I have a myriad of DVD's/CD's/MP3's and various other media, because, well, I do love a good film and my next love after that has to be my music, though in this new electronic age, finally you can get cheap media online... so, I have to say, why when it is so cheap to produce a dvd do they often cost in excess of £10 from a shop?If only they priced things reasonably, I believe it would cut down on an awful lot of piracy (in turn reducing organised crime/terrorism as an awful lot is funded through the sale of pirate dvd's/cd's), I have spoken about this before, to (believe it or not) the legendary Barry Norman (not sure if he's world famous or just UK famous, but google him ) and he didn't quite get my point... I think this is because he and the people in power, or with the ability to change these things are so rich that they don't even think about what the media costs as long as their money is coming from somewhere.So, leading slowly and surely towards my point... why is it that we the consumer pay so much for something that could be dirt cheap, or, even free in some cases (as an example: there is a soap currently running on youtube that is completely free to watch, as long as you have a net connection)So, do you download cheaply (albeit for rental in most cases)? or pay the exorbitant fees demanded by the publishers? I've used download services before (thank you Apple!), though I still believe that the system can be changed, so now, I wait for things to come down to a budget price before purchasing, so I get a £17 (in a lot of cases now) dvd for as little as £3... why can't they be this price to begin with? They'd sell a lot more for sure, which in turn would make them more profit, so, wouldn't you say it would make more sense to make dvd's cheaper?As a sidenote: please assume that by dvd I'm covering all forms of saleable electronic media (eg: blu-ray/hddvd)If you agree with this post, or disagree... put your views together, I'm thinking that a combined front here might be able to put forward as a sort of petition to get prices looked at!!After all, (excerpt taken from Proactionmedia.com) "As of 2003, DVDs cost about $1000 to master and about $0.70 to replicate. Double-sided or dual-layer discs cost about $0.30 more to replicate, since all that's required is stamping data on the second substrate (and using transparent glue for dual layers)." Which, in (US) dollars means they could be sold to ourselves, the consumer for as little as $5 (assuming a minimum run of 1000 here... and lets face it, I've never known a run from hollywood be anywhere near that low... probably not even 1% of the total the produced in a single run!) meaning that that would cost them a maximum of $2 a dvd, giving them 150% profit after mastering the dvd!!! (that would be around £2.50 to us brits)I do realise that shops have overheads, and I know that these can vary, but surely they could put say 50p (or $1) on the price to cover these... still giving us dirt cheap media, that everyone can afford, and leaving the criminals squarly in the dust as £3.00 is usually the going rate for a new release!!Oh, and one more sidenote: Another way to cut down on piracy would be to release films at the same time worldwide, so that people don't go off in search of pirated media!Anyhoo... that means, if you agree that prices should be lowered state an "aye" here, if you think otherwise, a "noooo, continue to let the studios take us for a ride!" and of course, all views are as always welcome
-
The Sale of DVD's and other electronic media...
-
When you buy a DVD with a movie on it, you're not paying for the DVD itself. You're paying for what's contained within it. When you buy one, you're paying the store you bought it in, the producers of the DVD, the actors, the directors, the props/set, etc. You're only looking at a portion of the creation process.
-
I did mention about shops adding on an overhead in my previous post, though I must admit I didn't cover what you've stated here, however it should be noted that for a film: the overheads (such as actor fees, directorial costs, prop/set costs etc) are regularly recouped (though, not always) at the cinema release (unless it's a god awful film that nobody bothers going to see).Anyway, lets be fair about it, even when you take into account the miniscule amount that goes on royalties from each dvd, (excerpt taken from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_28/b3942101.htm ) "profits from DVDs can be huge: Studios get $12 a disk, even if it is sold at rock-bottom prices at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT ) or Best Buy Co. (BBY ) In all, retailers will sell $18 billion in DVDs this year"Hence my thoughts that DVD's should see a significant price drop to increase legitimate sales, in turn reducing piracy, which would have the knock on effect of reducing money moving into organised crime & terrorism.Also, in closing: eventually all DVD's find themselves in the sub £10 category, so why can't they start there?? If you're willing to wait a couple of months to buy a dvd, you can get it for that price, so why not market it at that price to begin with? ... The only reason I can think of is that people are still far to willing to pay whatever price is demanded of them, so the corporations in charge do not feel the "pinch" required for them to lower prices.
-
I agree, MDDraco. Music companies wonder why people don't buy CDs any more, but won't believe they are overpriced. Effectively, they are charging more than the market will bear. Eventually, the same thing will happen to movies as has already happened to music - people will download illegally because it is so much cheaper than buying.
-
I agree that many CDs and DVDs are over priced. I don't buy them becuase I can't afford to and I do watch films other people have downloaded. I'm sure at some point, people mathmatically proved with those statisics formulars I don't remember, that maximum profits would be obtained by pricing DVDS or CDs at what they currently are. These prices have gone more or less unchanged except for inflation and I belive becuase of the internet and the ability to download these things instead of buying it, this price to number of copys purchased profit ratio needs to be reavaluated. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to be dirt cheap but I think the industry would benifit from lowing prices slightly.Having said this, I can't help but look at it from the point of veiw of the creaters and copyright owners of these products. These people working in the creative industries often work rediculous hours that could not legally be inforced, don't have sick leave, have irrigular work and can't claim benifits for periods where they can't find work (not all these things apply to all creative industries workers) and this movie or album might be their only income for the year. It's a hard unstable life but they put up with it all becuase they love being involved in the creation of somthing. And as said above, the money isn't just going into the hands of a big power hungry couperation but it's paying the cameramen, the editors, the people who fetched the actors coffee, the studio fees, the song and script writers. As well as the artists themselves there re a million little people out there who depend on these projects making money to get payed and make a living.Bacically, artists and writers and so on's only income is through their interlectual property rights and it's rather bitchy and harsh for us to download this stuff for free, robbing them of their income. In the end, downloading this stuff for free is illigel for a reason and it's becuase you're taking someones work without giving them anything for it. I think people sometimes use prices as an excuse for stealing peoples work and it's not on. Some artists feel they need to keep these prices up becuase they're loosing so much potential earnings from people downloading instead of buying.I'd be pissed off if people we're helping themselves to my hard work without giving anything in return.If you really loved a band or a film you'd buy the album or movie to support them and help them fund further projects for you're future enjoyment.
-
I forget where I saw this, but I remember reading something that said that musicians get most of their money from things other than CD sales. Not sure the validity of that statement though.
-
I think for all except a few particularly successful musicians, most of their money has come from live performances, and this has always been so.
-
You're not wrong to suggest that many of the people involved in these movies rely on them to survive, I wouldn't ever try and rob these people as I do love film (as my collection would show... I've sold a lot recently, but I still have over 400 individual DVD's, and well over 500 CD's, and god knows how much thanks to iPlayer)However, it would be foolish to presume that even the coffee fetcher person gets royalties from movie sales... that'd be the writers/producers generally, even the actors usually get a set fee (be it an exorbitant one in the case of the A list actors) for their work, and as I have previously stated, the majority of the funds for any movie release is often recouped at the cinema, there are of course noteable exceptions to this (such as xXx 2, as seen on the business post link in one of my previous posts), however as you have stated... a rethink and a fresh approach to DVD sales IS most definately required, I can go into a shop now (be it HMV, Zavvi or any of the other high street retailers) and be expected to pay anything up to £22 for a DVD, and anything from thath price for a Blu-Ray, which is totally unacceptable... I'm a middle earning person, and even I think long and hard before buying a movie for full price now, I almost always wait for the budget release about 2 to 3 months after the initial release, and in my small man sized brain, I just can't wrap my head around why they do not release them at a decent price to begin with, and make more money by selling more copies.I know that Blu-Ray is marketed at a higher price currently because of the development costs involved and that Sony are obviously attempting to recoup these costs by passing them onto the consumer, but they are unacceptably over priced. I have 2 Blu-Ray's now, one I purchased to test the player (Casino Royale, and it is awesome) because I didn't have any, and I managed to get it for £15, which seemed like a bargain compared to the average £25 for the very same in the shop next door, and the Spiderman boxset, which I got on a mailaway offer for free. (I know that almost seems a waist of getting a blu-ray player, but, my old player decided it'd had enough of life, so rather than pay £50 less for a DVD player that could upscale, I opted to go all out and get Blu-Ray and future proof myself)As for the music aspect, for those lucky few who do earn royalties off their music (who made it and were then signed by record companies, rather than vice versa) you can work out whatever you think is fair for their royalties here: http://www.musicroyalties.co.uk/ ... usually, it's only a couple of pence from each CD that is sold, and less than that for a play on the radio/tv/internet, but usually (for modern bands anyway) they don't even make royalties because the Studio's own the copyrights for their work, as they were produced and recorded under contract, meaning that the employee's (the artists) do not get royalties.This has Always been the case with music, and their money is generally made from their tour dates, which does still make them millions, so I wouldn't feel to sorry for these people... Yes, if they wrote the song, I still think they should be entitled to a share of the intellectual rights, but it's not as if they don't make their money still.As for illegal downloads... I would like to point out that nowhere in my posts did I condone illegal downloads, I used iPlayer as my download example of what I use... yes it costs money, but, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than popping up to HMV to buy a CD!! I realise that illegal downloads play a huge part in todays market, and frankly, it is my belief that these downloads largely serve to aid in the creation of DVD's for sale at car boots and on street corners, making it even easier for crime to be committed... after all, you don't even need to smuggle your "dodgey" copy into whatever country it's going to be sold in now... all you need is a network connection, and to rent a garage with power to buy a few DVD replicators and link them all up to copy your dvd's (Anyone who's seen the news recently may have noticed that a few of these have been raided in the UK and continue to get raided on roughly a monthly basis in the seasonal peak of dodgey DVD sales (mid summer))
-
I didn't say that the coffee guy gets royalties. I mean that if movies don't make money then there is no budget for the next film produced by the same company, meaning these people would not have jobs. Most film workers are contract workers. The same applies to going to the cinima though, some people don't bother because they will download the films later for free.>>>>why they do not release them at a decent price to begin with, and make more money by selling more copies. Because they can charge more innitially for those people who can't wait for the price to drop. When these people have all got a copy, the price lowers to target the next group down and so on.If artist may only get afew pence from each album but it all adds up in the end.Not all artists tour, and those who do may not do it often, and those who are not world wide hits are not making the big bucks from live shows and probably do rely on album sales for abit of cash. As for artists not owning the copywrites of their songs this can be true that the money is not going towards them (the remaining Beatles dont own their songs, Empire recods owns the recordings and Mical Jackson owns the cataloge of songs) but this isn't always the case. I don't blame people from going for the secure income from a recod company.I did not say you personally download illigally, I rasised it as a related point.