Re $20 for DVDs is a joke

turntrio wrote:
>> 90% of movie releases are so marginal they're not worth
>> more than $10 I buy 1 or 2 dvds titles per year
>> at $15 to $20. Anything else over $10 they can keep.
>> Why does the movie industry keep supporting rentals at
>> $2 to $3, when they could convert these rentals to $6 - $10 sales.

>Plenty of movies are well-worth the price, I even pay more than thirty
>bucks for just one movie if it's worth it too me. Stop buying all the
>Kangaroo Jacks and buy something black and white for a change, learn
>that there were movies *before* Star Wars.

I buy movies from the 50's to current releases. It's rare that I
would find more than a couple releases for any given year that I
would pay $15 to $20.
The price of DVD recorders is dropping. Like the music industry
with overpriced CDs, the movie studios are just begging consumers
to use these recorders to make copies instead of purchasing dvds
At $10 and less, I would just purchase the DVD. At $15 to $20 I'm
going to rent and make copies.

turntrio

turntrio wrote on [28 Feb 2004 17:42:44 -0800]:
> turntrio wrote:
>>> 90% of movie releases are so marginal they're not worth
>>> more than $10 I buy 1 or 2 dvds titles per year
>>> at $15 to $20. Anything else over $10 they can keep.
>>> Why does the movie industry keep supporting rentals at
>>> $2 to $3, when they could convert these rentals to $6 - $10 sales.
>
>>Plenty of movies are well-worth the price, I even pay more than thirty
>>bucks for just one movie if it's worth it too me. Stop buying all the
>>Kangaroo Jacks and buy something black and white for a change, learn
>>that there were movies *before* Star Wars.
>
> I buy movies from the 50's to current releases. It's rare that I
> would find more than a couple releases for any given year that I
> would pay $15 to $20.
> The price of DVD recorders is dropping. Like the music industry
> with overpriced CDs, the movie studios are just begging consumers
> to use these recorders to make copies instead of purchasing dvds
> At $10 and less, I would just purchase the DVD. At $15 to $20 I'm
> going to rent and make copies.

You'd still make copies if they were free.

Justin

>You'd still make copies if they were free

yes I would. As a back-up copy for each title in case my original free disc
gets damaged or broken.

and the Supreme Court ruled that you are allowed to make one back-up copy of
each title you have.

therefore, it's perfectly legal.

Waterperson77

TSKO wrote on [Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:34:37 GMT]:

>Does blockbuster really rent DVDs for 2-3 $?
>
>I pay 4.something per DVD rental

No...I was just giving a conservative estimate.
$4 sounds more like Blockbuster's rental fee.
I would recommend netflix for rentals. I average
9 to 12 rentals per the $20 monthly fee and you
don't have to waste time and gas returning rentals.

At $2.something for the rental (netflix) and the
cost for blank dvds, plus wear and tear on my DVD
recorder, I do buy factory originals at $10 or less.
At $15 to $20 its a no brainer. I'm going to rent
and make copies.

turntrio

do you know what the penalty for bigamy is?

It's having two wives.

Waterperson77

"Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
news:...
> >You'd still make copies if they were free
>
> yes I would. As a back-up copy for each title in case my original free
disc
> gets damaged or broken.
>
> and the Supreme Court ruled that you are allowed to make one back-up copy
of
> each title you have.
>
> therefore, it's perfectly legal.
>
>

The Supreme Court has not ruled on this. A lower court just this week found
against 321 software DVDXCopy, indicating that any circumvention of copy
protection on DVD is illegal. As it stands, we are not allowed to make
backup copies. The judge ignored section 4c of the DMCA that specifically
states fair use is not compromised, instead focusing solely on the
circumvention of the copy protection clause and upholding it. As Vallenti
of the MPAA put it, if you want a backup copy, buy two.

luminos

From on top of The Wall I yelled "YOU! YES YOU luminos
<>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is Pink?"
> The Supreme Court has not ruled on this. A lower court just this
> week found against 321 software DVDXCopy, indicating that any
> circumvention of copy protection on DVD is illegal. As it stands, we
> are not allowed to make backup copies. The judge ignored section 4c
> of the DMCA that specifically states fair use is not compromised,
> instead focusing solely on the circumvention of the copy protection
> clause and upholding it. As Vallenti of the MPAA put it, if you want
> a backup copy, buy two.

While I do agree it is morally wrong to copy something you don't own,
I disagree with what Vallenti is saying. What if it something that was
hard enough to find to begin with, or something that you want to make
your own personal backup of so that when your kids/grandkids/etc want
to watch then they are using the backup so your real copy is safe? Does
idiots like Vallenti think we are made of money and should buy TWO
copies of whatever DVD it is just so he can make twice the money.

I disagree with his logic there. If I want a backup copy, I'll just use my
DVD-R drive. He can kiss my butt as far as I'm concerned - same
with the DMCA.

--
Demolition Man
A reminder to the world....
"Well, in my case, I get VCRs from the Goodwill thrift store that
allows a return in 7 days, that way I can ascertain the similar
components (or lift a fuse or belt for my own evil purposes)!"
-Bill Schwenke

Demolition Man

Demolition Man wrote:
>
> While I do agree it is morally wrong to copy something you don't own,
> I disagree with what Vallenti is saying. What if it something that was
> hard enough to find to begin with, or something that you want to make
> your own personal backup of so that when your kids/grandkids/etc want
> to watch then they are using the backup so your real copy is safe? Does
> idiots like Vallenti think we are made of money and should buy TWO
> copies of whatever DVD it is just so he can make twice the money.
>
> I disagree with his logic there.

His logic is that the MPAA is a professional trade group whose purpose
is to get legistation passed favorable to its members. So as a lobbyist
his logic is always going to favor the financial interests of his employers.

dick

Dick Sidbury

WHen they come up with a way for legitimate owners to make backups while
preventing renters and pirates to get copies as well, I'll back the MPAA's
decisions 100%. ANyone who thinks its ok to make copies of movies they
didnt purchase legitimately should be shot. You want to dub stuff from your
video tapes, fine, its crappy analog, you want to burn stuff you recorded
from television, fine, even on a Tivo or some such device. But making
digital copies of digital medium that you don't own is completely wrong.
"Dick Sidbury" <> wrote in message
news:c1tth0$1m7pkd$...
> Demolition Man wrote:
> >
> > While I do agree it is morally wrong to copy something you don't own,
> > I disagree with what Vallenti is saying. What if it something that was
> > hard enough to find to begin with, or something that you want to make
> > your own personal backup of so that when your kids/grandkids/etc want
> > to watch then they are using the backup so your real copy is safe? Does
> > idiots like Vallenti think we are made of money and should buy TWO
> > copies of whatever DVD it is just so he can make twice the money.
> >
> > I disagree with his logic there.
>
> His logic is that the MPAA is a professional trade group whose purpose
> is to get legistation passed favorable to its members. So as a lobbyist
> his logic is always going to favor the financial interests of his
employers.
>
> dick
>

Biz