck. IMO their only mistake is in not making their catalogs cover a sufficiently broad range of titles and eras.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
As soon as I saw the headline for the article...the FIRST thing that popped into my mind was that stupid phrase from the First Robocop movie that I could'nt get out of my head....
Damn IT slashdot!
"I'll buy THAT for a dollar!"