epp_b Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Yet one more reason to stick it to Microsoft and go with Linux...as soon as I find those application replacements! http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...021218&from=rss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 That is why I am learning Linux. Redmond can keep it's flawed OS's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 I guess you guys have never heard of AnyDVD... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greengeek Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 There are ways to get around those (and any other) restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Tru datOh, btw....the sky is falling!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 This is really a moot issue...any PC capable of running Vista will have fairly new hardware anyway. Besides, a new DVD drive costs so little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Not to mention... who cares if my DVD player can't play a DVD from India. I purchase DVDs in the USA and not from the rest of the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeber Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 I suspect the people who live in foreign countries who would like to watch DVDs only available in the U.S. or England might be bothered by this.I take it this is another effort to control the spread of pirated DVDs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 2, 2006 Author Share Posted January 2, 2006 (edited) I take it this is another effort to control the spread of pirated DVDs?That's what they want you to think (but I'm sure you already knew that). It's just another abusive tactic by **AA to syphen as many pennies through consumers' nostrils as possible without having to lift a finger to do any work. Edited January 2, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b2cm Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 I take it this is another effort to control the spread of pirated DVDs?I doubt this new feature really helps. Sooner or later someone comes up with a way to work around it. And for viewing pirated DVDs, standalone players are cheaper, easier to use than computers. Microsoft is simply telling the legit supply-side of the DVD market that it is doing its share of protecting their interests, because somewhere their interests join and goodwill is important.another abusic tactic by **AA to syphen as many pennies through consumers' nostrils as possible without having to lift a finger to do any work.Businesses sell to a market that can afford their products and find the pricing reasonable. Only those who want the product but are outside/below that market suffer the 'siphon' experience or resort to piracy (which is why piracy thrives). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 2, 2006 Author Share Posted January 2, 2006 (edited) More (related) bad news: Microsoft will drop support for pre-2000 DVD drives.BTW, The point is not necessarily that this may have little to no affect on me, rather it's the principle of being any part of these blatant attacks against legitimate consumers for the actions of the real criminals. Edited January 2, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzButt Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I think we need to think of Win-Vista as what I don't see it mentioned as. A industry wide hardware shot in the arm. Microsoft wants to sell Vista. Manufacturers want to sell parts. Sony/TW/EMI want to sell their product. My DVD viewing is done on my Sony DVD player in my Home Theater not on my PC. Even though I have the PC setup for Video I would rather sit on the couch and watch a movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havnblast Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 It's already been recommended not to buy Vista when XP will do till the next release after Vista. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 Ooh, I'm going to enjoy this... ...*ahem*... why are dvd's sold/encoded by region?It's an abusive digital rights restrictions management (DRM) tactic set forth by "big media" (MPAA in the US) to force consumers into repaying as many times as possible for content that they legitimately purchased. All in the name of capitalism. They want you to believe it's an anti-piracy fight, when really it is a morally-lacking effort to keep their obsolete business model alive and charge consumers up the wazoo for simple rights and technical abilities (such as *gasp* playing a DVD in or from a different country...heaven forbid ).why do dvd players only allow you to change region settings only a very few times?Pretty much the same thing. An artificial limitation powered by DRM to restrict users even more unreasonably. It's the video equivalent to DRM systems on music files that limit the number of times users are "allowed" to burn a the song onto a CD (or transfer to a pathetically skimpy range of portable devices, or transfer to another computer, etc.).[sarcasm]Because, of course, if someones burn a song or changes their regional settings more than <insert low random number here> times, that person must a pirate.[/sarcasm] :thumbsdown:If you would compare this to a real life situation, it's like a WalMart greeter pick-pocketing you when you walk out the doors so that WalMart makes more money to compensate for fewer people buying their cheap plastic crap. Then they would them blame it on shop lifters. Ironically, it's because of their crummy products that fewer people are shopping there...yet the very situation they blame it on is impossible because their products are so crummy that they're hardly worth shoplifting! See where this is going?RIAA's and MPAA's products are getting worse, their way of enforcing restrictions is worse yet, so customers who don't care for their products and are in disgust of their completely unethical (and downright illegal) dealings are buying less of their products. ...And then RIAA/MPAA blame it all on piracy and are trying to make it illegal to create a [better and much more consumer-friendly] business model other than their own (this would be the equivelant of WalMart making it illegal for stores not to pick-pocket customers as they walk out the doors). See how ridiculous this is getting?what's the point in that?? (anyone?)Simple: syphoning as many pennies out of every consumer's nostrils as possible for maximum capital and profits using piracy as a scapegoat.Sorry if I sound negative or pessimistic, but I really don't look forward to the future possibility of my computer being locked down and controlled by something or someone other than me. It fumes me up to no good end... <_<I hope this was informative to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 RIAA's and MPAA's products are getting worse, their way of enforcing restrictions is worse yet, so customers who don't care for their products and are in disgust of their completely unethical (and downright illegal) dealings are buying less of their productsSpecifically, what laws have they broken?n Please cite US Code examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Actually, DVD region encoding was introduced so that the movie distributors could stagger releases around the globe. So, if they released a version in Europe first, then someone one in North American couldn't buy one online or bring it back from an overseas trip and hope to play it on their DVD before it was released in North America. The DVD player allows 5 changes before it must lock-in the last code used. So, if you were in Region 1 and you played a Region 2 DVD on your fifth region change, the DVD player would become a Region 2 only DVD player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) Specifically, what laws have they broken?n Please cite US Code examples.I think was referring more to RIAA at that specific point. But both RIAA and MPAA are certainly guilty of highly unethical practises.To answer your question in the context I specified above, I'm pretty sure witness tampering, extortion, and personal information theft are all illegal. I know one of these news stories is a bit old, but that just goes to show how long they've been at it and how badly it needs to be stopped (and I know all my links are to ArsTechnica...they just have the best coverage on this kind of stuff ).(Your not on **AA's side, are you??) Edited January 6, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 If Comcast handed personal info over without user consent, then Comcast is guilty not the RIAA.I believe that companies (any company) have the right to protect protected content. If a user out there can't download a pirated DVD movie via his P2P program and play it on his older DVD player... too D*** bad!He should go out and buy it like all of us law abiding folks do. If he can't afford to buy it, he should save his pennies. If he has no job he should go out and get one. If he has a job and still can't afford to buy a DVD, he should go out and get a better paying job.The 3 things I just mentioned require effort on the part of the end user. Downloading pirated material hardly requires any effort at all...The law is the law. If you don't like it then do what ever it takes through legal means to change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) If Comcast handed personal info over without user consent, then Comcast is guilty not the RIAA.Then, at the very least, RIAA would be a co-conspirater or otherwise partner in crime.I believe that companies (any company) have the right to protect protected content.You're treading on dangerous territory there Marsden.Yes, piracy is a problem and it is wrong -- I have no argument against that. But that does not give the MPAA/RIAA the right to invade and destroy innocent consumers' computers directly or via invasive and security-compormising DRM tactics, rip out every fair use right in the book, and try to charge customers up the wazoo for things that don't cost them a pennie.What it should give them the right to do is contact the authorities to report piracy incedents that they can prove. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" anyway...But, piracy is not even the point: this is only half (if that much) about piracy. The other portion is about protecting an old business model that just wants to die. The RIAA/MPAA could have made millions by embracing P2P file sharing, making everyone happy (including themselves) by contracting deals with ISPs to tack on a buck or two onto monthly bills on an automatic opt-in basis. But no, they'd rather consider every one of their customers to be a criminal and make their dough by bankrupting innocent poeple. It's just too bad their greedy and stupid. Edited January 6, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_P Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I don't know why you're worried about this epp_b. You're still running Win 98. By the time you get to Vista, DVDs will be obsolete. BTW From the recent Fred Langa newsletter:".... XP Home is scheduled to become unsupported at the end of this year: on Dec 31 2006."" And speaking of Win98: It's scheduled to become unsupported on June 30th of this year--- there'll be no new patches, updates, or fixes after that--- ..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 I don't know why you're worried about this epp_b. You're still running Win 98. By the time you get to Vista, DVDs will be obsolete.Hmmm...good point ".... XP Home is scheduled to become unsupported at the end of this year: on Dec 31 2006."Yeah right. Just like Windows 98 was going to be unsupported years ago...oh wait..." And speaking of Win98: It's scheduled to become unsupported on June 30th of this year--- there'll be no new patches, updates, or fixes after that--- ..."Which is why I'm thinking of getting XP Pro soon -- which will be supported until the next decade, so that's a non-issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 DRM would not exist if people in general played by the rules. DRM exists because enough people out there abused it and ruined it for the rest of us.If a movie studio spends $50 million to make a movie, they have every right to protect that content and recoup their investment. Not every movie that comes out of Hollywood is a blockbuster.Btw, MS last night at CES, announced that Vista Media Center Edition will allow the managed copying of HD DVDs to the users HD. They also announced deals with DirectTV and the cable companies to hook directly into digital cable and record shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) DRM would not exist if people in general played by the rules. DRM exists because enough people out there abused it and ruined it for the rest of us.OK, you have a point. But that's only because RIAA was not creative enough to take advantage of it in a positive way. Criminalizing their customers for the faults of others is not positive.Also, not-so-honest people would be less inclined to steal if MPAA/RIAA didn't make stealing so easy in comparison to actually buying a legitmate copy. I'm certainly not justifying criminal activity. I'm saying that some people are inclined to get it the easier way even if it means not playing by the rules.For many customers, it's about ease-of-use: why walk to a store, find the movie manually, shell out some cash, and walk back home when it can be as easy as a click-typety-click then set-it-to-download-and-forget-it? I know that may sound silly and like people are lazy, but it's true.How do you expect customers to buy your product when someone else can give you the same thing for free and make it a hundred times easier to get? **AA should make it easier. They should offer downloads of atonomous and untethered files (which is what customers want). It should be as simple as a monthly fee for X number of downloads on a specific user account. I would like to think that there are enough honest people out there (including myself) who, given a way to purchase a product as easy as it is to acquire it "otherwise", would do so.**AA has no right to assume every customer is guilty until proven innocent.If a movie studio spends $50 million to make a movie, they have every right to protect that content and recoup their investment. Not every movie that comes out of Hollywood is a blockbuster.All the more reason to improve their products.Btw, MS last night at CES, announced that Vista Media Center Edition will allow the managed copying of HD DVDs to the users HD. They also announced deals with DirectTV and the cable companies to hook directly into digital cable and record shows.The point is that it shouldn't have to be that complicated. They shouldn't have to "make deals" and create restrictive work-arounds. It should really be an autonomous standardized [set of] file on a standardized disc that can play on standardized software; not some some monopolistic DRM conspiracy.Like I said before, I would have less a problem with a digital watermarking system (as long as it wouldn't break any current specifications for file formats). Just like you can track a stolen product through it's serial number, you should be able to track a stolen digital media file by it's watermark. ...And don't even try to argue that a digital watermark could be removed because A. So can any DRM scheme, and B. it's just as easy to scratch a serial number off of a physical product. - - - - - - - I'm getting sick and tired of these artificial limitations and I really detest the idea of my own computer being controlled by them.If there are any limitations, they should be technical -- not artificial and greed-driven. Edited January 6, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 How do you expect customers to buy your product when someone else can give you the same thing for free and make it a hundred times easier to get? **AA should make it easier. They should offer downloads of autonomous and untethered files (which is what customers want). It should be as simple as a monthly fee for X number of downloads on a specific user account. I would like to think that there are enough honest people out there (including myself) who, given a way to purchase a product as easy as it is to acquire it "otherwise", would do so.You don't like the business model. You could start your own business and change the model. You say it is all about greed...So if I don't like the business model that GM uses I can go down to my local dealer and tell them that I think they are over charging on every car, truck, and SUV. I simply refuse to pay their outrageous sticker prices! If they don't make it cheaper and easier to acquire one of their vehicles I'll just start stealing them off the lot and give them away to my friends for free. I justify my behavior because they are greedy capitalist pig dogs... just like the MPAA and RIAA...You keep touting cheap or free content. How will the companies make money? Don't companies go into business to make money? You really sound anti capitalist...The reality is that business sets the rules. Customers don't have that option to set rules or business models. They are consumers... Their part of the deal is to shop and buy. They do have choice to buy or not buy. They have the right to complain. They have the right to shop somewhere else. Because the product they covet is too expensive or the companies "business model" does not meet the needs of the individual consumer because of their perception of greed by the company, they do not get to break the rules of the business to consumer transaction without penalty.That's right, penalty... break laws and there are ramifications. Like they say, "Do the crime, be ready to do the time."I'm getting sick and tired of these artificial limitations and I really detest the idea of my own computer being controlled by them.How do they control your computer? Do they tell you to turn it on at a certain time? Do they tell you what operating system to run? Do they tell you how to run it? All they have done is try to slow the bad guys down a step or two. Does this affect us? Yes it does but I can still purchase any audio or DVD I like and play them on audio/video players, PCs, or in my vehicles. If I rent a DVD through Netflix I view it and return it. I don't rip it and add it to my collection of movies. Technology does not give me the right to rip content creators off. Those are the rules society has set up to maintain order.In all honesty, your stance is hypocritical... you blame and condemn the MPAA/RIAA for criminal greed but say nothing to or against those who openly steal protected content. Perhaps they would be less greedy if more people played by the rules...Napster started it and now the cat is out of the bag... At some point in time either the Internet will be taxed or routers will filter and strip protected packets and drop them on the floor. Free content downloads will cease to exist.If we as consumers can't curtail our willingness to break laws with technology, then at some point operating systems will come embedded on chips and the user will have no choice or control. P2P will be a footnote in history books....not artificial and greed-driven.If you don't like capitalism, there are many places on the planet that will accommodate you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b2cm Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 why are dvd's sold/encoded by region?I make a movie; it costs me $100. I plan to sell 100 DVD copies of the movie at $1 apiece in the US, and another 100 copies in Asia for $0.50 (let's say, the viable price according to regional market conditions). I sell the DVDs to a distributor for $135 (10% discount). I net $35 and make another movie at the same cost. I call my distributor to arrange the same release. The distributor wants 100 copies at $0.50 to sell in Asia, but none for the US. My distributor tells me he closed down his distribution points in the US because American buyers were sourcing their DVDs from Asia where it is cheaper. And, the demand for my movies was so strong some people were copying the DVDs at home and reselling at only $0.25, that selling the 100 DVDs would be doable but difficult. He tells me that my movie could even be downloaded on the Internet for free. I sell the 100 DVDs for $50.My talents and crew come for the next project. I tell them my $85 isn't enough for another movie, and am quitting the business. I give them the remaining DVDs as souvenirs, artifacts of a dead industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) You don't like the business model. You could start your own business and change the model. You say it is all about greed...So if I don't like the business model that GM uses I can go down to my local dealer and tell them that I think they are over charging on every car, truck, and SUV. I simply refuse to pay their outrageous sticker prices! If they don't make it cheaper and easier to acquire one of their vehicles I'll just start stealing them off the lot and give them away to my friends for free. I justify my behavior because they are greedy capitalist pig dogs... just like the MPAA and RIAA...That's simply not the same. The way cars are sold will never change. No one will ever be able to download or teleport a car to their garage. Apples and oranges. Content distribution, however, has changed. Big Media has refused to change with it. It's their own fault that they've made stealing such an attractive and easy alternative. I'm not justifying the actions of pirates, rather I am explaining it.You keep touting cheap or free content. How will the companies make money? Don't companies go into business to make money? You really sound anti capitalist...Not at all. I'm all for capitalism, as long as it's fair and doesn't involve ripping customers off through the nose. I'm against it when it means paying for things that don't cost the corporations a cent. This means paying **AA whenever I want to transfer a file to a portable device, make a backup of a file, copy a file, etc. Don't you see how ridiculous this is? Do you seriously think they should be able to force legitimate customers to repay for their content products three, four or more times?Charging a couple of bucks a month to customers for a product they actually want would earn **AA millions upon millions.Like I said before, Big Media could have moved with the paradigm shift in content distribution. The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him your friend. Well Big Media chose to keep pirates as their enemies and take things one step further by making their own customers enemies.The reality is that business sets the rules. Customers don't have that option to set rules or business models. They are consumers... Their part of the deal is to shop and buy. They do have choice to buy or not buy. They have the right to complain. They have the right to shop somewhere else.Because the product they covet is too expensive or the companies "business model" does not meet the needs of the individual consumer because of their perception of greed by the company, they do not get to break the rules of the business to consumer transaction without penalty.I think you're having trouble breaking out of that same old paradigm. People (such as myself) don't want their content on physical media anymore. People want instant access, searchability, transferability. P2P gave them this. Big Media could have given them this (and still can, with enough advertising), but they didn't.That's right, penalty... break laws and there are ramifications. Like they say, "Do the crime, be ready to do the time."It's only a crime because **AA has kept it that way. They could have said, "we'll have ISPs tack on 2 bucks a month for customers that want to use P2P to trade content that we distribute and everybody will be happy!", but they didn't do that. Instead they just turned their customers into criminals.How do they control your computer? Do they tell you to turn it on at a certain time? Do they tell you what operating system to run? Do they tell you how to run it?They don't yet. Have you heard of the Analog Hole? It is their ultimate dream to make it law for every single electronic device capable of recording an analog signal to obey the rules of some ridiculous DRM. This would criple every single fair use right in the book and set back technology 50 years. A/V equipment would as useful as a vinyl record. Not to mention, this would render every media-capable electonic on earth completely obsolete. This means sound cards, speakeres, monitors, MP3 players, voice recorders, microphones, stereos, televisions, switchboards, video cards...the list goes on. This also means that hardware will be extemely expensive because everything will need it's own internal processing system to manage the DRM.And then there are the more critical aspects. To quote a ZDNet blog entry, who is liable when it turns out that "video content protection" features in medical imaging equipment resulted in a preventable death?For the sake of humanity, this madness needs to stop!All they have done is try to slow the bad guys down a step or two. Does this affect us? Yes it does but I can still purchase any audio or DVD I like and play them on audio/video players, PCs, or in my vehicles.For now. Just see if they pass this Analog Hole garbage legislation and you'll be paying through your nostrils to burn a CD or transfer a song to a portable device. You'll be paying four, five, or more times for content you legitimately purchased in the first place. This is less about piracy than it is control and profits.If I rent a DVD through Netflix I view it and return it. I don't rip it and add it to my collection of movies. Technology does not give me the right to rip content creators off. Those are the rules society has set up to maintain order.I agree. But there are people who do it anyway...and guess who pays for their crimes? We do. That's not right either. They should be going after the real crinimals, not just taking the easy way out by ripping off consumers.Simply put, this is just more of this "kill the medium" malarkey. P2P is not "inherently evil". It is designed for sharing files. That's it.So...why don't we outlaw butter knifes? They can be used to stab people (but are used to, well, spread butter). Why don't we outlaw paper? And pencils and pens and markers? Terrorists can use them to write up plans for an attack (but paper is also used for business, art, school, etc.). You have to be brain-damaged to think it's OK to ban something because it can be used for something immoral or illegal. You ban it only if it's purposes are solely immoral or illegal -- something that I think we can all agree the purposes of analog signals, butter knifes, and paper are all not.In all honesty, your stance is hypocritical... you blame and condemn the MPAA/RIAA for criminal greed but say nothing to or against those who openly steal protected content.I most certainly did. In fact, the opening statements to one of my posts was that I have no argument against the fact that piracy is wrong and it is a crime.In all honesty, your stance is hypocritical... you blame and condemn the MPAA/RIAA for criminal greed but say nothing to or against those who openly steal protected content.I most certainly did. In fact, the opening statements to one of my posts was that I have no argument against the fact that piracy is wrong and it is a crime.Perhaps they would be less greedy if more people played by the rules...Most people do. Some don't. Why should that give big media ultimate control and profits by robbing its customers? It shouldn't.Most people stop at a red light. Some don't. Should that give police offers the right to ticket anyone who goes through that intersection, regardless as to whether or the driver obeyed the law to stop at a red light? Absolutely not. You could consider red light cameras a form of "physical DRM", but it doesn't bother me. Why? Because it requires human intervention (translation to **AA: it means you actually have to work for your money). It requires proof. It successfully prosecutes only those who disobey the law and generally doesn't put every-day drivers at a major disadvantage. And like any other form of DRM, it is possible to cuircumvent, in this case with transparent reflective or angle-sensitive strips on license plates. Sure those things are illegal (and, effectively, so is curcumventing any other form of DRM), but that hasn't stopped people doing it. Edited January 6, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) Napster started it and now the cat is out of the bag... At some point in time either the Internet will be taxed or routers will filter and strip protected packets and drop them on the floor. Free content downloads will cease to exist.That's what I fear. I fear that Big Media will not only control their content, they want to control everything. Their goal is not to eliminate piracy. Their goal is to make it a non-issue by making enough profits via charging, criminalizing, and suing their own legitimate customers.If you don't like capitalism, there are many places on the planet that will accommodate youI have nothing against capitalism as long as it doesn't involve companies with executives who are too stupid to grow with technology and innovation and then rely on lawsuits against legitmate consumers as their source of income.If we as consumers can't curtail our willingness to break laws with technology, then at some point operating systems will come embedded on chips and the user will have no choice or control. P2P will be a footnote in history books.The problem is that technologically-enforced "moral" or "legal" systems cannot possibly discriminate when someone might be doing something legal or illegal. It needs human intervention, otherwise it's all or nothing. This is why most contries have "innocent until proven guilty"...you know, the concept of not being punished for things you didn't do?I make a movie; it costs me $100. I plan to sell 100 DVD copies of the movie at $1 apiece in the US, and another 100 copies in Asia for $0.50 (let's say, the viable price according to regional market conditions). I sell the DVDs to a distributor for $135 (10% discount). I net $35 and make another movie at the same cost. I call my distributor to arrange the same release. The distributor wants 100 copies at $0.50 to sell in Asia, but none for the US. My distributor tells me he closed down his distribution points in the US because American buyers were sourcing their DVDs from Asia where it is cheaper. And, the demand for my movies was so strong some people were copying the DVDs at home and reselling at only $0.25, that selling the 100 DVDs would be doable but difficult. He tells me that my movie could even be downloaded on the Internet for free. I sell the 100 DVDs for $50.My talents and crew come for the next project. I tell them my $85 isn't enough for another movie, and am quitting the business. I give them the remaining DVDs as souvenirs, artifacts of a dead industry.The problem is your distribution method. Newsflash: physical distribution is old and out-dated. The content market is different. One of the selling factors you need to have is your distribution method. How many more people could you have reached if you sold it online? No doubt plenty more than $100 worth. And I am aware of the arguments for this. Yes, you would need a web host. That's an expense. Just like the DVDs you had to buy to record and copy your movies. Granted, the DVDs are cheaper, but "you get what you pay for" rings true many times, this instance included.- - - - - - Now, I wasn't even born yet when VCRs came into the scene, but from what I read there was a lot of this same kind of thing happening. Big Media didn't like the VCR because of the perceived threat it would pose to their business. Turns out that it was probably the best thing that ever happened for them. Now if they'd only do the same with digital distribution. But like I said before, they're greedy and stupid. They'll have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. Edited January 6, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b2cm Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 The parable of the moviemaker was to suggest that realities in the global economy (1st/3rd world) requires a nuanced distribution/pricing plan to ensure viability, something that region-based restrictions help implement. The problem is your distribution method. Newsflash: physical distribution is old and out-dated. The content market is different.In reality, movies are still made for moviehouses, and many still make a killing at the box office. (The DVDs come later, like an afterthought, for people who didn't find the time to catch the movie in theaters or who prefer the convenience and privacy of their living rooms.) It is an old, proven method, and reflects the prevailing paradigm in the movie industry and for much of the global public, however old-fashioned you think it is. The paradigm is just a view among many others, and usually is parochial. It is sensible and works for most, not for others (IT world and P2P generation).How many more people could you have reached if you sold it online?Business people do market studies, and do it well, before they even think of production and distribution. You can expect that they have considered that possibility: counted how many have computers, and out of these how many think watching DVD movies on computers is cool, and out of these how many actually have broadband connections, and out of these how many have the skills and the time and the will to browse, rent and download movies; then figure out how many of these will likely not download but just borrow copies from others; and then estimate how much of that net you can sell to and at what price. Then they figure out the costs, and see if they can make a profit. The fact that the movie industry has not embraced your distribution methods means the numbers does not look good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) Frankly, I don't really care about Fair Use...I don't buy media to make a zillion copies for fair use. I buy media to listen to or view. The Analog Hole will not prevent me from viewing or listening to the media I own.My 500+ audio CDs sit in 2 Sony CD Jukeboxes. I pull my absolute favorites out and rip them in WMP and make my personal play lists. I don't really care to have my entire music collection on my PCs nor my DVD collection. The disk space would be unbelievable... HDs love to fail from time to time which means RAID 5 or better to prevent from having to re-rip. Who has time for all that mess? Who wants to spend tons of money for media storage with very limited life span? I have CDs from 20 years ago... they all work just fine. I don't have nor would I want HDs 20 years old HDs storing media... Edited January 6, 2006 by Marsden11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 Frankly, I don't really care about Fair Use...Interesting...this and your subsequent statements contradict eachother.I don't buy media to make a zillion copies for fair use. I buy media to listen to or view. The Analog Hole will not prevent me from viewing or listening to the media I own.Not yet.My 500+ audio CDs sit in 2 Sony CD Jukeboxes. I pull my absolute favorites out and rip them in WMP and make my personal play lists.Guess what -- that's a fair use. And you'll be paying for every single song you rip from a CD if **AA gets their way.I don't really care to have my entire music collection on my PCs nor my DVD collection. The disk space would be unbelievable... HDs love to fail from time to time which means RAID 5 or better to prevent from having to re-rip.Uh...or just a plain old HD backup system.Who has time for all that mess? Who wants to spend tons of money for media storage with very limited life span? I have CDs from 20 years ago... they all work just fine. I don't have nor would I want HDs 20 years old HDs storing media...I, for one, like having my digital media on my PC for instant access and searchability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.