Slashdot Mirror
Fewer People Copy DVDs Than Once Thought
MasterOfMagic writes "According to a survey reported at the NY Times, very few people actually have and use DVD copying software. The survey reports that only 1.5 percent of computer users have DVD copying software, and of those 1.5%, 2/3rds of them don't even use it. The survey also revealed that users were more likely to download DVDs than copy DVDs that they borrowed or rented, and that about half of all downloaded DVDs are pornography. According to the survey's lead analyst, 'With music, part of the appeal is sharing your own playlists and compilations with your friends ... I'm not sure people share their porn the way they share their music.'"
once was when it wasnt available for sale but Blockbuster had it, it still isnt for sale but I found a copy (Split Second). I have also had to copy some DVDs that were so scratched up they wouldnt play properly, but the copy would (used DVD shrink)
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I buy all my DVDs, usually either on release day when they are heavily discounted or from online sellers (like deep discount dvd) when I can get most for 6 dollars or less. Yeah I know I am indirectly supporting the evil MPAA but the fact is I want these movies and its not worth the risk to just buy them, especially when I get them for such a great price. I usually buy odd movies; like those people like us like; and series (again those people here are more likely to buy) that don't hold their price original prices very long.
I tried many of the copy programs, have downloaded torrents of current series, and all that. Now I record on the fly with the tivo-clone what series I want and keep them around till the dvd comes out and gets to a ok price. For the most part copying DVDs was more of a novelty to me and others, its the "oh, I did that when I was a kid" type stuff that just isn't worth the hassle or civil penalties to do anymore
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
For most cds (By volume sold, aka pop crap), the labels get money from the discs, not from shows the artists sing (so far as I know). So, taking that into account, the artist doesn't care much about the CDs, just he concerts. The labels care about the CDs, not the concerts, as they don't get money from them, except as extra CDs sold. Then there is the radio revenue, but I don't think that helps much.
Off hand, I think part of the high cost of music is the shotgun approach labels use. Movie studios tend to be more selective, given the high cost of one now a days.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
That is certainly not it. My favorite example is:
n fo=who+made+who&HT_Search=TITLE&image.x=11&image.y =9&cart=566907299&style=music&altsearch=yes
5 727&style=movie&BAB=E
http://www.cduniverse.com/sresult.asp?HT_Search_I
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=727
There is absolutely no excuse for a sound track to cost more than the movie AND soundtrack. I would assume that MOST soundtracks cost more than the movies they are from within a year or two of the movies release to video.
"Okay... so when people stop buying CDs in droves (often while citing the price of CDs relative to other goods in their lives), what does that have to say about the location of the current price of CDs on their supply-demand curve?"
CD prices go into freefall. The average price of a new CD was about $20 ten years ago. Then P2P exploded. By 2004, the average price of a new CD was about $13.50. Then online venues like the iTunes store and became more viable (my personal reason for not buying CDs any more) and now it's quite easy to find new releases for $11. Most of the CDs on Amazon's best-seller lists are $9.99.
That $20 we were paying for CDs in 1997 is almost 25 bucks today's money. This means CD prices have fallen by more than half. Ain't the demand curve great?
I don't think CDs are going to fall much below $11 or so... their share of the market vs. online sales will continue to wither away to a core group of consumers who seek out a physical medium, but I don't think we'll see the record companies will chase it down much further.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
It's interesting that you talk about supply and demand, but the supply side is hardly mentioned. Once the music is recorded, the record companies can make as many copies as they like, and each additional copy probably costs them less than one dollar. So the supply is potentially enormous. By raising the prices high, they produce the same effect as a limited supply would cause, but there's nothing about the supply that is inherently limited.
This is where competition is supposed to help out. Some smart person should start a company that does less marketing, simple good quality recordings, and standard CD packaging, then sell the discs for $5. They could pay about $1 per CD to the artists, $1 for manufacturing and distribution, $1 on average for recording and production, $1 for company salaries and expenses, and $1 profit. Assuming they could get some big names on board, they should create quite a stir and make some good money undercutting the other companies and their artificial markups.
Unfortunately, the few big music corporations seem to have a stranglehold on the business, and they know better than to start a price war with each other. The status quo makes them all more profitable. It's a bit like OPEC, just done unofficially because it would be illegal to make it official.