Slashdot Mirror
NYT Confirms Movie Studios Paid to Support HD DVD
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times has confirmed the story that Paramount and DreamWorks Animation were paid $150 million for an exclusive HD-DVD deal that will last 18 months. 'Paramount and DreamWorks Animation declined to comment. Microsoft, the most prominent technology company supporting HD DVDs, said it could not rule out payment but said it wrote no checks. "We provided no financial incentives to Paramount or DreamWorks whatsoever," said Amir Majidimehr, the head of Microsoft's consumer media technology group.'" We discussed Paramount's defection on Monday.
Did anyone really expect anything different?
Let's drag out all of Sony and friends general ledgers and see how much "promotional consideration" Target and Blockbuster got. I really don't get why people are making a big deal about a company making promotional deals. Let's be serious, these days $150 million is about enough to cover one big budget movie.
Wake me when one format bites the dust and players for the other format are $100. Till then I'll make do with DVD's.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Main Entry: payola Pronunciation: pA-'O-l& Function: noun Etymology: 1pay + -ola (as in Pianola, trademark for a player piano) : undercover or indirect payment (as to a disc jockey or perhaps a movie studio like Paramount) for a commercial favor (as for promoting a particular recording or for promoting a flagging HD format) We report, slashdot decides...
Now that combo Blu-Ray HD-DVD players are becoming increasingly available and cheap, any studio would be stupid to not take a cash payout for (what may end being an ultimately meaningless) format switch. With the format war continuing for at least another few years (by all likelihood), it's conceivable that mass adoption of combo players as they become affordable will mean that format difference will ultimately be of as little meaning as DVD+/-R is now. Besides, with adoption rates lagging so badly, the losses from switching to a less-popular format over the next 18 months are probably outweighed by the cash payment. Great business decision by Paramount.
I can do without their movies for that long.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Better tell that to Coke and Pepsi, apartment complexes who have exclusivity deals with telco providers, and all sorts of other businesses. Do you just "not like it" or do you have some rational reason why not? I certainly can't think of any rational reason. Both parties are willing to sign the contract, so I'm not sure whose rights are being violated.
"Microsoft, the most prominent technology company supporting HD DVDs, said it could not rule out payment but said it wrote no checks. "We provided no financial incentives to Paramount or DreamWorks whatsoever," said Amir Majidimehr, the head of Microsoft's consumer media technology group."
The statement begs the question; how is it possible to make a payment but provide no financial incentive? There is no such thing as payment, that is not a financial incentive. A contingency is a financial incentive but not a check, but there is no such thing as a payment that is not a financial incentive. Either the reporter is an idiot, or Microsoft is full of shit.
70% of statistics are made up.
There is only one reason why someone would pay $150 million to buy the adoption of a particular format: The HD DVD people realized their preferred format was inferior, and could not possibly win in the marketplace in a fair competition on the merits.
In other words, the people who paid believed that the format they don't want to win, Blu-ray, is worth $150 million more than their HD DVD format in true value, so to even the score they had to pay.
That shouts very loudly to me. Someone with $150 million to spend has set the value of Blu-ray as being worth that much more than HD DVD. Thanks for the information. You have voted with your dollars, and shouted to everyone who thinks about it that Blu-ray should win.
From the New York Times article: "The battle over the competing high-definition DVD technologies has sputtered in recent months as Blu-ray discs have emerged as the front-runner. Blu-ray titles are sharply outselling HD offerings..."
Not only the corrupters, but the marketplace also, agree that Blu-ray is better.
I wonder how much it would cost to get Paramount and DreamWorks Animation to adopt 8-track tapes?
I wonder how much it would cost to get Paramount and DreamWorks Animation executives never to take showers or baths? Obviously, to them, everything is for sale, even their technical integrity.
If that kind of thing continues, the word "executive" will become synonymous with the word "sleaze".
HD DVD has an additional value for those who are currently manufacturing DVDs: it can use the same production lines as existing DVDs. BLU-RAY requires new production facilities. These are expensive. One way or another that cost will be passed on to the consumer. In the long run HD DVD may or may not be cheaper, but in the short run this is an advantage to HD DVD.
> Can we drop this nonsensical meme.
Nope. Just because you are not able to understand something doesn't mean we should drop it. The particular meme happens to both correct and useful.
> All property rights are "government-granted monopolies". Do you mind if I use your
> car to go to the grocery store?
On the other hand, that is an analogy we should drop, not because it is old and tired, but because it is misleading. No real property rights denies you the right to drive an identical car to the grocery store. Only that particular car. So no monopoly in any useful (economical) sense of the word is involved that way.
Now that Paramount has lost Michael Bay as a result of this (for better or worse) I wonder if they'll re-evaluate their position...
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
"Is it that big of a deal to master two discs?"
Yes when one of the big studios is owned by the same company that makes the discs/players.
The move by Paramount and Dreamworks may have more to it than just the $150 million payout - Because Sony controls the entire process from making the movie, making the disc, the player and owning stores for distribution too (although it will sell through as many other retailers as possible of course), this gives it incredible power to say to other studios you do it our way or no one sees your movies (or at least an advantage to their studio arm over their competitors). The move by Paramount and Dreamworks could be to counter this (or lessen the effect). But if that is truly the case I think that they have left it too late and the move may in fact alienate movie-goers against them instead, especially if those people have already bought a blu ray player or a PS3.
When I say I bought a house or a car. I have spent money to acquire the rights to the brick mortar, iron, labour everything that goes into the building of this house or car. There has been a transaction between the previous owner and me which says that the transaction was fair.
Now when you say that you have written a piece of work. Can you say that you have paid back for every piece of information that you used to produce that work. You cannot. There are literally millions of small pieces of information that goes into creating that work. It is true that a lot of creativity and effort goes into producing that work, but it is still built on a large amount of information that had required a lot of creativity, and effort. You never did pay for these pieces of information. You just used it and now you are trying to steal when you try to deny the right of those creators and their survivors (ie the public) to also enjoy the fruits of your labour, as you did theirs.
I am not against copyright, as long as it is copyright and not some kind of stupid "intellectual" property right. Copyright has a stated purpose, which is to allow creators to gain some payment for their efforts. But it is only that. Trying to make it into a perpetually owned property is an attempt to steal from the public domain. The same goes for patents, but the problem is less severe there.
In light of the above, copyright should be very limited in time, and scope. It should give some inalienable rights, such as attribution. But commercial rights should be severely curtailed. I believe, to just commercialize a product you should be required to register your work at the copyright office stating your intention to benefit from it, and providing a copy for its library. The right to benefit from it should be only for a very limited time, like 5 years (from the point of registration) allowing for one extension of another 5 years. Anything more in the Internet age is stupid and excessive. Works owned by Corporations should not be allowed to have an extension, that will make it more difficult for corporations to steal from the artists.
Everybody should be required to earn their living, and artists or RIAA/MPAA should not be above it. This means that no perpetually milking the only good thing that you produced.
There is a deeper meaning to the following quote by Newton which some people will never have the humility to understand.
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Strange since HD-DVD/DVD hybrids already exist, yet I don't know of any bluray/DVD hybrids... so I'd say the advantage goes to HD-DVD on this.
//TODO: Insert catchy phrase
That does not rule out Microsoft providing financial incentiive to a HD-DVD intermediary organization who subsequently funneled the money to the studios.
Your Microsoft Windows monopoly dollars at work, killing competition and preventing the consumer marketplace from deciding the better solution.
I can sum that up in 3 characters, PS3. Plus, AFAIK, it's still the least expensive Blu-Ray player on the market. IMO, Sony learned from their Betamax failure.
I think thats a great idea about Lucas.
On the other hand, please explain how this is a "shady practice"?
I can only buy certain models of TVs at CostCo (PriceClub) compared to Circuit City. Models specifically made for CostCo, offered at a lowered price that you can't buy anywhere else. Target (I think, maybe K-Mart) only carries the Martha Stewart Line of household items. Howard Stern is exclusive on Sirius radio while Opie and Anthony are only on XM and have a deal to be broadcast over the air as well. RockStar is releasing exclusive content onto the 360 release of GTA4.
These are not shady practice's. This is very transparent for all the world to see (or guess if they're not researching) and is done everywhere. Go to McDonald's and get me a Pepsi will you. Oh right, you can't.
Grow up and realize companies have one purpose to make money for their stockholders, not to ensure you can watch any movie you want because you bought a specific player.
I don't know how this isn't illegal
Heres how its legal. Go into McDonald's and buy a Pepsi. Nonono, Coca-Cola won't do, I want a Pepsi. Hmm, they don't offer that? Strange... Okay... okay. Lets see. I have an XM radio here... could you tell me what channel Howard Stern is on? Ohhh, he's on Sirius only. Hmm, okay, okay I'm starting to see a trend here. So I'm at bed bath and beyond and I'm looking for Kirkland sheets, Oh those are only made for CostCo and Kirkland stores? WTF!?! What is happening?!?!
Ooooooh right maybe companies to have the ability to make exclusive contracts with other companies. Grow the hell up.
When you have to pay people to switch, expect that they're switching to the worst system. You don't have to pay people to switch to the better system. That's how Betamax lost out to VHS.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Thanks for your answer. I didn't realize how little technical issues mattered, or how much money is involved in manipulating the outcome.
The "more money than brains" folks rule the world?
I don't think so. I think that one technically knowledgeable Slashdot reader could write one article about the technical merits, and have it published on Slashdot, and $150 million would seem like pocket change compared to the power of Slashdot readers telling all their friends which is the best.
I like Blu-ray only because it has a faster data rate and can hold more data. I plan to use whatever format becomes popular as a data backup method.
I don't watch Hollywood's goofy movies, and I recommend that people who want control their lives educate themselves about reality, not fantasy.
Last time, in the war over DVD-R and DVD+R (DVD+R is better technically), the manipulations caused DVD to become useful much later than it would otherwise have been. I suggest that we not let non-technical people have control over technical things.
I wish Slashdot readers would stop thinking that they are weak concerning matters such as this.
1:
Given most consumers are in no hurry to pick a format until one wins (most wouldn't want to drop $100 on one if they'ed have to get the ohter anyway in 2-3 years) and given it may take 18 or more months for one side to give in, Paramount may think the next 18 months don't matter. Why not get paid for farting around.
2:
Maybe Paramount is deliberately picking the wrong format, and the money is just a sweetener in the pot. If Blu-Ray wins, and Paramount goes Blu-Ray now, they sell one copy each of all their movies to interested parties. If they go HD, then Blu-Ray they can sell the same movie twice to some viewers.
3.
Paramount isn't always known as the brightest company. They have a record of messing up with one of their best known properties. (Star Trek)
4.
Paramount can't LOSE major sales from doing this, only delay them. Even if everyone boycotted them until they swapped back to Blu-Ray, once they do, who else can you get Paramount movies on Blu-Ray from?
Final note:
HD vs Blu-Ray shows that the world of movies / music is *inherently* more messed up than physical goods. No matter how shoddy of a format Paramount brings to the table (even DivX) you're not allowed to get a better version of "The Search for Spock" from anyone else. It's not in the best interests of the media companies to share, so I don't see this changing anytime soon.